THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR
MILL/TOWN RESERVOIR SEDIMENTS/CLARK FORK RIVER SUPERFUND SITE
MISSOULA, GRANITE, POWELL AND DEER LODGE COUNTIES, MONTANA
ฃ
33
O
V
&
2
pRcf^G
O
T
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 8
Denver, Colorado
BETSY SMIDINGER
Digitally signed by BETSY
SMIDINGER
Date: 2021.08.05
15:06:22-06'00'
Betsy Smidinger, Director
Superfund and Emergency Management Division
-------
Table of Contents
LIST 01 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS v
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Site Background 1
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM 4
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY 4
Basis for Taking Action 4
Response Actions 5
Status of Implementation 10
Systems Operations/Operation and Maintenance (O&M) 20
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW 21
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS 22
Community Notification, Community Involvement and Site Interviews 22
Data Review 23
Site Inspection 29
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 30
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? 30
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and remedial action objectives
used at the time of the remedy selection still valid? 32
QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the
remedy? 32
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS 32
OTHER FINDINGS 33
VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENTS 34
VIII. NEXT REVIEW 34
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST A-l
APPENDIX B - SITE CHRONOLOGY B-l
APPENDIX C - ADDITIONAL MAPS C-l
APPENDIX D - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS D-l
APPENDIX E - PRESS NOTICES E-l
APPENDIX F - INTERVIEW FORMS F-l
APPENDIX G - SITE INSPECTION CHECKLISTS G-l
MRSOU Inspection Checklist G-l
CFROU Inspection Checklist G-ll
APPENDIX H - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS 11-1
MRSOU Inspection Photos H-l
CFROU Inspection Photos H-7
APPENDIX I - ARAR REVIEW 1-1
Tables
Table 1: MRSOU Groundwater COC Cleanup Goals 7
Table 2: MRSOU Surface Water COC Cleanup Goals 7
Table 3: CFROU Groundwater COC Cleanup Goals 9
Table 4: CFROU Surface Water COC Cleanup Goals 9
Table 5: CFROU Arsenic Soil Cleanup Goals 10
Table 6: Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls (ICs) 15
i
-------
Table 7: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2016 FYR 21
Table 8: Status of Recommendations from the 2016 FYR 22
Table B-l: Site Chronology B-l
Table 1-1: Previous and Current ARARs for Groundwater COCs 1-1
Table 1-2: Previous and Current ARARs for Surface Water COCs 1-2
Figures
Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map 2
Figure 2: CFROU Reach A Phase Breaks 13
Figure 3: MRSOU Institutional Control Map 17
Figure 4: MRSOU Flood Zone Map 18
Figure 5: Powell County Superfund Overlay District (CFROU) 19
Figure 6: Detailed Site Map 24
Figure 7: Arsenic Concentrations in Group 1 Wells 25
Figure 8: Arsenic Concentrations in Group 2 Wells 25
Figure 9: Arsenic Concentrations in Group 3 Wells 26
Figure 10: Dissolved Arsenic Concentrations (mg/L) in Surface Water 28
Figure 11: Arsenic Concentrations (mg/kg) in Sediment 29
Figure C-l: MRSOU Sediment Accumulation Areas C-l
Figure C-2: MRSOU Cleanup Plan C-2
Figure D-1: Missoula Valley Water Quality Ordinance D-1
Figure D-2: 2017 Institutional Controls Agreement D-18
Figure D-3: Powell County Superfund Overlay District D-31
Figure H-l: Tunnel Pond Repository H-l
Figure H-2: Tunnel Pond Repository Erosion H-l
Figure H-3: Confluence of Blackfoot and Clark Fork Rivers H-2
Figure H-4: Buttress Along Interstate 90 H-2
Figure H-5: Lower Part of Right Bank Repository H-3
Figure H-6: Milltown State Park H-3
Figure H-7: Milltown State Park Signage H-4
Figure H-8: View of Tunnel Pond Repository from Milltown State Park Overlook H-4
Figure H-9: Right Bank Repository H-5
Figure H-10: Interstate 90 Bridges Above Blackfoot River H-5
Figure H-l 1: River Safety Warning Sign H-6
Figure H-12: Area with Remediation Underway H-7
Figure H-13: Arrowstone Park H-7
Figure H-14: Bank Stabilization on Clark Fork River H-8
Figure H-15: Bank Stabilization on Clark Fork River with Sediment Deposition on Inside Curve H-8
Figure H-l6: Eroded Bank Where Stabilization is Planned H-9
Figure H-l7: Clark Fork Phase 1 Below Warm Springs Ponds H-9
Figure H-l8: MDEQ Enclosures to Protect Plants H-10
Figure H-l9: Signs Posted at Site H-10
Figure H-20: Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site H-l 1
Figure H-21: Slickens Area Left in Place for Education at Grants-Kohr Ranch H-l 1
Figure H-22: Oxbow Pond Left in Place H-12
Figure H-23: New Fencing to Exclude Cattle from Vegetation H-12
Figure H-24: Newly Planted Vegetation H-13
Figure H-25: Phase 1 H-13
Figure H-26: Phase 2 H-14
Figure H-27: Phase 3 H-14
Figure H-2 8: Phase 4 H-15
iii
-------
Figure H-29: Phase 5 H-15
Figure H-30: Phase 6 H-16
Figure H-31: Phase 7 H-16
Figure H-32: Recreation on Clark Fork River in the Area of Grant-Kohrs Ranch H-17
Figure H-33: Remediated Residential Yard H-17
IV
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ARAR
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
ARCO
Atlantic Richfield Company
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CFROU
Clark Fork River Operable Unit
COC
Contaminant of Concern
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESD
Explanation of Significant Differences
FYR
Five-Year Review
IC
Institutional Control
MCL
Maximum Contaminant Level
MDEQ
Montana Department of Environmental Quality
mg/kg
milligrams per kilogram
l-Lg/L
micrograms per liter
mg/L
milligrams per liter
MRSOU
Milltown River Sediments Operable Unit
NCP
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NPL
National Priorities List
OU
Operable Unit
O&M
Operation and Maintenance
PEC
Probable Effect Concentration
PRP
Potentially Responsible Party
RI/FS
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
RipES
Riparian Evaluation System
ROD
Record of Decision
RPM
Remedial Project Manager
SAA
Sediment Accumulation Area
USGS
United States Geological Survey
UU/UE
Unlimited Use and Unrestricted Exposure
V
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of a five-year review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy to
determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. The methods,
findings and conclusions of reviews are documented in FYR reports such as this one. In addition, FYR reports
identify issues found during the review, if any, and document recommendations to address them.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing this FYR pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121, consistent with the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section
300.430(f)(4)(ii)), and considering EPA policy.
This is the third FYR for the Milltown Reservoir Sediments/Clark Fork River Superfund site (Site). The triggering
action for this statutory review is the completion date of the previous FYR. The FYR has been prepared because
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure (UU/UE).
The Site consists of two operable units (OUs), both of which are addressed in this FYR. OU1 (the Milltown
Drinking Water Supply OU) is now part of OU2. OU2 is the Milltown Reservoir Sediments OU (MRSOU),
including the area encompassed by the former Milltown dam and reservoir. OU3 is the Clark Fork River OU
(CFROU); it is upstream of the MRSOU and downstream of the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area site and the
Anaconda Smelter site.
EPA remedial project manager (RPM) Ken Champagne led the FYR. Participants included Joel Chavez and Tim
Riley (Montana Department of Environmental Quality [MDEQ]); Doug Martin, Brian Bartkowiak and Bo
Downing (Montana Natural Resource Damage Program); Jeffrey Johnson (National Park Service Grant-Kohrs
Ranch National Historic Site); Michael Kustudia (Milltown State Park); Don Booth, Kris Cook and Michael
Langguth (potentially responsible party [PRP] contractors); and Hagai Nassau, Treat Suomi and Kirby Webster
(Skeo, the EPA's FYR contractor). The PRPs were notified of the initiation of the FYR. The review began on
5/26/2020.
The EPA has determined that the cleanup at the Milltown Reservoir Sediments part of the Superfund site is
currently protective of human health and the environment and allows for recreational reuse. Safe drinking
water is provided by public and private water supply wells. The local health department tests these wells to
make sure the arsenic levels meet applicable safe drinking water standards. The EPA, Montana and the Site's
responsible parties will determine whether additional groundwater cleanup is needed and whether additional
groundwater use restrictions are needed.
Cleanup is underway at the Clark Fork River part of the Site, and the remedy will be protective of human
health and the environment upon completion. Sections of the Clark Fork River site area are suitable for
residential, recreational, commercial and agricultural reuse. County regulations include restrictions on well
installation and land use for parts of the Site.
Site Background
The Clark Fork Basin Superfund complex is made up of four contiguous Superfund sites: the Silver Bow
Creek/Butte Area site, the Montana Pole and Treating site, the Anaconda Co. Smelter site and Milltown Reservoir
Sediments/Clark Fork River site. The EPA added the Milltown Reservoir Sediments/Clark Fork River Site to the
National Priorities List (NPL) in 1983. Figure 1 is a map of the Site.
1
-------
Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map
Missoula
Bonner
rummond
lM i I I'to.wniKes e ry.o i r.
SedimentsMUlj
ฆ\ at-Williams^ j
^ Tavenner Bridge
a t. D eerji ifoa gel
at GembacMKoaa
(feat GaieniftoadM
Warm Springs
-Ponds^
Silver Bow
[su pertu ngiSite]
Legend
Clark Fork River OU 'Reach A'
Clark Fork River OU 'Reach B'
^ Clark Fork River OU 'Reach C'
(ง> Surface Water Sampling Location
10
20
I Miles
Sources: ESRI, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographies, DeLorme, Tele Atlas, AND, First American, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, AeroGRID, IGN, the GIS User Community, Montana Fish and Wildlife GIS Hub, the 2016 FYR and the 2019 CFROU Annual Report.
A Skeo O
V ~ NORTH
Milltown Reservoir Sediments/Clark Fork River Superfund Site
Missoula, Granite, Powell and Deer Lodge Counties, Montana /
Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for informational
purposes only regarding EPA's response actions at the Site.
-------
The MRSOU, also known as OU2, includes about 540 acres in the Clark Fork River and Blackfoot River
floodplain (Figure 4). The MRSOU consists of the area encompassed by the former Milltown dam and reservoir
(outlined in red on Figures 3, 4 and 6), including on-Site disposal areas, and the associated groundwater
contamination. The alluvial aquifer under and downstream of the former reservoir became contaminated with
arsenic, primarily coming from contaminated reservoir sediments. OU1, an interim remedy, is now part of the
MRSOU. OU1 focused on providing a safe water supply to Milltown area residents through the establishment of a
public water supply system in Milltown, Montana, as an alternative to the use of private, domestic wells
previously used in the Milltown area for drinking water. The PRPs for the MRSOU are the Atlantic Richfield
Company (ARCO) and Northwestern Corporation.
The CFROU, also known as OU3, is upstream of the MRSOU and downstream of the Silver Bow Creek/Butte
Area site and the Anaconda Co. Smelter site (Figure 1). The CFROU consists of about 120 river miles of the
Clark Fork River, including surface water, groundwater, soils, in-stream sediments, and sediment deposition and
contaminated property located within and adjacent to the 100-year historic floodplain of the Clark Fork River.
The EPA divided the CFROU into three reaches (see Figure 1). Reach A, which is the farthest upstream reach,
flows north for approximately 43 river miles past the towns of Galen and Deer Lodge. Reach B then flows 31
river miles from upstream of Garrison to downstream of Drummond. Reach C then flows 47 river miles to the
Milltown Reservoir near Bonner. Land use in the CFROU consists of residential, agricultural and recreational
uses. About 12,000 people live in the area of the CFROU according to 2019 U.S. Census data. The PRP for the
CFROU is ARCO.
The city of Missoula (population 76,000) is located about 7 river miles downstream of Milltown, Montana, and
Bonner, Montana, is located northeast of the Site. The town of Deer Lodge is located within and adjacent to the
CFROU.
In the upstream Butte, Montana, area, mining companies routinely disposed of mining and milling wastes
containing various amounts of unrecovered metals and arsenic into local creeks in the headwaters of the Clark
Fork River Basin from the late 1860s to well into the 20th century. These streams conveyed the mining and
milling wastes downstream to the Clark Fork River. In 1908, a major flood mobilized large quantities of metals
and arsenic from the Butte and Anaconda, Montana areas into the upper Clark Fork River channel and floodplain
and transported large quantities of waste to the recently constructed Milltown Reservoir.
Environmental damages to the upper Clark Fork River occurred due to heavy metals found in the transported
mining waste originating from historic mining, milling and smelting processes associated with operations in Butte
and Anaconda. Metal contaminants accumulated in the Clark Fork River streambanks and floodplain over a
period of at least 100 years. In addition to fluvial deposition of metals-contaminated sediments in the historic 100-
year floodplain, agricultural fields were irrigated with water from the Clark Fork River that at times contained
elevated concentrations of metals in dissolved form and as suspended sediment. In some instances, irrigation
ditches overflowed or were breached, flooding and contaminating fields adjacent to the ditches with river water.
The MRSOU is located at the confluence of the Clark Fork and Blackfoot rivers in Missoula County, Montana.
The Milltown Dam (which has been removed as part of the Site's cleanup) was owned and operated as a
hydroelectric generating facility by Northwestern Corporation. The community of Milltown is located a half-mile
east of the former dam and powerhouse. About 1,500 people live in the area of Milltown and Bonner, according
to 2019 U.S. Census data. A new public water supply was developed for Milltown under OU1. The Clark Fork
River in the vicinity of the MRSOU is used for recreational rafting, kayaking and fishing.
Assisted by an EPA Superfund Redevelopment Initiative pilot grant and EPA support, communities near the
MRSOU developed a reuse plan for the MRSOU. The plan called for the creation of a state park with trails, river
access, wildlife habitat and interpretive areas celebrating the region's history and heritage. In 2010, the state of
Montana acquired portions of the MRSOU and established a new state park for much of the MRSOU area.
Milltown State Park opened in 2018.
3
-------
Refer to Appendix A for additional resources and to Appendix B for the Site's chronology of events.
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site Name: Milltown Reservoir Sediments/Clark Fork River
EPA ID: MTD980717565
Region: 8
State: MT
City/County: Milltown; Missoula, Granite, Powell
and Deer Lodge Counties
NPL Status: Final
Multiple OUs?
Yes
Has the Site achieved construction completion?
No
REVIEW STATUS
Lead agency: EPA
Author name: Ken Champagne, with contractor support provided by Skeo
Author affiliation: EPA Region 8 and Skeo
Review period: 5/26/2020 - 9/29/2021
Date of site inspection: Sept. 21-22, 2020
Type of review: Statutory
Review number: 3
Triggering action date: 9/29/2016
Due date (fiveyears after triggering action date): 9/29/2021
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY
Basis for Taking Action
In 1981, local public health authorities found arsenic in drinking water wells in the Milltown area at
concentrations exceeding the federal drinking water standard, which was 50 micrograms per liter (|ig/L) at that
time.
MRSOU
In 1991, the EPA issued an Administrative Order on Consent to ARCO initiating the remedial investigation and
feasibility study (RI/FS) process for the MRSOU. The EPA, in consultation with MDEQ, provided oversight of
the MRSOU RI/FS activities conducted by ARCO. The 1993 baseline human health risk assessment for the
MRSOU assessed potential risks at the MRSOU using standard EPA health risk assessment methods for
residential and recreational uses. The EPA determined that the cancer and non-cancer risks associated with
consuming groundwater contaminated with arsenic were unacceptable. Other exposure pathways for humans -
4
-------
including residential use of existing homes near the reservoir and recreational use of land surrounding the
reservoir - were considered not significant. The risk assessment found that if new homes were to be built
immediately surrounding the reservoir, it would pose an unacceptable risk.
The ecological risk assessment determined the water quality at the MRSOU exceeded the water quality criteria,
and that copper in the water column caused an unacceptable, acute risk to aquatic life. Additionally, the ecological
risk assessment determined that normal high-flow events may pose an intermittent, low-level chronic risk to fish
because of the combined impacts of copper and other metals in the water column and copper in ingested
macroinvertebrates.
CFROU
In 1994, the EPA issued an Administrative Order on Consent to ARCO initiating the RI/FS process for the
CFROU. The CFROU 1998 human health risk assessment identified arsenic in soil and tailings as the
contaminant of concern (COC) for potential human health risks. The risk assessment concluded that risks may be
unacceptable on historically irrigated lands where residential development has occurred or where it may occur in
the future.
The CFROU ecological risk assessment found unacceptable risks from the metals contamination to plants and
aquatic life in the Clark Fork River. Soils and vegetation areas most clearly show the impacts from these risks. In
addition, United States Geological Survey (USGS) studies found excessive rates of erosion along streambanks in
the upper reaches of the CFROU. The studies also identified the possibility of severe erosion of the upper river in
large floods that would cause large inputs of contaminants and sediment into the river.
Response Actions
After an initial, fund lead RI/FS, the EPA issued an interim Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1 in 1984 and
issued an amendment to that ROD in 1985. A resulting fund-lead response action in 1984-1985 installed a new
drinking water system for Milltown (a water supply well, replacement of household water supply appurtenances
and ongoing sampling of individual residences). OU1 was later combined with the MRSOU.
The Montana Power Company, a predecessor of the Northwestern Corporation, improved the Milltown spillway
and dam from 1986 through 1990, and 14,500 cubic yards of reservoir sediments and debris were transported and
encapsulated in the Upland Disposal site (Figure 6).
The EPA issued a time-critical removal action memorandum in 2000 to address immediate human health risks for
residents of Eastside Road in Deer Lodge. This area is within the CFROU. Site investigations had identified 120
acres of historically irrigated land that had lower vegetation cover, impacted vegetation communities, and metals-
and arsenic-enriched soils that were generally acidic. Portions of the 120 acres had been subdivided into 5-acre
residential lots with homes. Pursuant to a Unilateral Administrative Order issued the same year, ARCO removed
contaminated soil from around the homes and transported it to an off-site disposal repository, or in some cases re-
incorporated it into pasture soils, and the residential sites were backfilled with clean soils and revegetated. In
addition, the vegetation and soils on properties adjacent to the residential areas (used primarily as pastures), which
were also impacted by metals levels and low pH, were remediated by in-situ methods.
MRSOU
In December 2004, the EPA signed the final ROD for the MRSOU. The ROD identified the following remedial
action objectives:
5
-------
Groundwater
Return contaminated groundwater to its beneficial use within a reasonable timeframe and prevent
ingestion until drinking water standards are achieved.
Comply with state groundwater standards, including non-degradation standards.
Prevent groundwater discharge containing arsenic and metals that would degrade surface waters.
Surface Water
Achieve compliance with surface water standards unless a waiver is justified.
Prevent ingestion of or direct contact with water posing an unacceptable human health risk.
Achieve acute and chronic federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria, as well as state water quality
standards.
The selected remedy for the MRSOU consists of the following measures:
Initiating the process of progressively dewatering Milltown Reservoir Sediment Accumulation Area
(SAA) I sediments by lowering reservoir surface water levels through use of the existing radial gate and
spillway with panels removed (see Figures C-l and C-2 in Appendix C for maps of SAAs).
Isolating SAA I sediments from flowing surface water by creating a bypass channel through SAA I and
armoring the existing embankment along the Blackfoot River boundary of SAA I, and converting
powerhouse inlets to low level outlets removing the spillway section of the Milltown Dam.
Removing the radial gate, powerhouse, dividing block, shop and right abutment gravity wall sections of
Milltown Dam as part of integration with the Montana Natural Resource Damage Program Trustee
Restoration Plan for Milltown.
After a period of dewatering and consolidation, remove down to a predetermined contour surface the
sediments in SAA I through the use of mechanical excavation techniques, hauling the waste
(approximately 90 miles via rail cars), and placing that waste in the Opportunity Ponds at the Anaconda
Co. Smelter site.1
Reconstructing the Blackfoot River and Clark Fork River channels and banks, including protection of
certain infrastructure and regrading/revegetating the Clark Fork River/Blackfoot River floodplain to
provide stability.
Replacement of any drinking water supply that exceeds the drinking water standard for arsenic of 10 |ig/L
due to remedial action implementation (if appropriate, a temporary controlled groundwater area may be
established until the Milltown aquifer recovers using monitored natural attenuation).
Replacement or retrofitting of domestic wells that become unusable because of the lowering of the
groundwater table.
Conducting long-term operation, maintenance and monitoring of the areas identified as the dam
rehabilitation sediment/debris repositories established by the Montana Power Company, the portions of
the new Interstate 90 embankment outside the Montana Department of Transportation's right-of-way, and
the area in the lower Clark Fork River channel (SAA Ill-b) where sediments with elevated concentrations
of arsenic and metals will remain after the remedial action and any other on-site repositories established
during the remedial action on site.
Bridge stability mitigation for certain bridges near the MRSOU.
Monitoring and maintenance of borrow and staging areas revegetated during remedial action.
Surface water and groundwater monitoring.
Implementation of additional, best-management practices or engineering controls as detailed in a
contingency plan to be approved by the EPA or as otherwise required by the EPA, in consultation with
MDEQ, if temporary construction-related surface water quality standards are exceeded.
1 Consistent with the ROD and Consent Decree, contaminated sediments were left in place beneath portions of the 1-90
embankment and toe road because they were protected from erosion and could not be removed without destabilizing or
closing the 1-90 roadway.
6
-------
Taking measures to reduce harm to fish, wildlife and wetlands due to cleanup construction in consultation
with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
The MRSOU ROD identified the need for the following institutional controls:
Continue funding for maintaining the existing replacement water supply for Milltown residents (installed
under the OU1 remedy).
Make contingency funds available to reconfigure, expand or update replacement water supplies.
If needed, establish a controlled groundwater area to ban future wells within or immediately adjacent to
the arsenic plume.
Prevent residential use of the MRSOU and disturbance of on-site remedial elements such as disposal
units.
The MRSOU December 2004 ROD indicated that groundwater standards were expected to be met within 4 to 10
years following completion of dam and sediment removal. Tables 1 and 2 list the cleanup goals for the MRSOU.
Table 1: MRSOU Groundwater COC Performance Standards
(iroumlw siler ( ()(
KOI) Pcrformsince Sisuulsirri
(jiji/l.)
Arsenic
10
Cadmium
5
Copper
1,300
Lead
15
Zinc
2,000
Note:
Source: Section 12.7.1 of the December 2004 ROD. Appendix A of the
ROD shows that these standards are equivalent to the more stringent of
either the federal Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) or the state WQB-
7 human health standard.
Table 2: MRSOU Surface Water COC Performance Standards3
Surface \\slier
A(|iisilic l.il'c (uii/l.)
Miliiisui llcsillh
COC
Acme
Chronic
(iili/l.l
Arsenic
340
150
10 (federal)
18 (state)
Cadmium
2.10
0.27
5
Copper
13
9
l,300b
Lead
81
3.2
15
Zinc
119
119
2,000
Notes:
Source: Exhibit 2-34 of the December 2004 ROD
a) Based on water hardness of 100 milligrams per liter (mg/L).
b) The MRSOU ROD stated that EPA waived the state standard for copper in the CFROU
and allowed for consideration of upstream input into the MRSOU in determining
compliance with the copper standard.
7
-------
CFROU
In April 2004, the EPA signed the final ROD for the CFROU. The ROD identified the following remedial action
objectives:
Floodplain Tailings and Impacted Soils
Prevent or inhibit ingestion of arsenic-contaminated soils/tailings where ingestion or contact would pose
an unacceptable health risk.
Prevent or reduce unacceptable risk to ecological (including agricultural, aquatic and terrestrial) systems
degraded by contaminated soils/tailings.
Groundwater
Return contaminated shallow groundwater to its beneficial use within a reasonable period.
Comply with state groundwater standards, including nondegradation standards.
Prevent groundwater discharge containing arsenic and metals that would degrade surface waters.
Surface Water
Reduce or eliminate "pulses" of metals to the river, including those caused by snowmelt and thunderstorm
events.
Achieve compliance with surface water standards unless a waiver is justified.
Prevent ingestion of, or direct contact with, water posing an unacceptable human health risk.
Achieve trout toxicity reference values and acute and chronic federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria in
affected surface water.
Comply with storm water ARARs (applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements).
Specific components of the remedy, as described in the 2004 ROD, include:
In most instances, impacted soils and vegetation, also referred to as impacted areas, were to be treated in
place by mixing lime and other amendments into the soil and revegetating.
Some impacted areas will be removed, where depth of contamination prevents adequate and effective
treatment in place, where saturated conditions make in-situ treatment unimplementable, or where post-
treatment arsenic levels, after one retreatment attempt, remain above the human health cleanup level for
the current or reasonably anticipated land use. Severely impacted soils, also known as slickens, will be
removed and re vegetated.
Residential soils above residential action levels will be removed and replaced with clean backfill.
The Riparian Evaluation System (RipES) process will be used in remedial design to identify severely
impacted areas, impacted areas, and areas where the exceptions to removal or in-situ treatment will apply.
Streambanks will be stabilized primarily by "soft" engineering (with limited hard engineering where
conditions warrant) for those areas classified and an approximate, flexible 50-foot riparian buffer zone
will be established on both sides of the river.
Opportunity Ponds will be used for disposal of all removed contaminated materials.
Weed control for in-situ treatment, streambank stabilization, and removal areas is required.
Best management practices by local landowners throughout Reach A and in limited areas of Reach B are
required to protect the remedy and ensure land use practices are compatible with the long-term protection
of the selected remedy.
Institutional controls and additional sampling, maintenance and possible removal or in-situ treatment of
contamination in residential or heavily used recreational areas, including the Trestle Area, will be
required to protect human health.
Monitoring during construction, construction best management practices and post-construction
environmental monitoring are required.
8
-------
The remedy is also modified and expanded for the Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site, located in
Reach A to comply with ARARs specifically associated with property owned and managed by the U.S.
Park Service, which the ranch is.
A review of post-ROD sampling of the CFROU compared to the results of the EPA's 2007 RipES mapping for
the floodplain tailings and soils component of the remedy led MDEQ, with approval from the EPA, to issue an
Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) for the CFROU in 2015. The original ROD provided for the use of
the RipES process as a tool in development of the remedial design. However, sampling and field observations
relating to vegetation health and other factors (groundwater, riparian vegetation, contaminant sampling,
ownership, infrastructure, land use and site-specific remedy requirements), showed that use of RipES
determination alone would not lead to implementation of ROD requirements or fully meet remedial action
objectives. The ESD changed the scope of the floodplain tailings and soils component of the remedy described in
the ROD by adding other factors to be considered during remedial design to determine whether removal, in-situ
treatment or other remediation (e.g., best-management practices, institutional controls) is appropriate for a given
area.
The selected remedy will be implemented along the erosive streambanks and the historic 100-year floodplain of
all of Reach A and small, localized areas of Reach B. The remedy for Reach C is no action.
Tables 3, 4 and 5 list the cleanup goals for the CFROU.
Table 3: CFROU Groundwater COC Performance Standards
(H'oiiiulwsilcr ( ()(
KOI) Perform si nee Siiindiird
(,u"/l-)
Arsenic
10
Cadmium
5
Copper
1,300
Iron
300
Lead
15
Zinc
2,000
Note:
Source: Section 13.11.2 of the April 2004 ROD
Table 4: CFROU Surface Water COC Performance Standards3
Surface \\slier
Aqusilic l.il'c (uii/l.)
Miliiisui llcsillh
COC
Acme
Chronic
(iili/l.l
Arsenic
340
150
10 (federal)
18 (state)
Cadmium
2
0.25
5
Copper (dissolved)
13
9
1,300
Lead
81
3.2
15
Zinc
119
119
2,000
Notes:
Source: Exhibit 2-29 of the April 2004 ROD. A waiver for in stream copper water quality
standards from the state's total recoverable standard to the federal dissolved water quality
criteria is contained in the ROD.
a) Based on water hardness of 100 mg/L.
9
-------
Table 5: CFROU Arsenic Soil Cleanup Goals
l.iind I so
KOI) ( Iciiniip (>u;il (inilli^i iims per kilo^r;im (in^/k^)) '
Residential
150
Recreational
680 for children at Arrowstone Park and other recreational scenarios
1,600 for fishermen, swimmers and tubers along the river
Rancher/Farmer
620
Notes:
Source: April 2004 ROD (Exhibit 2-11 and page 2-50)
a) These goals are for arsenic concentrations in soils, as averaged over exposure units.
Status of Implementation
MRSOU
The remedial action construction for the MRSOU was completed in June 2012.
Milltown Water Supply
The EPA funded the replacement of a complete public water supply system used by Milltown residents and
initially provided funding for maintenance of this water supply well. The PRPs eventually provided permanent
maintenance funding to the Milltown Water User's Association for this system. The EPA also funded the
Missoula City-County Health Department to distribute arsenic test kits to interested residents who wanted to test
their private well water. If tests showed exceedance of standards, the PRPs provided for the hookup of these
residences to the replacement water supply. The 2004 MRSOU ROD required continued funding for maintenance
of the existing replacement water supply for Milltown residents and made contingency funds available to
reconfigure, expand or update replacement water supplies.
Reservoir Drawdown and Dam Removal
Remedial design began in July 2005. In August 2005, the PRPs signed a Consent Decree, allowing the project to
move out of the planning phase and into remedial action. Remedial action began in February 2006. The initial
remedial activity was to lower the water level in the reservoir to dewater the SAA I sediments, facilitate dam
removal and ultimately enable the use of mechanical excavation techniques for sediment removal. Removal of the
Milltown Dam spillway and ultimate removal of the rest of the dam took place concurrently with reservoir
drawdown. The PRPs completed final dam removal in March 2009.
Dam removal lowered the groundwater table in the Milltown area, which raised the possibility that shallow water
supply wells in the Milltown and Bonner area could go dry. Therefore, the EPA, using funding provided by the
PRPs, managed a well-replacement program as part of the remedial action starting in 2006. Based on the
modeling results, the EPA replaced 82 private and small public water supply wells in the Milltown area and
reconfigured numerous additional wells.
Sediment Dewatering, Removal and Relocation
The RI/FS phase of the project evaluated metals contaminant concentrations in sediments in the Milltown
reservoir. During the performance of the remedial action, only those sediments shown to be contributing directly
to existing groundwater degradation (sediments with the highest pore water contaminant concentrations) and with
the potential to contribute to future surface water degradation were removed to meet remedial objectives.
Reservoir sediments were divided into two sections: the upper and lower reservoir SAAs. These two reservoir
sections were further divided into sub-areas based on sediment accumulation features. The lower reservoir
consists of SAAs I, II and III. The upper reservoir encompasses SAAs IV and V. In 2007, sediments in SAA I
were removed and isolated from the Clark Fork River channel.
To facilitate reservoir sediment removal, the EPA required a bypass channel for the Clark Fork River along the
northern boundary of SAA I. Beginning in May 2007, approximately 584,000 cubic yards of reservoir sediment,
40,000 cubic yards of underlying soil material and 57,000 cubic yards of underlying alluvium were excavated to
10
-------
form the bypass channel. Excavated reservoir sediment was relocated by rail transport to Opportunity Ponds at the
Anaconda Co. Smelter site. The bypass channel was completed in early 2008. The excavation of SAA I sediments
was finished in September 2009; a total of 2.3 million cubic yards of sediment were removed and disposed of at
the Opportunity Ponds disposal area. The Clark Fork River was re-diverted to the reconstructed channel in
December 2010.
Using funds from the PRPs, the EPA funded or performed bridge stability actions for three bridges, and a fourth
bridge was addressed by its owner.
The PRPs constructed two repositories to contain debris from the demolition of the dam and SAA Ill-b and SAA
IV sediments. One repository is located just downstream of the removed right abutment of the dam (the Right
Bank Repository). The other repository is the Tunnel Pond Repository. Groundwater monitoring of the Tunnel
Pond Repository includes sampling one well, located downgradient of the repository, at the same frequency and
for the same analyte list as the other point of compliance wells. No groundwater monitoring is required for the
Right Bank Repository.
In addition to the two constructed repositories, two other repositories were present prior to remedial action.
Disposal Site No. 1 was removed as part of the work to place SAA Ill-b sediments in the Tunnel Pond
Repository. At the second repository, the Upland Disposal site, the state of Montana built a new repository on top
of the Upland Disposal site in which to store a portion of the sediment excavated during implementation of
restoration actions from SAA IV and V. Maintenance and monitoring of disposal areas remains the responsibility
of the PRPs, according to the 2013 long-term monitoring plan.
The PRPs monitor groundwater quality at compliance wells located within the current arsenic plume to track
progress in restoring the Milltown alluvial aquifer. During remedy construction, the PRPs also monitored a series
of early-warning wells located around the fringe of the plume and along the Clark Fork River downstream of the
MRSOU to ensure that groundwater in drinking water wells was not unacceptably impacted by construction
activities. From 2006 to 2014, the Missoula City-County Health Department monitored 19 public and private
water supply wells in the Milltown area as public-health and early-warning wells. The Health Department's
sampling found that dissolved arsenic never exceeded the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) (10 (ig/L) in
those wells. Total arsenic exceeded the MCL in two wells from 2006 to 2009; there were no exceedances after
2009. Because of the consistency of the sampling, it was discontinued with EPA approval. The United States
Geological Survey conducts surface water sampling in the area. Conditions contained in a Biological Opinion
issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were also followed during remedial action implementation and
criteria for fish passage contained in the Biological Opinion are currently met.
The state of Montana's Natural Resource Damage Program followed PRP construction activities with channel
construction for the Clark Fork and Blackfoot Rivers, revegetation and reconstruction of the floodplain, and
revegetation and development of wetlands. Operation and maintenance (O&M) of this work is ongoing. The 2018
Remedial Action Construction Completion Report for the MRSOU documents the steps taken to protect wetlands
during the cleanup; this document is available on the EPA website at www.epa.gov/superfund/milltown-reservoir.
CFROU
Pursuant to a 2008 Consent Decree, MDEQ, as lead agency and in consultation with the EPA and the National
Park Service, oversees, manages, coordinates, designs and implements remedial actions for the CFROU. MDEQ
coordinates with the Montana Natural Resource Damage Program of the Montana Department of Justice for
implementation and integration of restoration components to supplement the remedial actions. MDEQ coordinates
with the National Park Service to implement remedial actions combined with restoration actions on the Grant-
Kohrs Ranch.
The remedy is currently under construction. The majority of the CFROU remedial action is Reach A, a 43-mile
stretch of the river flowing from Warm Springs in Anaconda/Deer Lodge County to just upstream of Garrison in
11
-------
Powell County. In accordance with the 2004 ROD, and while Consent Decree discussions were in progress, the
EPA performed RipES mapping in 2006 and 2007 for the floodplain tailings and soils component. MDEQ began
its remedial design activities in 2008, following entry of the Consent Decree, which designated MDEQ as lead
agency for remedy implementation and O&M using funds received from the PRP. MDEQ focused its first
remedial actions on immediate human health and irrigated lands concerns and is now proceeding with
geographically-defined phases (Figure 2).
Remedial actions in Reach A began in 2011 and are expected to take a total of 15 years or more to complete.
While the general approach is to work from the headwaters downstream, the EPA and MDEQ believe remediation
can be done more quickly and effectively and with less threat to river stability by working on discontinuous
stretches of the river. Thus, properties will be engaged in a discontinuous manner to prevent jeopardizing the
integrity of the floodplain, should a flood event greater than the annual flood occur during the 15 year plus
remedial action period. Affected landowners will be involved in setting these schedules and clearly informed of
the sequencing of the work.
In 2020, the Montana NRD program assisted DEQ with the implementation of best-management practices, which
included emergency berm work and placement of straw wattles, to reduce the flow of salts from the slickens
carrying heavy metals into the river.
The following bullets summarize the cleanup status of the phases in Reach A:
Phase 1: Cleanup began in 2013 and was completed in spring 2014. About 330,000 cubic yards of
contaminated material were removed from a 60-acre project area. Revegetation was completed in fall
2014.
Phase 2: Cleanup began in summer 2015 and was completed in 2016. About 403,000 cubic yards of
contaminated material were removed. Revegetation was completed in 2016.
Phases 3 and 4: Cleanup is being designed. Cleanup on portions of Phase 3 began on April 20, 2021.
Phases 5 and 6: Cleanup began in summer 2014. Cleanup and revegetation were completed in 2016.
Phase 7: Cleanup is being designed.
Phases 8 and 9: Cleanup is in the sampling and site characterization phase.
Eastside Road pasture areas (adjacent to Phases 12 and 13): Cleanup occurred in 2012 and 2015.
Contaminated material was removed from pastures in an area of about 100 acres that had been flood
irrigated with contaminated water from the Clark Fork River. Ongoing monitoring of vegetation
establishment and weed control is being conducted.
Arrowstone Park area (in Deer Lodge) (part of Phases 13 and 14): Cleanup is in the sampling and site
characterization phase.
Trestle area and residential yards in Deer Lodge (part of Phase 14): Cleanup was completed in 2011.
About 10,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils were removed from residential yards and a recreational
area along the Clark Fork River.
Phases 15 and 16 (part of Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site): Cleanup began in 2019 and is
almost complete. About 400,000 cubic yards of contaminated material will have been removed when
completed.
After cleanup is complete in Reach A, remedial design work on Reach B will begin. As noted above, the EPA
determined that Reach C requires no further action.
12
-------
Figure 2: CFROU Reach A Phase Breaks
Upper Clark Fork
River Reach A
Phase breaks
100 year floodplain
Land Ownership
Private
Local Government
State Government
-V Federal
Other
Miles
Dempsey
_POWELL. COUNTY
DEER LODGECOUNTY
Galen
Warm Springs
13
-------
Institutional Control (IC) Review
Table 6 summarizes the institutional controls at the Site.
MRSOU
The ROD stated that institutional controls were required at the Site, dealing primarily with groundwater but also
addressing residential use and protection of waste repositories.
In August 2017, MDEQ, Montana Natural Resource Damage Program and the Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks recorded an Institutional Controls Agreement for property owned by the state at the Site.
Figure D-2 in Appendix D provides a copy of the Agreement. Figure 3 shows the areas subject to the 2017
Institutional Controls Agreement. The Agreement prohibits disturbing the Right Bank Repository, the Tunnel
Pond Repository, the Staging Area Repository, the Upland Disposal Site Repository and the Interstate 90
Buttress. The Agreement also states that if the state conveys any part of the property to another party, residential
use will be prohibited unless it is shown that residential use would not pose an unacceptable risk. The Agreement
also prohibits installing new wells to supply drinking water for people in areas where the groundwater standard
for arsenic is exceeded. Most of the MRSOU is now part of Milltown State Park.
The southwestern portion of the MRSOU is not subject to the 2017 ICs Agreement (see Figure 3). However, the
majority of the southwestern portion of the MRSOU is designated by the county as "Zone AE (100 Year
Floodway)" or "Zone AE (100 Year Floodplain - With Elevations)" (see Figure 4). Residential use is prevented in
that area by state laws prohibiting/restricting residential development in floodways and floodplains. State law
prohibits all new residential construction within the floodway. State law also prohibits new septic systems within
100 feet of the floodplain, which restricts development of floodplain properties that do not have access to
municipal sewer lines. The southwestern portion of the MRSOU does not have access to a municipal sewer line.
In addition, the Missoula County subdivision regulations prohibit new subdivisions within the floodplain.
The Missoula Valley Water Quality Ordinance (13.26.090, see Figure D-l in Appendix D) prohibits installation
of new public water wells in the vicinity of the MRSOU arsenic plume. However, this ordinance does not
preclude private well installation in the plume area (Figure 6). No known use of groundwater wells for domestic
purposes is occurring. Additional institutional controls may be needed to control private well installation in areas
of the arsenic plume that are not included in the 2017 ICs Agreement (for example, see the monitoring wells with
arsenic exceedances on Figure 3). A controlled groundwater area or similar institutional control has not been
implemented; Site regulatory agencies are continuing to discuss the need for this institutional control.
CFROU
The April 2004 ROD stated that institutional controls for the CFROU would include county zoning regulations,
deed restrictions, permanent funding for Arrowstone Park to ensure that it is maintained and dedicated for use as a
recreational area, and groundwater sampling and use controls. An Institutional Control Implementation and
Assurance Plan will also be developed for the CFROU by MDEQ as part of the larger control program for Reach
A.
Powell County has established a Superfund Overlay District to ensure that future land use is compatible with the
remedy and any remaining contamination (Figure 5). Figure D-3 in Appendix D provides a copy of the section of
the ordinance that describes the Superfund Overlay District.2 Requirements of the Superfund Overlay District
include:
Property Development: All use changes and development in the Superfund Overlay Zone are subject to
the securing of a Conditional Use Permit. Where no remedial structures exist on a site, the application
materials shall include arsenic tests, as required by Powell County, and detailed plans (if necessary) for
2 Powell County Zoning & Development Regulations, Chapter VI-F, http://www.powellcountvmt.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2019/03/ZoneDevRegs20170203 1486156447.pdf
14
-------
achieving compliance with the maximum arsenic level allowed for the proposed use.
Groundwater Wells: A development certificate shall be required to drill or dig a well in the Superfund
Overlay Zone. Prior to the issuance of a completion certificate of any well in this overlay district, the well
is required to be tested for coliform bacteria, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury
and nitrate, and the results of the tests submitted to Powell County. No certificate of compliance shall be
issued for any well in which the water exceeds state water quality standards for the proposed use.
Notice to Purchasers: Before any parcel or any interest in any parcel in the Superfund Overlay Zone is
conveyed, the following statement shall be placed on the deed, contract for sale or other instrument of
conveyance: "This parcel is within a Superfund site. A permit must be obtained before any development
or construction covered by these regulations is initiated."
The stretch of river that has been cleaned up or will be cleaned up (Reaches A and B) lies mostly within Powell
County. Institutional controls need to be implemented for the stretches of the CFROU that are in counties other
than Powell County. Phases 1 through 6 of Reach A are in Deer Lodge County. About one third of Reach B (the
downstream segment) is in Granite County. Additional institutional controls may also be needed; as stated in the
ROD, these could include deed restrictions, permanent funding for Arrowstone Park, and groundwater sampling
and use controls. MDEQ is working with the counties to implement institutional controls.
Table 6: Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls (ICs)
Medi;i. r.niiinc'cml
( ontrols. iiiid \re;is
1 h;il Do Nul
Support I 1 /I 1.
IJilSed (III ( IIITCIII
Conditions
ICs
Needed
ICs Called
lor in llie
Decision
Documents
lni|>;icled
Piireels
IC
OI).jee(i\e
Title of IC liislriiiiienl
Implemented iind Diilelor
pliinned)
2017 ICs Agreement restricts
potable well installation on state-
owned property.
MRSOU
Groundwater
Yes
Yes
Area of
arsenic
plume
Prevent
consumption of
contaminated
groundwater.
Missoula Valley Water Quality
Ordinance prohibits installing new
public water wells in the vicinity of
the arsenic plume.
Additional ICs may be needed to
prohibit private well installation in
areas of the plume not included in
the 2017 ICs Agreement (see
monitoring wells with arsenic
exceedances on Figure 3).
Most of the MRSOU is now part of
Milltown State Park.
MRSOU Soil
Yes
Yes
Repository
Prevent
activities that
could affect the
integrity of the
remedy. Prevent
residential use.
2017 ICs Agreement prohibits
residential use (unless shown to be
safe) and prohibits disturbing the
repositories.
The southwestern portion of the
MRSOU is not subject to the 2017
ICs Agreement (see Figure 3).
Residential use is prevented in that
area by state laws
prohibiting/restricting residential
development in floodways and
floodplains (see Figure 4).
15
-------
Mediii. l-'.iiginccml
( ondols. iiiul Areiis
1 liiil Do Noi
Support I 1 /I 1.
IJiised on ('iirrenl
Conditions
ICs
Needed
ICs Called
lor in the
Decision
Documents
Impiieled
Pii reels
IC
OI).jee(i\e
I'ille of IC liislriinienl
Implemented iind Diilelor
pliinned)
CFROU
Groundwater
Yes
Yes
To be
determined
during each
phase
Prevent
consumption of
contaminated
groundwater, if
necessary.
Powell County Superfund Overlay
District restricts installation of
wells.
Additional ICs are needed for other
counties.
CFROU Soil
Yes
Yes
To be
determined
during each
phase
Prevent
activities that
could affect the
integrity of the
remedy or cause
unacceptable
human health
exposures.
Powell County Overlay District
requires permits for land use
changes.
ICs need to be implemented for
other counties.
Additional ICs may also be needed;
as stated in the ROD, these could
include deed restrictions and
permanent funding for Arrowstone
Park.
16
-------
Figure 3: MRSOU Institutional Control Map
750 1,500
3,000
I Feet
Sources: ESRI, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye,
Earthstar Geographies, DeLorme, Tele
Atlas, AND, First American, UNEP-
WCMC, USGS, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,
AeroGRID, IGN, GIS User Community,
the 2016 FYR, Missoula County GIS, the
2017 ICs Agreement and the June 2020
Dissolved Arsenic Concentrations.
Legend
Milltown Reservoir Sediments OU Boundary
I y | Area Subject to Land Use and Well Installation
' ^ ' Restrictions in the 2017 ICs Agreement
~ Monitoring Well with Arsenic > 10 |jg/L in June 2020
A Skeo O
\ v NORTH
Milltown Reservoir Sediments/Clark Fork River Superfund Site
Missoula, Granite, Powell and Deer Lodge Counties, Montana J
Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for informational
purposes only regarding EPA's response actions at the Site.
17
-------
Figure 4: MRSOU Flood Zone Map
750
1,500
3,000
I Feet
Sources: ESRI, DigitalGlobe. GeoEye,
Earthstar Geographies, DeLorme, Tele
Atlas, AND, First American, UNEP-
WCMC, USGS, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,
AeroGRID, IGN, GIS User Community,
the 2016 FYR and Missoula County GIS.
Legend
Milltown Reservoir Sediments OU Boundary
Zone AE (100 YR Floodway)
Zone AE (100 YR Floodplain - With Elevations)
A Skeo O
V ~ NORTH
Milltown Reservoir Sediments/Clark Fork River Superfund Site
Missoula, Granite, Powell and Deer Lodge Counties, Montana /
Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for informational
purposes only regarding EPA's response actions at the Site.
18
-------
Figure 5: Powell County Superfund Overlay District (CFROU)
SUPERFUND OVERLAY DISTRICT
Clark Fork River Operable Unit
Powell County, Montana
November 2015
Superfund Overlay Bom
(CH2M Hill Flood plain)
Clark Forte River
] County boundary
-------
Systems Operations/Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
MRSOU
The 2013 Long-Term Post Remedial Action Construction Monitoring Plan, which is the MRSOU O&M plan,
outlines the groundwater and surface water monitoring requirements as well as the long-term maintenance and
monitoring for the constructed repositories and buttress areas. The PRPs sample groundwater twice each year,
during high and low flow. Surface water monitoring data show that the post-remedial action surface water
performance standards are being met. The USGS continues to monitor surface water upstream and downstream of
the Site.
Vegetation Inspection and Maintenance
The PRPs have conducted post-cleanup vegetation monitoring annually since 2013 in accordance with the Long-
Term Post Remedial Action Construction Monitoring Plan. The performance standard for vegetation is to
establish on the reclaimed areas a "diverse, effective and permanent vegetative cover of the same seasonal variety
native to the area of land to be affected and capable of self-regeneration and plant succession at least equal in
extent of cover to the natural vegetation of the area except that introduced species may be used in the revegetation
process where desirable and necessary to achieve the approved post-mining land use plan. Vegetative cover must
be capable of:
Regenerating under the natural conditions prevailing at the site, including occasional drought, heavy
snowfalls and strong winds.
Preventing soil erosion to the extent achieved prior to the operation."
Another performance standard for vegetation is to control noxious weeds consistent with defined criteria.
The EPA determined that the performance standards for vegetation establishment were met for those areas
reclaimed during remedial action. Therefore, post-2015 vegetation inspection and maintenance have focused on
weed control and assessment/monitoring of vegetation cover as it relates to cap integrity/stormwater system
functioning at the repositories and Interstate 90 buttress.
In August 2019 the PRPs, the EPA and MDEQ inspected vegetation cover on the repositories and buttresses and
observed it to be in good condition except for:
The Tunnel Pond Repository buttress top where vegetation is improving with time but is less than 30
percent total cover.
An area on the east railgrade slope above the Tunnel Pond Repository buttress where exposed sediment
may have limited vegetation establishment.
o In May 2020, the PRPs placed topsoil on the bare area on the east railgrade slope of the Tunnel
Pond Repository and seeded the area. Future monitoring is needed to ensure that the vegetation
becomes established.
An area on the Interstate 90 buttress used by the state restoration program for equipment access.
o Doug Martin of the State of Montana's Restoration Program confirmed that the state will reclaim
this area after it is no longer needed for equipment access.
Various areas where additional weed control is required.
Repository Inspection and Maintenance
The PRPs are responsible for annual maintenance and monitoring of two repositories (Tunnel Pond and Right
Bank). Annual monitoring and maintenance of the buttress and railroad berm adjacent to the Tunnel Pond
Repository and the Interstate 90 slope and buttress are also the responsibility of the PRPs.
20
-------
The PRPs visually inspected the Tunnel Pond Repository storm water conveyance system in April 2019. The
inspection found that the system was functioning appropriately but noted some sediment buildup in the east drop
inlet that should be removed. In August 2019, the PRPs, the EPA and MDEQ visually inspected both repositories,
the buttress and railroad berm adjacent to the Tunnel Pond Repository, the Tunnel Pond Repository stormwater
management system, and the Interstate 90 buttress. The inspections found that the stormwater conveyance
systems were generally clean and functioning and the build-up of sediment in the Tunnel Pond Repository east
drop inlet had been removed, but some small trees and bushes had started to colonize the ditches and should be
removed. The inspections also found that the repository caps and the Tunnel Pond Repository and Interstate 90
buttresses were in good condition with no visible evidence of settlement, subsidence or erosion. The small
subsidence holes in the Tunnel Pond Repository railgrade and buttress slope, noted in the 2017 inspection, were
repaired in the summer of 2018 and had not reappeared.
To support this FYR, the PRPs surveyed the settlement monuments in the crest and toe of the Tunnel Pond
Repository embankment in July 2020 to identify any lateral movement in the embankment. The 2020
measurements were compared against the 2014 measurements. Comparison between the 2014 and 2020 survey
results showed the maximum displacement in any direction was -0.08 feet (-0.96 inches) at point M5, which is
below the 1-inch trigger for initiating additional review identified in the Milltown Tunnel Pond Settlement
Monuments Construction Completion Report.
CFROU
The Interim Comprehensive Long-Term Monitoring Plan for the CFROU established monitoring activities for
sediment, surface water and groundwater that will determine the environmental effectiveness of remediation and
restoration actions within the CFROU as they are implemented. Monitoring under the Interim Comprehensive
Long-Term Plan began in the spring of 2010 at six Clark Fork monitoring stations; this was prior to initiation of
any remediation and restoration actions within the CFROU. This plan has been updated yearly.
The CFROU is not yet in the O&M phase. A long-term O&M plan will be developed and implemented by
MDEQ. MDEQ will develop best management practice ranch plans on a parcel-specific basis as the cleanup
proceeds.
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW
This section includes the protectiveness determinations and statements from the 2016 FYR as well as the
recommendations from the 2016 FYR and the status of those recommendations.
Table 7: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2016 FYR
()l #
Prป(ec(i\i'iiess
Dolorniiiiiilioii
Pmlcclhi'iU'ss Siiiiomcnl
2
Short-term Protective
The remedy at MRSOU (OU2) currently protects human
health and the environment because potential exposure to
contaminated groundwater, surface water and sediment is
controlled. For the remedy to be protective over the long term,
the following actions need to be taken: implement institutional
controls for the MRSOU comprehensive institutional control
plan and its components; determine if additional measures are
needed to reduce arsenic concentrations below the cleanup
goals; and continue monitoring groundwater for at least six
more years and tracking the arsenic trends to see if
concentrations are going down per the discussion in the ROD.
3
Will be Protective
The remedy at CFROU (OU3) is expected to be protective of
human health and the environment upon completion of the
remedial action. In the interim, exposure pathways that could
result in unacceptable risks are being controlled.
21
-------
Table 8: Status of Recommendations from the 2016 FYR
()l #
Issue
Koconiinoiuliilion
( iinvnl
Siiilus
( iinvnl 1 in plomont ;i I ion Siiilus
Description
( ompk'lion
Diilc
2
Institutional controls
for MRSOU are not
yet implemented for
areas where waste
has been left in
place and areas
where groundwater
contamination is
above ROD
standards.
Implement
institutional
controls for the
MRSOU
comprehensive
institutional
control plan and
its components.
Addressed
in Next
FYR
Most of the MRSOU is now part of
Milltown State Park.
2017 Institutional Controls Agreement for
state-owned property prohibits disturbing
the repositories and the Interstate 90
Buttress, restricts residential use, and
prohibits installing drinking water wells if
the arsenic standard is exceeded.
Missoula Valley Water Quality Ordinance
prohibits installing public water wells in the
vicinity of the arsenic plume.
Additional institutional controls may be
needed for areas not included in the 2017
Institutional Controls Agreement (see
Figure 3) to prohibit private well
installation.
N/A
2
Groundwater
concentrations at
MRSOU continue to
exceed arsenic
cleanup goals and
do not appear to be
declining.
Determine if
additional
measures are
needed to reduce
arsenic
concentrations
below the cleanup
goals.
Addressed
in Next
FYR
Groundwater monitoring continues. The
EPA will evaluate the data to determine if
additional measures are needed to reduce
arsenic concentrations below the cleanup
goal or if a waiver of certain groundwater
standards is appropriate under CERCLA
law.
N/A
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
Community Notification. Community Involvement and Site Interviews
A public notice was made available by newspaper postings in the Missoulian and the Silver State Post on
10/7/2020 (Appendix E). It stated that the FYR was underway and invited the public to submit any comments to
the EPA. The results of the review and the report will be made available at the Site's information repositories:
Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site, located at 266 Warren Lane, Deer Lodge, Montana 59722, and at the
Missoula City/County Library, located at 301 East Main Street, Missoula, Montana 59802. Site information is
also available online at www.epa.gov/superfund/milltown-reservoir.
During the FYR process, interviews were conducted to document any perceived problems or successes with the
remedy implemented to date. The interviews are included in Appendix F and summarized below.
Interviewees were generally satisfied, and many were impressed by the cleanup activities that have occurred at the
MRSOU. They highlighted the positive impacts from the development of Milltown State Park and the rich and
complex habitat that is now reestablished. One noted that Milltown State Park is fast becoming a hub for public
recreation, as well as river stewardship and nearby light industry. Some voiced concerns about the 1-90 bridges
and when the bridge piers will be removed from the Blackfoot River.3 There is also some concern about the
3 Removing the bridge piers is not a requirement under CERCLA authority, but could be done by the bridge owner, the
Montana Department of Transportation.
22
-------
inundation and congestion of the river from river recreationists during hot summer months. Respondents were
generally comfortable with the status of the institutional controls and communications surrounding the MRSOU.
Respondents stated that the remedial action on the CFROU is progressing and has been successful to date. Recent
activities to reduce the flow of salts from the slickens heavy metals into the river in 2020 have been well received.
Interviewees are concerned about the cost of the cleanup and the slow progress. Many interviewees are concerned
about how the entire cleanup will be funded and ensuring it is conducted appropriately for the entire river.
Interviewees are concerned about current fish populations being at an all-time low and recognize the need to
integrate restoration and remediation actions and prioritizing cleanup of high-risk areas. Interviewees voiced the
need for more communication on the status of the CFROU cleanup, why downstream phases have been conducted
prior to completing the upstream phases, and the plan for future phases after Phase 3 is conducted. One
interviewee recommended a broader collaboration between stakeholders and agencies involved in all of the
cleanups in this basin to share data and information collected and evaluate the watershed as a whole.
Data Review
MRSOU
Groundwater Monitoring
Groundwater monitoring at the MRSOU has three objectives: 1) evaluate the need for additional O&M activities;
2) ensure that the remedy is performing as designed; and 3) ensure that the remedy complies with the applicable
performance standards. The groundwater performance standards will be deemed to have been met when the
compliance monitoring wells have attained the water quality standards for a period of two years.
The PRPs sample the ten original compliance wells (104A, 921A, 917B, 922D, 105C, 107A, 110B, HLA2, 11R
and 103B) plus the Upland Disposal Site monitoring well (913A) and the Tunnel Pond Repository monitoring
well (TPR10) twice per year, during high flow conditions (summer) and low flow conditions (winter). Figure 6
depicts the locations of the monitoring wells. The EPA's April 20, 2015, correspondence approved discontinuing
the analyses for all COCs except arsenic because two years of data showed compliance with state standards for
the other COCs. Therefore, the well samples are analyzed for dissolved arsenic only.
Figures 7 through 9 present the dissolved arsenic concentrations in groundwater from 1996 through 2019; the
figures group the monitoring wells by levels of arsenic concentration.4 Arsenic concentrations in the compliance
wells ranged from 1.26 (ig/L to 35.4 (ig/L in the 2019 samples, with seven (in June 2019) and six (in December
2019) of the 12 compliance wells exceeding the 10 (ig/L groundwater standard. Overall, arsenic concentrations in
all wells are much lower than historic levels but concentrations have not decreased significantly over the past five
years. The ROD anticipated that the cleanup goals would be achieved about four to 10 years after completion of
dam and sediment removal. It has now been about nine years since substantial construction was completed in
2012. Based on the concentration trends over the past five years, the EPA does not expect groundwater to achieve
the arsenic standard within the timeframe anticipated in the ROD.
4 The list of wells sampled has changed over the years as the monitoring plan has been revised and wells have been replaced
or damaged.
23
-------
Figure 6: Detailed Site Map
750 1,500
3,000
I Feet
Sources: ESRI, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye,
Earthstar Geographies, DeLorme, Tele
Atlas, AND. First American, UNEP-
WCMC, USGS, CNES/Airbus DS,
USDA, AeroGRID, IGN, the GIS User
Community, the 2016 FYR and the June
2020 Dissolved Arsenic Concentrations.
Legend
Milltown Reservoir Sediments OU Boundary
i .. Clark Fork River OU Boundary
Monitoring Well with Arsenic < 10 (jg/L in June 2020
~ Monitoring Well with Arsenic > 10 ng/L in June 2020
A Skeo O
\ V NORTH
Milltown Reservoir Sediments/Clark Fork River Superfund Site
Missoula, Granite, Powell and Deer Lodge Counties, Montana /
Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for informational
purposes only regarding EPA's response actions at the Site.
24
-------
Figure 8: Arsenic Concentrations in Group 2 Wells
25
-------
Figure 9: Arsenic Concentrations in Group 3 Wells
Surface Water Monitoring
The USGS conducted post-remedial action surface water monitoring in 2015 to assess the performance of the
cleanup. This monitoring included sampling water quality eight times per year at the three stations that bracket the
MRSOU (i.e., Clark Fork River at Turah Bridge near Bonner, Blackfoot River near Bonner, and Clark Fork River
above Missoula) and comparing the concentrations against both Montana DEQ-7 and federal surface water quality
criteria. There were no exceedances of federal standards at the downstream Clark Fork River above Missoula
station, and only one exceedance of the state standards (for total recoverable copper). Per language in the 2004
Consent Decree, the ROD performance standard for copper is the federal water quality criteria, to be compared
against the dissolved fraction. Therefore, the 2015 data showed post-remedial action surface water performance
standards were met. The USGS continues to monitor surface water upstream and downstream of the Site. The
CFROU section below provides additional surface water monitoring data.
CFROIJ
Cleanup is underway in the CFROU. Annual monitoring has been conducted since 2010 to assess groundwater,
surface water and vegetation before, during and after cleanup. Additional monitoring efforts include streambed
sediments, macroinvertebrates, periphyton, nutrients, fish and birds. The monitoring program has been
coordinated with long-term monitoring by the USGS. The CFROU monitoring network in 2019 included 17
sample sites (7 mainstem sites and 10 tributary sites).
Surface Water
Surface water samples are analyzed for total and dissolved metals (arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, zinc, mercury
and methylmercury). In 2019, surface water COC concentrations in the mainstem exceeded performance goals for
all COCs in at least one sample but were most frequent for arsenic (see Figure 10). Figure 1 shows the surface
water sampling locations. Silver Bow Creek (downstream of the Warm Springs Ponds, OU4 of the Silver Bow
26
-------
Creek site) and Mill-Willow Creek were sources of arsenic to the Clark Fork River. Arsenic concentrations in
Silver Bow Creek entering the Warm Springs Ponds (at Frontage Road) were generally several times lower than
the concentrations leaving the ponds (at Warm Springs), indicating that arsenic is likely remobilized in the ponds.
In contrast, concentrations of the cationic contaminants of concern (cadmium, copper, lead and zinc), were
generally much lower in samples collected downstream from the ponds.
In 2018 and 2019, streamflows in the Clark Fork River were very high throughout the spring runoff period and
the remainder of the year due to strong mountain snowpack. The sustained high flows in the Clark Fork River
mainstem almost certainly contributed to the relatively high total recoverable contaminant concentrations
observed in the Clark Fork River in 2018 and 2019.
Sediment
In 2019, concentrations of arsenic, copper and zinc exceeded the probable effect concentration (PEC) in all Clark
Fork River mainstem sediment samples (see Figure 11). Lead and cadmium exceeded the PEC in 75% and 42% of
the mainstem samples, respectively. Despite the high rate of exceedances, all COC concentrations appeared to
decline through time in the mainstem at the Williams-Tavenner Bridge site which is located downstream from
Phases 15 and 16, where remedial actions are taking place. In other sampled tributaries (Mill-Willow Creek,
Warm Springs Creek, Lost Creek, Racetrack Creek and the Little Blackfoot River), exceedances of the PECs were
moderately rare.
Periphyton
In 2019, periphyton (benthic algae) monitoring indicated that all sites sampled had either "good" or "excellent"
overall biological integrity. Specific stressors included nutrients, fine sediment and metals. The most consistent
cause of impairment was sediment.
Macroinvertebrates
Macroinvertebrate samples collected in 2019 indicated that all sites were either slightly or moderately impaired.
There was evidence of nutrient pollution at all but three sites (Warm Springs Creek, Clark Fork River at Turah
and Little Blackfoot River). Habitat instability (e.g., dewatering or severe scouring) was a potential impairment in
all sites except Warm Springs Creek, Silver Bow Creek below the Warm Springs Ponds, Clark Fork River at
Turah and Little Blackfoot River.
Birds
Bird monitoring has been conducted annually since 2015. In 2019, birds were monitored in Phases 1 through 7
and Phase 15. Results suggest that the remedies, particularly in Phases 2, 5 and 6, have been beneficial for the
abundance of riparian specialist bird species.
However, results in Phase 1, where the remedy was completed in 2015, have not followed this same pattern and
richness of riparian specialist species there has declined through time. Results in Phases 3, 4, 7 and 15 have
generally been mixed. With the exception of Phase 1, results suggest that displacement of disturbance-sensitive
species by the remedy has been offset by effects of remedial actions that are beneficial, at least in the short-term.
Vegetation
Vegetation monitoring occurred in Phases 1, 2, 5 and 6 of the CFROU in 2019. Phases 2, 5 and 6 were in Year-3
post-remedy; the canopy cover did not meet the Year-3 performance targets, but the trend in each phase was
positive. Phase 1 was in Year-5 post-remedy; the woody plant canopy cover and total canopy cover did not meet
the performance targets (the temporal trends will be assessed during Year-7 monitoring in 2021). Noxious weeds
were generally well controlled, particularly in Phases 2, 5 and 6. No noxious weeds were observed in any
27
-------
monitoring plots of those phases in 2019, although some weeds were observed during prior monitoring in 2017.
These results indicate that ongoing treatments for weeds have been highly effective in those phases.
Figure 10: Dissolved Arsenic Concentrations (mg/L) in Surface Water5
near Galen
at Galen Road
O
O
/' v \ -*
1 * * nii-
2010
1 1 1 ! 1
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
p
o
% V '
n
i i i i i 1
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
at Gemback Road
at Deer Lodge
i
2010
/ * *
* * . r m
2012
2014
l
2016
1
20 IB
2020
o
o
J* * *. L N
1i * *ii ป* i i
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
o
d
at Williams-Tavenner Bridge
O
O
2010
2012
2014
2016
2013
2020
at Turah
o
d
o
d
I ( i 1 I 1
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
5 Horizontal red lines are the arsenic cleanup goal (10 ng/L).
28
-------
Figure 11: Arsenic Concentrations (mg/kg) in Sediment6
near Galen at Galen Road
at Gemback Road
i i i i i i 1 i 1 i i 1 i 1 i i i 1 i 1 1
2014 2016 2018 2020 2014 2016 2018 2020 2014 2016 201S 2020
at Deer Lodge at Williams-Tavenner Bridge atTurah
2014 2016 2018 2020 2014 2016 2018 2020 2014 2016 201S 2020
Site Inspection
The site inspection took place on 9/21-22/2020. The purpose of the inspection was to assess the protectiveness of
the remedy. Appendix G provides the site inspection checklists for the MRSOU and the CFROU. Appendix H
provides photographs from the site inspection.
MRSOU
Participants for the MRSOU site inspection included Ken Champagne (EPA RPfVl). Doug Martin (Montana
Natural Resource Damage Program), Michael Kustudia (Milltown State Park), Don Booth (PRP contractor), Kris
Cook and Michael Langguth (PRP subcontractor), and Treat Suomi (Skeo, the EPAs FYR contractor).
The inspection began at the Milltown Bluff, providing an overall view of the MRSOU remedial components
including the Tunnel Repository and associated embankment and buttress, railroad berm, the Right Bank
Repository, the Interstate 90 Buttress and the former Bonner Development Group parcel. Participants observed
6 Solid horizontal lines are the probable effect concentration (PEC) (33 mg/kg). Dashed horizontal lines are the threshold
effect concentration (9.79 mg/kg).
29
-------
that areas of subsidence and erosion on the Tunnel Pond Repository cap were recently repaired. There was a
slough/slide recently on the hill above the Tunnel Pond Repository, due to heavy rain, causing soil and vegetation
to start obstructing the stormwater diversion ditch (see Figure H-2 in Appendix H).
Participants visited Milltown State Park, which recently opened at the MRSOU and provides water access for
recreation. Participants visited the Right Bank Repository. Participants walked along the Blackfoot River to
observe the riprap stabilizing the banks of the river. The riprap was intact. Participants walked under the Interstate
90 bridge and viewed the area where work was recently conducted on piers under the bridge (see Figure H-10 in
Appendix H). From here, the Interstate 90 Buttress was also observable (see Figure H-4 in Appendix H).
The participants visited the Bonner Development Group parcel, which was one of the Site's borrow areas. The
parcel was recently transferred to the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department. The area appeared to have
established vegetation. Vegetation was also established along the Clark Fork River southwest of the parcel.
CFROU
Participants for the CFROU site inspection included Ken Champagne (EPA RPM), Joel Chavez and Tim Riley
(MDEQ), Brian Bartkowiak and Bo Downing (Montana Natural Resource Damage Program), Jeffrey Johnson
(National Park Service at Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site), Don Booth (PRP contractor) and Treat
Suomi (Skeo).
The inspection began immediately north of the town of Warm Springs below the Warm Springs Ponds at the
beginning of the Clark Fork River Phase 1 remediation area. The riverbanks have been remediated and are
vegetated. Participants continued throughout Reach A from Phase 1 to the Grant-Kohrs Area stopping at each of
the phase breaks along the way and observing the large area of pastureland east of the Phase 13 and 14 areas
historically irrigated by a ditch that brought water from the Clark Fork River to the area. The pastures were
vegetated with grass.
Participants observed Arrowstone Park in the town of Deer Lodge. The park is owned by the city of Deer Lodge
and leased to Powell County. The park is located in the Phase 13 and Phase 14 remediation areas. The park
includes picnic areas and a walking trail system.
The site inspection continued in Deer Lodge where residential and streambank remediation of arsenic-
contaminated areas were observed in the Trestle Area. Participants visited the Grant-Kohrs Ranch National
Historic Site where current remedial work is in progress. In various parts of Reach A, fencing meant to keep
wildlife away from newly planted vegetation has occasionally trapped wildlife, so CFROU managers have started
to adjust the OU's fencing to fence off targeted exclusion areas rather than large areas. Participants observed some
eroded riverbanks along Phase 3 where stabilization is planned (see Figure H-16 in Appendix H). Participants
observed fishermen boating on the Clark Fork River (see Figure H-32 in Appendix H).
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
MRSOU
The MRSOU remedial action continues to function as designed. The primary objectives of the remedial action are
to reduce or eliminate the groundwater arsenic plume and reduce or eliminate the threat to aquatic life below the
dam from the release of contaminated sediments. The EPA constructed Milltown's public water supply system
and provided or required permanent maintenance funding. Public and private water supply wells monitored by the
local health department during 2006 to 2014 were consistently below the drinking water standard for dissolved
arsenic; two water supply wells had total arsenic concentrations above the standard from 2006 to 2009, but there
30
-------
were no exceedances after 2009. The Milltown Dam was removed, contaminated sediments were excavated or
capped, and the Clark Fork River is flowing in the new channel with no sedimentation or erosion issues identified.
Floodplain vegetation has achieved performance standards and monitoring continues. Contaminated sediments
were excavated and placed in on-site repositories, which were then covered. The on-site repositories, Interstate 90
bank improvements, removal and re-grading of the Bypass Channel, bridge replacements and strengthening of the
Interstate 90 Bridge abutments on the Blackfoot River are completed and functioning as designed.
Arsenic concentrations in groundwater have decreased significantly since the cleanup began, but still exceed the
cleanup goal. Over the past five years, the arsenic concentration has decreased in the most highly contaminated
well; other wells have had various trends in concentration (stable, increasing or decreasing). The ROD anticipated
that the cleanup goals would be achieved about 4 to 10 years after completion of dam and sediment removal. It
has now been about nine years since construction was completed in 2012. Based on the concentration trends over
the past five years, EPA does not expect groundwater to achieve the arsenic standard within the timeframe
anticipated in the ROD. Therefore, this FYR retains the recommendation from the 2016 FYRto determine
whether additional measures are needed to reduce arsenic concentrations below the cleanup goal or if a waiver of
certain groundwater standards is appropriate under the CERCLA law.
Vegetation performance standards have been met for all areas where the PRPs retained responsibility for
revegetation. The PRPs monitor the vegetation for weed control and to ensure that the caps and stormwater
systems continue to function at the repositories and Interstate 90 buttress. The 2019 vegetation inspection
identified several items to address including weed control and reclaiming an area on the Interstate 90 buttress
affected by heavy equipment. During the September 2020 FYR site inspection, participants observed a recent
slough/slide on the hill above the Tunnel Pond Repository, due to heavy rain, causing soil and vegetation to start
obstructing the stormwater diversion ditch. The PRP completed cleanup of the stormwater ditch on November 20,
2020. Resolution for the slough/slide on the hillside is ongoing with the PRP and state.
Some institutional controls are in place to protect the remedy and to prevent exposure to contaminated
groundwater and soil. A 2017 Institutional Controls Agreement for state-owned property restricts residential use,
repository disturbance, and the installation of drinking water wells. The 2017 Institutional Controls Agreement
also prohibits disturbing the repositories. The southwestern portion of the MRSOU is not subject to the 2017 ICs
Agreement; residential use is prevented in that area by state laws prohibiting/restricting residential development
in floodways and floodplains. Most of the MRSOU is now part of Milltown State Park. The Missoula Valley
Water Quality Ordinance prohibits installing public water wells in the vicinity of the arsenic plume. Additional
institutional controls may be needed for areas of the MRSOU not included in the 2017 Institutional Controls
Agreement to restrict private well installation in the Milltown area.
CFROU
Cleanup is underway in Reach A of the CFROU. Reach B will be cleaned up after cleanup is complete in Reach
A. When completed, the remedy is expected to achieve remedial goals contained in the ROD. The EPA
determined that Reach C requires no further action. Annual monitoring has been conducted since 2010 to assess
groundwater, surface water and vegetation during and after cleanup. Additional monitoring efforts include
streambed sediments, macroinvertebrates, periphyton, nutrients and fish populations. During the September 2020
FYR site inspection, participants observed some eroded riverbanks where stabilization is planned.
Powell County's Superfund Overlay District restricts installation of wells and requires permits for land use
changes. Institutional controls are needed for segments of the CFROU that are in other counties. Additional
institutional controls may also be needed; as stated in the ROD, these could include deed restrictions, permanent
funding for Arrowstone Park to ensure that it is maintained and dedicated for use as a recreational area, and
groundwater sampling and use controls.
31
-------
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and remedial action objectives used
at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
The exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and remedial action objectives used at the time of remedy
selection remain valid for both the MRSOU and the CFROU.
At the time of the 2004 RODs, the state of Montana's standards for arsenic were 18 (ig/L for surface water quality
based on human health and 20 (ig/L for groundwater as a drinking water supply. The state standards for arsenic
for surface water and groundwater are now both 10 (ig/L, matching the federal standards. This revision to the state
standards does not impact the Site's performance standards because the more stringent federal standards were
established as performance standards in the 2004 RODs. The CFROU annual monitoring reports should be
updated to include the current state standard. Other groundwater and surface water cleanup goals are based on
federal and state standards that have not become more stringent since the 2004 RODs (see Appendix I).
The MRSOU remedy may not always be able to meet the state's surface water standard for copper because copper
continues to enter the river from upstream. Therefore, the MRSOU ROD and Consent Decree stated that the
waiver of the copper standard for the CFROU will also be applied to the MRSOU surface water. The Consent
Decree also provides for the consideration of upstream contamination in determining surface water compliance.
The EPA developed risk-based soil cleanup goals for arsenic in the CFROU in its 1998 Human Health Risk
Assessment. These cleanup goals were assessed by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in its
2001 Human Health Risk Assessment Addendum for Recreational Visitors at Arrowstone Park. The EPA's
toxicity data for arsenic were last updated in 1991 (for non-cancer effects) and 1995 (for cancer effects).
Therefore, the arsenic soil cleanup goals are still valid because arsenic's toxicity values have not changed since
the EPA issued the ROD. Land use in affected areas has not changed in such a way as to affect the exposure
assumptions applied in the development of these site-specific cleanup goals.
QUESTION C : Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the
remedy?
No other information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy.
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS
Issues/Recommendations
()l (s) without Issiies/kocoiiiiiKMHlations Identified in (ho l-'Yk:
None
32
-------
Issues and Recommendations IclentiI'iod in (ho IM<:
OU:
OU2 (MRSOU)
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: Arsenic concentrations in groundwater have decreased significantly since
the cleanup began, but still exceed the cleanup goal.
Recommendation: Determine whether additional measures are needed to reduce
arsenic groundwater concentrations below the cleanup goal or if a Technical
Impracticability ARAR waiver is warranted.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA/State
EPA/State
9/30/2023
OU:
OU2 (MRSOU),
OU3 (CFROU)
Issue Category: fnstitutionaf Controls
Issue: Additional institutional controls may need to be implemented to protect the
remedy and to prevent exposure to contaminated groundwater and soil.
Recommendation: Consider what additional institutional controls are needed and
implement them (for example, to restrict installation of private wells in the
Milltown area and to control groundwater and land use in segments of the Clark
Fork River that are in counties other than Powell County).
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
PRP, State
EPA/State
9/30/2023
OTHER FINDINGS
Two additional recommendations were identified during the FYR. These recommendations do not affect current
and/or future protectiveness.
The 2019 vegetation inspection and 2020 FYR site inspection identified several items to address
including weed control, reclaiming an area on the Interstate 90 buttress affected by heavy equipment,
addressing the slide above the Tunnel Pond Repository, and streambank stabilization.
Consider providing more communication on the status of the CFROU cleanup and the remedial strategy
to determine the order of the proposed cleanup actions.
The CFROU annual monitoring reports should be updated to include the current state standard for arsenic
in surface water and groundwater.
33
-------
VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENTS
Protectiveness Statement
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination:
2 (MRSOU) Short-term Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy at MRSOU (OU2) currently protects human health and the environment because potential
exposure to contaminated groundwater, surface water and sediment is controlled. For the remedy to be
protective over the long term, the following actions need to be taken:
Determine whether additional measures are needed to reduce arsenic groundwater
concentrations below the cleanup goal or if a Technical Impracticability ARAR waiver is
warranted
Consider what additional institutional controls are needed and implement them (for example,
to restrict installation of private wells in the Milltown area).
Protectiveness Statement
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination:
3 (CFROU) Will be Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy at CFROU (OU3) is expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon
completion of the remedial action. In the interim, remedial actions completed to date have controlled
exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks.
VIII. NEXT REVIEW
The next FYR Report for the Milltown Reservoir Sediments Superfund site is required five years from the
completion date of this review.
34
-------
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST
Record of Decision: Clark Fork River Operable Unit of the Milltown Reservoir/Clark Fork River Superfund Site.
EPA Region 8. April 2004. https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/08/497064
Record of Decision: Milltown Reservoir Sediments Operable Unit of the Milltown Reservoir/Clark Fork River
Superfund Site. EPA Region 8. December 2004. https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/08/1097885
Missoula Valley Water Quality Ordinance. Missoula County. 13.26.090: Protection of water supply wells.
http://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1033#PublicServices 13 26 090
Powell County Zoning and Development Regulations. Chapter VI, Section VI-F (Superfund Overlay District).
January 7, 2009. http://www.powellcountvmt.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2019/03/ZoneDevRegs20170203 1486156447.pdf
Domestic Public Health and Early Warning Well Final Monitoring Report: Milltown Reservoir Operable Unit.
Submitted to EPA and MDEQ by Missoula City-County Health Department Water Quality District. September
2014.
Explanation of Significant Differences: Clark Fork River Operable Unit (OU #3), Milltown Reservoir/Clark Fork
River Superfund Site. EPA Region 8. June 2015.
Second Five-Year Review Report for the Milltown Reservoir/Clark Fork River Superfund Site. EPA Region 8.
September 29, 2016. https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/08/1551844
Institutional Controls Agreement. Book 984, Page 482. Missoula County Clerk and Recorder. Recorded August 9,
2017.
Remedial Action Construction Completion Report: Milltown Reservoir Sediments Site. Prepared by Envirocon.
December 5, 2018.
2015-2019 Monitoring and Maintenance Annual Reports: Milltown Reservoir Sediments Operable Unit. Prepared
by Envirocon. Annually from March 2016 through March 2020.
Dissolved Arsenic Concentrations in Groundwater. RESPEC. June 2020.
Monitoring Reports for 2015-2019: Clark Fork River Operable Unit. Prepared for MDEQ and EPA by RESPEC.
Annually from December 2016 through July 2020.
Tunnel Pond Monitoring, Milltown Montana, July 2020 Survey Report. DJ&A, P.C. August 12, 2020.
A-l
-------
APPENDIX B - SITE CHRONOLOGY
Table B-l: Site Chronology
I.mmH
D.ile
Local public health authorities discovered arsenic contamination in
1981
drinking water wells in Milltown, Montana
EPA added the Site to the NPL
September 8, 1983
EPA issued interim ROD for OU1, requiring construction of a deep well
April 14, 1984
and water tank to serve as an alternative water supply for Milltown
residents. This ROD was amended in 1985.
Remedial action construction for OU1 completed
1986
ARCO prepared major portions of the final CFROU RI/FS. RI/FS work
continued for several years after 1987, including the preparation of a
baseline human health and ecological risk assessment.
1987
EPA issued an Administrative Order on Consent to ARCO to conduct the
1991
RI/FS for MRSOU
MRSOU RI and baseline human health, ecological and continued release
September 16, 1993
risk assessments completed
PRPs complete RI Report for MRSOU
February 15, 1995
Draft FS for MRSOU groundwater released by ARCO. The same year,
unforeseen climatic conditions caused ice scour event, which sent high
1996
levels of metals contamination down river; EPA expanded FS scope and
conducted further risk assessments.
EPA issued a time-critical removal action memorandum and a Unilateral
2000
Administrative Order to ARCO to address immediate human health risks
for residents of Eastside Road in Deer Lodge.
EPA issued CFROU ROD
April 29, 2004
MRSOU RI/FS completed; EPA issued MRSOU ROD
December 15, 2004
Consent Decree for PRP performance of MRSOU remedy and O&M
entered by federal court; this includes requirements for PRP continued
funding of water supply O&M activities. The Consent Decree also
August 2005
provided for the performance of natural resource damage actions by the
state of Montana at the MRSOU, some of which are intended to fulfill
remedial action requirements.
Remedial action at MRSOU began
February 15, 2006
Initial reservoir drawdown (Stage 1) and start of MRSOU remedial
June 1, 2006
action
Consent Decree for PRP cashout of CFROU remedy and O&M entered
August 21, 2008
by federal court. This provided for the performance of the CFROU
remedy and O&M by the MDEQ using the cashout money, and funding
and performance of natural resource damage actions by the state of
Montana Natural Resource Damage program.
EPA approved Draft Repository O&M Plan and changes to the Remedial
Action Monitoring Plan for MRSOU
March 2010
MDEQ conducted cleanup of CFROU irrigated land, Deer Lodge
residential area, and Trestle area
2010 to 2011
Transfer of reservoir property to state of Montana
December 2010
Clark Fork River bypass channel removal began
December 2010
EPA completed first FYR for MRSOU
September 2011
MRSOU remedial action construction activities were significantly
June 2012
completed
MDEQ conducted cleanup at Eastside Road pasture areas (adjacent to
Phases 12 and 13)
2012 and 2015
MDEQ conducted cleanup at CFROU Reach A, Phase 1
March 2013 to April 2014
MDEQ conducted cleanup at CFROU Phase 5 and 6
July 2014 to 2016
B-l
-------
r.\cn(
D.ile
EPA and MDEQ released Explanation of Significant Differences for
CFROU
June 12, 2015
MDEQ conducted cleanup at CFROU Phase 2
June 2015 to Fall 2016
EPA completed second FYR
September 29, 2016
Institutional Controls Agreement recorded for property owned by state of
Montana at MRSOU
August 9, 2017
Remedial Action Construction Completion Report completed for
MRSOU
December 5, 2018
MDEQ began cleanup at Phases 15 and 16 (part of Grant-Kohrs Ranch
National Historic Site)
2019
B-2
-------
APPENDIX C - ADDITIONAL MAPS
Figure C-l: MRSOU Sediment Accumulation Areas7
PART 1: DECLARATION
Approximate Sediment
Accumulation Area Boundary
Sediment Pore Water Arsenic
>0 1 mg/L (Approximate
Source Sediment Area
for alluvial aquifer 0.02 mg/L
arsenic plume)
SOURCE ARCO Remedial Study, 2001
EXHIBIT 1-2
Key Sediment Accumulation Areas
7 Source: December 2004 ROD
C-l
-------
Figure C-2: MRSOU Cleanup Plan8
PART 2, DECISION SUMMARY. SECTION 12SELECTED REMEC
SAA III Sediments
Behind Cofferdam
To be removed
with dam spillway
Permit excava
to be hauled on
Borrow Area
Tunnel Pond Area
May be used as a disposal
area for debris and SAA III
sediments generated by
dam removal
Earthen Berm
Prevents protected
lower CFR
sediments from
slumping into river
Milltown Dam
To be removed
Cofferdam
Permits spillway
removal in the dry
1-90 Grade Control
paiHEm
SAA I Sediments To Be Removed
After contaminated sediments
are removed, SAA I will be
backfilled and new river
ctiannels/floodplains constructed
Refurbished
Rail Spurs
New
sxcavated
ted sediments
existing rail line
Borrow Area
Armored Embankment
Isolates sediments from the CFR during
excavation/construction activities
3
Bypass Channel
Carries the CFR flow
during excavation/
construction activities
Topaoil Salvage
SAA I sediment
surface material may be
salvaged to provide growth
media for project area
reclamation
Diversion Dike
Protects sediments in
downstream portion of
existing CFR channel
from scour by routing CFR
flow throught bypass channel
Will be used to
haul sediments to
Opportunity Ponds
for disposal
Will be excavated to
provide backfill material,
reclaimed for existing trees
Note:
Removal process and detailed volumes
will be determined during remedial design.
TMG
TW
DGB
^ 11-23-04
imueonw numr** ซ>**
ir*ma>rorwcMK
1
EXHIBIT 2-31
Conceptual Model of Remedial
Cleanup Plan
Amended from
e/vVirocom
101 INTERNATIONAL WAY
MISSOULA. MONTANA 59606
Source: December 2004 ROD
C-2
-------
APPENDIX D - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
Figure D-l: Missoula Valley Water Quality Ordinance
Title 13.26
MISSOULA VALLEY WATER QUALITY ORDINANCE
Sections
1S?jUj)0 ^rtWte-^PDlicaim ComrucBon.
-ฆ(*'.lit-it j; it 111^5^
13,2S..M0. EjjulmoteMennimmiiMsgisflte,
13.28.050 Pollution prevention: permi.
13.26.060 Facility closure permit.
ia.25,100 Varianses.
13.26.120 Enforcement
1328 140 f'""1 wr>ta>|B&
13.20,150 Severability.
13.26.010 Short title Applicability- Construction This Ordinance shall be known as the "Missoula Valley Water
Quality Ordinance." It is intended to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of those utilizing the Missoula
Valley Aquifer and surface waters in the Missoula Valley for drinking water, recreation and.other beneficial uses. The
provisions of the Ordinance are deemed to be a health ordinance and shall be effective within the City of Missoula and all
places within five mites outside the city limits that are within the boundary of the Missoula Valley Water Quality District
pursuant to ง7-4-4306 MCA (1993). This Ordinance establishes prohibitions and restrictions to prevent surface water and
groundwater contamination, and to protect public health, safety and welfare. This Ordinance shall be broadly construed to
effect its purposes. Nothing in this Ordinance shall relieve a person from, the requirements of any other federal, state, or
local law. If any provision of this Ordinance duplicates any local, state or federal statute or regulation, the local, state or
federal statute or regulation shall govern However, if the requirements of this Ordinance are more stringent than the
requirements of the local, state or federal statute or regulation, the requirements of this Ordinance shall govern. (Ord
3154, 2000, Ord. 2906 (part) 1994).
13.26.020 Legislative intent and purpose. In order to protect She Missoula Valley's sole source of drinking water and
surface waters in the Missoula Valley and to secure and promote the general public health safety and welfare, the
Missoula City Council declares that:
A The improper storage, handling, use, transport, production or disposal of certain substances in the Missouia Valley
is potentially harmful to the quality of water in the Missoula Valley and to drinking water obtained by the use of private and
public supply wells, and that certain activities involving the use of certain substances should be managed to prevent water
contamination.
B. Affirmative measures to prevent water pollution are the most effective means available to protect water quality.
C. In order to effectively protect surface and groundwater, local authority is needed to require pollution prevention
measures at facilities which handle significant quantities of certain substances, and to prohibit and deter activities which
pose threats to the quality of the Missoula Valley Aquifer.
D The construction, development and use of new public water supply wells in proximity to existing sources of
contamination is potentially harmful to the quality of drinking water obtained from such wells. The location of identified
contaminant sources which pose serous threats of contamination should also be prohibited in proximity to public drinking
water wells, in orderto minimize the risk of contamination. (Ord. 3492, 2013; Ord. 3154, 2000; Ord. 2906 (part). 1994).
13.26.030 Definitions. For put poses of this Ordinance, the follow rig terms have the following meanings unless the
context clearly indicates otherwise;
1, Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) - Any one or combination of tanks that is used to contain an accumulation of
Regulated Substance arid the volume of which is more than 90% above the surface of the ground.
2, Anti-Icing- Anti-icing means the application of a dewer before or during a storm event for the purpose of preventing ice
and snow accumulation on the roadway.
D-l
-------
3. Aquifer - A water-bearing, subsurface formation capable of yielding sufficient quantities of water for beneficial use.
4. Aquifer Protection Area - The areas within the City of Missoula and within five miles outside the Missoula city limits
which are within the boundaries of the Missoula Valley Water Quality District.
5. Board - The Board of Directors of the Missoula Valley Water Quality District.
6. Bulk Petroleum Storage Facility A facility used for storage of petroleum products for marketing or wholesale
distribution that has a total bulk storage capacity of 50,000 gallons or more.
7. Carbon Absorption/Evaporation Technology: A treatment technology for perchloroethylene contaminated wastewater
which removes perchloroethylene or other chlorinated solvents from a water-solvent mixture using carbon absorption
and evaporates the remaining water
8. Chemical Manufacturing Facility - A facility having a Standard Industry Class Code (SIC Code) between 2800 and
2899 which handles Regulated Substances in an amount equal to or greater than threshold quantities.
9. Class II Landfill - An area of land or an excavation, as defined in Montana Administrative Rules A.R.M, 17.50.504,
where group II or group 111 wastes are placed for permanent disposal, and that is not a land application unit, surface
impoundment, injection well, or waste pile. Group II and III wastes are defined in Montana Administrative Rules,
A.R.M. 17.50.503.
10. Class III landfill - An area of land or an excavation, as defined in Montana Administrative Rules A.R.M. 17.50.504,
where group III wastes are placed for permanent disposal, and that is not a land application unit, surface
impoundment, injection well, or waste pile. Group III wastes are defined in Montana Administrative Rules, AR M,
17.50.503.
11 Closure Permit - A permit issued by the Department in accordance with section 13.28.080 of this Ordinance when a
facility is permanently closed, or has been abandoned for one year,
12. Community Water System - Any public water supply system, as defined in A.R.M 17.38.101. which serves at least ten
service connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents.
13. Component - Any constituent part of a unit or any group of constituent parts of a unit which are assembled to perform
a specific function.
14. Contamination - The presence of any substance (chemical, radiological, or biological) or any condition (temperature,
pH taste, color, odor, turbidity) in soil or water which may create orthreaten to create a hazard to human health or the
environment, or impair the usefulness of the soil or water.
15. Department - The Missoula Valley Vteter Quality District.
16. Dry Cleaning Establishment - Any facility that uses a transfer machine, dry-to-dry vented unit, or dry-to-dry closed loop
unit with one or more of the following solvents to clean clothing or other materials: perchloroethylene;
trichlorotrifteuroetharte (CFC-113). CFC-11. Stoddard solvent: 1.1.1-Trichloro ethane: HCFC 14 lb.: HCFC-123 lb.; and
HCFC-225 ib.
17. Dry-to-Dry machine: A machine that can wash and dry garments without transferring them and potentially emit
chlorinated solvent to the atmosphere.
18. EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency.
19. Facility - An area, building or buildings, appurtenant structures or surrounding land area used by a person,
20. Fleet - More than 5 vehicles or locomotives.
21. Fueling Facility - A facility that dispenses petroleum products for commercial sale, public use, or for fleet vehicle
operation excluding bulk petroleum storage facilities and farm and residential tanks of 1100 gallons or less capacity
used for storing motor fuel for rron commercial purposes.
22. Future Wellhead Reservation Area - The surface area overlying a portion of the Missoula Valley Aquifer which,
because of aquifer recharge, groundwater flow and potential sources of contamination, should be protected against
contamination to assure high quality groundwater for future generations.
D-2
-------
23. Grass Infiltration Swale - A vegetative-lined infiltration cell designed and constructed in accordance with Department
standards to collect and treat contaminants in storm water runoff.
24. Groundwater - Water that fills the interconnected spaces of material below the water table {upper limit of saturation),
or water which is held in the unsaturated zone by capillary action.
25. Handle - To use. generate, process, produce, package, treat store, emit, discharge or dispose of a Regulated
Substance, excluding {a) handling during continuous non-stop transit, (b) transit via pipeline, and (c) handling of
parcels and packages by the United States Postal Service, motor freight companies, and private delivery services
26. Hazardous Waste ฆ A hazardous waste as defined pursuant to section 1004(5) of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. 6903(5), as amended, including a substance listed or identified in 40 CFR 261.
27. Hazardous Waste Management Facility - All contiguous land, and structures, other appurtenances, and improvements
on the land used for treating, storing, or disposing of a hazardous waste, and that are required under Montana
Hazardous Waste Administrative Rules, ARM 17 54.105, to have a hazardous waste management permit. A
Hazardous Waste Management Facility may consist of several treatment, storage, or disposal operational units.
23 Independent Certified Laboratory: A laboratory outside the control of the person requesting approval from the
Department that is certified by the EPA or other appropriate certifying agency to complete testing.
29 Industrial or Commercial Injection Well - A well or septic system that receives industrial or commercial wastes from a
public or private facility, excluding wells or septic systems used solely for storm water discharge, sanitary waste
discharge and/or discharge or extraction of non-contact heating and cooling system water.
30. Missoula Valley Aquifer - The aquifer underlying the Missoula Valley which supplies the area with water
31. New - Constructed, installed or brought into operation after the effective date of this Ordinance.
32. Noncomplying Activity - An activity involving the handling of a Regulated Substance in an amount equal to or greater
than its threshold quantity within a Future Wellhead Reservation Area.
33. Non-transient Non-community water system - Any public water supply system as defined in A R M. 17.38,202 that is
not a community water system and that regularly sejves at least 25 of the same persons over six months per year
34. Perchloroethylene (C2CL4) - A colorless liquid used as a dry cleaning fluid; general degreaser of metals; solvent for
waxes, fats, oils, and gums; constituent of printing inks and paint removers. Synonyms include, Tetrachloroethylene,
Tetrachloroethene, PCE, PERC
35. Person - Any natural person, individual, public or private corporation, firm, association, joint venture, partnership,
municipality, governmental agency, political subdivision, public officer or any other entity whatsoever or any
combination of such, jointly or severally.
38, Piping Manifold - The area(s) of a piping system fitted with apertures for making multiple connections
37. Pollution Prevention Permit - A permit required of a person who owns, operates or controls a facility that handles any
Regulated Substance in an amount equal to or greater than four times its threshold quantity. Pollution Prevention
Permits are issued by the Department in accordance with section 13.26,050 of this Ordinance.
38. Primary Container - A container which comes into immediate contact with a Regulated Substance.
39, Public Sewage Disposal System - A system, as defined in ง75-6-102(11) MCA, for collection, transportation, treatment
or disposal of sewage that is designed to serve or serves ten or more families or 25 or more persons daily for a period
of at least 60 days out of the calendar year.
40, Public WSater Supply System - A system, as defined m ง75-6-102(12) MCA, for the provision of water for human
consumption from any community well, water hauler for cisterns, water bottling plant, water dispenser, or other water
supply that is designed to serve or serves 10 or more families or 25 or more persons daily or has at least 10 service
connections at least 60 days out of the calendar year.
41 Reasonably Achievable Limit. A pollutant limit that is determined on a case by case basis to be reasonably achievable
taking into account environmental, economic, and other factors and costs.
42 Refrigerator Condenser: A vapor recovery system into which an air-chlorinated solvent vapor stream is routed
and the chlorinated solvent is condensed by cooling the gas-vapor stream.
D-3
-------
43. Regulated Substance - Any liquid substance, semi-liquid substance, or soluble solid on the most current Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA),, Title III List of Lists published by the Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmenta! Protection Agency, Washington D.C., any petroleum product, any hazardous
waste, or any other substances that the Board determines, following public review, may threaten contamination of the
Missoula Valley Aquifer, excluding substances used for personal household use. The Board may, following public
review and comment, remove a substance from the list of Regulated Substances,
44. Release - Any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching,
dumping, or disposing of a regulated substance into the environment (including the past release of a regulated
substance), but excluding (a) releases contained in a secondary containment area or the indoor work place provided
the release does not exit the indoor work place, (b) the use of pesticides and fertilizers as defined in ง80-8-102(30)
MCA and ง80-8-102(2) MCA when they are applied in accordance with approved federal and state labels, and (c) any
discharge permitted by a local, state, or federal agency,
45. Replacement - Replacement or replace shall mean:
a Replacing, repairing, upgrading or improving a facility at a cost which equals or exceeds 50% of the value of the
facility at the time of such act.
b. Replacing a component or more than 50% of a component of a facility.
c. Reoccupation of a facility, reuse of a component at a facility, or restarting an activity which has been out of service or
not practiced for a period of one year.
46. Secondary Containment - Containment external to and separate from the primary container adequate to prevent the
release of Regulated Substances to native soil, surface water, or groundwater. The secondary containment structure
or cell must:
a. be non-reactive and resistant to the materials contained
b. prevent infiltration of any Regulated Substance into the ground in the event of a release from the primary storage
container:
c. isolate the Regulated Substance from soils, injection wells, floor drains, or any other potential surface and
groundwater entry point: and
d. contain at least 110% of the volume of the largest container, or 10% of the aggregate volume of all containers,
whichever is greater:
A covered building or structure may fulfill the secondary containment requirements of this Ordinance, provided the
building or structure has an impermeable floor and walls and the release of a Regulated Substance would remain in
the building or structure.
47. Soluble Solid - A solid that exists in a powder form and has a particle size less than 100 microns, is handled in solution
or molten form, or meets the criteria for a National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) rating of 2, 3. or 4 for reactivity.
48. Storm Water Injection Well - A structure, pit or hole that primarily receives storm water runoff from paved areas,
including, but not limited to, parking lots, streets, residential subdivisions, and highways.
49. Tank - Stationary device designed to contain an accumulation of substances and constructed of non-earthen materials
(e.g. concrete, steel, plastic) that provide structural support.
50. Tank Fueling Area - The area surrounding the above or underground storage tanks subject to releases of petroleum
products during tank fueling, including the area surrounding the tanker truck during fueling.
51 Threshold Quantity - The following quantities of Regulated Substances (excluding products in vehicle fuel tanks,
aerosol spray cans, products used for research at educational institution laboratories, and substances sold for retail in
a container equal to or less than 5 gallons capacity) handled at a facility at arty one time, regardless of location,
number of containers, or method of storage, shall constitute the Threshold Quantity.
a. For those Regulated Substances specifically listed in the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
Title III List of Lists and for those Regulated Substances which are listed hazardous waste defined pursuant to 40
CFR Part 261, as amended, the threshold quantity shall be the reportable quantity published in the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). 40 CFR 302, Table 302.4 or
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Section 355, Appendix A.
b. For those Regulated Substances that are characteristic hazardous wastes defined pursuant to 40 CFR Part 261. as
amended, the threshold quantity shall be based on the substance contained in the waste with the lowest threshold
quantity.
D-4
-------
c. For those Regulated Substances not listed in the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Title III List of
Lists, and for those Regulated Substances that are not a hazardous waste, the following quantities of qualifying
substances at a facility at any one time shall constitute a Threshold Quantity
(i) Waste oil - 1000 pounds or 100 gallons,
{lij Gasoline - 250 pounds or 25 gallons
(III) Diesel/Jet Fuel/Kerosene - 500 pounds or 50 gallons
(iv) New Motor Oil - 2,000 pounds or 200 gallons
d. For those substances that are mixtures of one or mora Regulated Substance, the threshold quantity shall be based
on the substance contained in the mixture with the lowest threshold quantity.
Threshold Quantities of substances may be established or revised by the Board, following public review and
comment,
52. Transfer Dry Cleaning Machine: A machine unable to both wash and dry garments, which emits chlorinated
solvent to the atmosphere during transfer.
53. Underground Storage Tank (UST) - Any one or combination of tanks as defined in MCA 75-10-403.
54. Vehicle Fueling Area - The area surrounding a fuel island or dispenser(s) subject to releases of petroleum products
during vehicle fueling, including a 3 foot release collection buffer zone extending beyond the lanes of traffic next to the
fuel islands or dispenserfs).
55. Waste Oil - Oil that has been refined from crude oil. or any synthetic oil, that has been used and as a result of such
use is contaminated by physical or chemical impurities,
56. Well - A structure, pit or hole sunk into the earth to reach a resource supply such as water
57. Wellhead - The physical structure or device at the land surface surrounding a well, from or through which groundwater
flows or is pumped from an aquifer, ,
{Ord. 3492, 2013; Ord. 3154, 2000; Ord, 2906 (part), 1994)
13.26.040 Pollution prevention requirements
A. No product shall be distributed, sold, offered, or exposed for sale within the aquifer protection area if it contains
Perchlomethylene in any quantity. Those products containing Perchloroethylene used at dry cleaning establishments
and educational institution research laboratories are exempt from this provision of the Ordinance, provided the person
who owns, operates, or controls such facility obtains a pollution prevention permit from the Department regardless of
the quantity of Perchloroethylene handled at the facility.
B A person who owns, operates or controls a facility which handles Regulated Substances in an amount equal to or
greater than the threshold quantities must submit an inventory and quantity of those Regulated Substances to the
Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) every year.
C, A person who owns, operates or controls a new or replacement fueling facility must;
1. install and maintain an awning or canopy that prevents precipitation from falling on the vehicle fueling area(s) if
surface releases of fuel from the vehicle fueling area could discharge to a storm water injection well; and
2. design and install a storm water collection system for the facility which shall:
i) prevent the flow of fuel releases in the tank Fueling area and vehicle fueling area from discharging directly to a
storm water injection well; and
ii) collect and discharge storm water from areas outside of the tank fueling area and vehicle fueling area to a
grass Infiltration swale or otherwise provide for such storm water to be handled in a manner to reduce the
potential for water contamination.
3. The storm water collection design must be approved by the Department and permitted by the City of Missoula
Public Works and Development Services prior to facility construction. The person owning, operating, or controlling
the facility must maintain any grass infiltration swale and any other approved device used to prevent releases in
the vehicle and tank fueling areas from discharging to a storm water injection well. The facility shall keep records
of maintenance of the device at the facility to be viewed during Department inspections.
D-5
-------
D. A person who owns, operates or controls a fueling facility where surface releases of fuel from the vehicle or tank fueling
area may discharge to a storm water injection well shall provide the following physical and procedural measures to
prevent fuel.releases:
1. breakaway hoses and nozzles shall be installed on all dispensers;
2. emergency response equipment shall be kept on site to be used in the event of a release, including absorbent
materials and spill containment covers for each storm water injection well which may receive discharge from a
surface release; and
3. An employee trained on how to respond to a release must be on site at all times during facility operation, except as
provided in (a).
(a) A fueling Facility that provides 24-hour public access to fuel through a remote card-lock system is exempt
from the requirement to have a trained employee on site at all times during facility operation if it provides the
following:
(1) Automatic pump shut of when 50 gallons of gasoline or 250 gallons of diesel fuel have been
dispensed,
(2) Emergency phone access.
(3) Signs posted to instruct public to call 9-1-1 In the event of a fuel release.
4 In addition to the above procedural and physical requirements, a person who owns, operates, or controls an
existing fueling facility shall incorporate a release prevention section within the pollution prevention plan required
under section 13.26.050 (B) of this Ordinance. The release prevention section of the plan shall describe the steps
or methods that will be taken to prevent fuel released at the tank and/or vehicle fueling areas from reaching a storm
water injection well. The release prevention plan must be approved by the Department, Physical alterations or
procedural changes required as a condition of the Department's approval must be completed or instituted within
one year of the Department's approval.
E, A facility that handles a total quantity of any Regulated Substance in an amount equal to or greater than four times its
threshold quantity must obtain a Pollution Prevention Permit, pursuant to section 13,26,050 of this Ordinance.
f, A person who owns, operates or controls a facility at which a Regulated Substance (excluding petroleum products in
underground storage tanks, in vehicle fuel tanks, at bulk petroleum storage facilities, and Regulated Substances sold
for retail in a container equal to or less than 5 gallons capacity) equal to or greater than the threshold quantity is
handled on the effective date of this Ordinance shall provide secondary containment for that substance. A person who
owns, operates, or controls a new facility at which a Regulated Substance (excluding petroleum products in
underground storage tanks, tn vehicle Fuel tanks, at bulk petroleum storage facilities, and Regulated Substances sold
for retail in a container equal to or less than 5 gallons capacity) equal to or greater than the threshold quantity is
handled after the effective date of this Ordinance must obtain Department approval of their plan for secondary
containment prior to obtaining a building permit or first handling a Regulated Substance in an amount equal to or
greater than its threshold quantity, whichever occurs first,
G. A person who owns, operates, or controls a facility at which a Regulated Substance equal to or greater than its
threshold quantity is stored in any new or replacement underground storage tank system shall equip that system with
double walled product piping, secondary containment of ail ancillary equipment from the tank to the dispenser(s), tank
release detection systems, and leak detectors on pressurized piping. Tank system design must be approved by the
Department prior to obtaining a building permit. Such systems shall, at a minimum, meet the requirements described
in A R M 17.58.403 of the Montana Underground Storage Tank Regulations, as amended.
H. No person shall construct or operate an industrial commercial injection well at a new or existing facility unless said
person obtains an Underground Injection Control Permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the
Department, A person may be granted a permit from the Department or EPA if the owner, operator or controller
demonstrates to the Department or EPA that the process wastewater does not contain a Regulated Substance at a
concentration equal to or above its ERA primary maximum contaminant level for drinking water. EPA health advisory
level, or the standard proposed in the Montana Numeric Water Quality Standards, (Circular WQB-7), whichever is
lower, and the potential for water contamination is reduced by such other measures as the Department or EPA may
require.
I, A person who owns, operates, or controls a bulk petroleum storage facility shall:
1 During new or replacement construction, install all new or replacement piping aboveground:
2. Perform annual release response training exercises simulating the actions that will be taken during a release of fuel
at the facility;
3. Have a person trained in the proper filling of aboveground tanks at the facility during tank filling operations, or
establish a monitoring system capable of detecting and alerting local emergency personnel of a release during
tank filling operations in such a manner to prevent the contamination of the Missoula Valley Aquifer, The
monitoring system shall at a minimum include vapor monitors located at any valve and piping manifold that
controls the flow of fuel to the tanks and from the tanks to the dispensers, and overfill alarms on any aboveground
D-6
-------
product fuel storage tank. The monitoring system must be staffed during tank filling operations. Any proposed
monitoring system must be approved by the Depart merit;
4. Conduct annual integrity and leak testing of below grade metal fuel product piping to a pressure of one and a half
times the operational pressure;
5. Cathodically protect buried metal piping and the bottom of above ground tanks in accordance with guidelines
contained in American Petroleum Institute (API) 651:
6. On or before January 1, 1996, and every Five years thereafter, prepare a Contingency Plan outlining how personnel
are to respond to a release of fuel at the facility. The plan shall also address alternative technologies which may
prevent fuel from contaminating the Missoula Valley Aquifer, such as:
a. installation of impermeable barriers or liners to prevent the vertical migration of released fuel to the aquifer
b grading of the secondary containment area to common drainage channels or sumps equipped with dedicated
pumps that can be activated to pumpfuel from the containment area in the event of a large release;
c. installation of vapor monitoring devices at piping manifolds and valves to alert personnel of a release;
d installation of vapor monitoring wells within a secondary containment area of the aboveground tanks to be used
to recover released fuel before it reaches the underlying aquifer.
e. installation of a dedicated recovery tank outside a secondary containment area of the aboveground tanks that
can be used to recover released fuel; or
f, excavation of contaminated soils immediately after a release occurs.
The Contingency Plan must be approved by the Department, and all physical or procedural changes required as a
condition of the Departments approval of the Contingency Plan, shall be completed or instituted wrthin two years
of the Department's approval:
7. On or before January 1, 1998, and every 10 years thereafter, test the integrity of the shell of each aboveground
tank in accordance with American Petroleum Institute (API) 653;
8. Install containment devices to prevent a surface release of fuel at the vehicle fueling area from discharging directly
to a storm water injection well, or surface waters;
9. Secondarily contain all aboveground piping manifolds: and
10. On or before January 1, 2000, and every 10 years thereafter, test the integrity of the bottom of each aboveground
tank in accordance wtth American Petroleum Institute (API) 653. The frequency of integrity testing of the bottom of
each tank may be extended by the Department provided that the owner, operator, or controller of the bulk
petroleum storage facility proposes an extended frequency in accordance with American Petroleum Institute (API)
653, the proposal is received by the Department within two years of the adoption of this Ordinance, and the
Department approves of the change in frequency of testing.
J, A person who owns, operates or controls a facility on which a public or private water well or monitoring well is
abandoned after the effective date of this Ordinance shall ensure that the well is abandoned in compliance with the
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Board of Water Well Contractor Regulations, ARM
ง36.21.669 through ง38.21.679 and ง36 21810
K No person shall construct or operate a new or replacement facility which handles a Regulated Substance in a quantity
equal to or greater than its threshold quantity within the Future Wellhead Reservation Area comprised of all land within
township 13N, range 19W, sections 27 and 34, all land south of the Clark Fork River within township 13N, range 19W,
section 22, and all land within the northwest and northeast quarter sections of township 13N, range 19W, section 4 of
Montana Meridian, Missoula County, Missoula, Montana.
L Existing facilities within the Future Wellhead Reservation Area defined in section 13.26.050 (K) of this Ordinance may
continue to operate, subject to all the conditions of section 13.26.050 and the following:
1. Any activity involving the handling of a Regulated Substance in an amount equal to or greater than its threshold
quantity shall be a noncomplying activity.
2. Any noncomplying activity that is discontinued, abandoned or ceases for a period of twelve consecutive months
may not be resumed,
3. A noncomplying activity may not be enlarged, expanded, or altered so as to substantially increase the risk of soil or
groundwater contamination. Any enlargement, expansion or increase in a noncomplying activity must be
approved by the Department in writing, prior to activity commencement.
4. In the event a facility which houses a noncomplying activity is destroyed or damaged by any means to an extent
that the cost to repair or replace the facility equals 50% of the value of the facility at the time of such act. the
activity shall not be resumed or continued
M In addition to any other applicable federal or state law and regulation, the following pollution prevention measures shall
apply to dry cleaning facilities:
1, After October 19, 2000. wastewater generated from dry cleaning machines and vacuum presses that use
perchloroethylene and other chlorinated solvents shall not be discharged to any sewer system. Dry cleaning
facilities which use perchloroethylene or other chlorinated dry-cleaning solvents shall either a) treat their
wastewater from dry-cleaning machines and vacuum presses on site using carbon absorption/evaporation or an
equivalent technology, or b) properly dispose of the wastewater as a hazardous waste
D-7
-------
2. After June 19, 2000, all new or replacement_dry cleaning machines using perchloroethylene or other chlorinated
solvents shall be dry-to-dry machines and be equipped with integral refrigerated condensers or an equivalent,
3. After June 19, 2001, no dry cleaning facility shall include operation of a transfer dry cleaning machine using
perchloroethylene.
DEICER SPECIFICATIONS
A GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1, A person applying a deicer on streets and highways within the City of Missoula and all places within five miles
outside the city limits must comply with the requirements of this section, which are intended to ensure compliance
with the drinking water or aquatic life standards for parameters listed in Table 1 below, at the point of discharge
after 100:1 dilution with stormwater.
2. Any deicer applied within the City of Missoula and all places within five miles outside the city limits must be
analytically tested to demonstrate that its quality meets the limits shown in Table 1. Analytical testing must be
performed by the manufacturer or distributor at an independent certified laboratory using test methods approved
by the Department. It is the City's preference to use a deicer that contains the least amount of any constituents
which are not essential to the product's performance and which may cause contamination of soil or water,
including inert or proprietary ingredients.
Table 1: Constituent Limit for Deicers
Parameter
Limit (mg/kg) i
Arsenic
1Q
Barium
100
Cadmium
0.20
phromium
C2BI2SI
0,20
Lead
1.0
Mercurv
0.005
Se|ejjium
5.0
Zinc
10.0
Total Cvanjde
Total Phosphorus
2.000
Total Nitroqen
1.000 / 500 2
Eh
e,g-9P
Pesticides/herbicides
Based on WQB-7 Standard^
1 In most cases, the limit is based on the Montana drinking water quality or acute aquatic life standard
(WQB-7 standards), whichever is lower. The limit for nitrogen and phosphorus are set even lower because
they are believed to be reasonably achievable. A 100 to 1 dilution factor is applied for most
parameters. This factor accounts for the dilution and attenuation of deicer from the truck to the side of the
road. It was determined by comparing the chloride concentration of deicers to the chloride concentration of
storm water samples collected during runoff.
2 The allowable amount of total nitrogen for a deioer is dependent on the form of nitrogen present in the
deicer. Supplier must test for TKN, Nitrate + Nitrite as N, and Ammonia Nitrogen using methods approved
by the Department, Organic nitrogen shall equal the amount of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) minus
Ammonia Nitrogen. If 50% or more of the nitrogen present in the deicer is of the organic form, a limit of
1,000 mg/kg shall apply. If less than 50% of the nitrogen is of the organic form, a limit of 500 mg/kg shall
apply.
3 For a product that contains an agricultural by-product, the supplier shall test for any pesticide/herbicide
possibly in the deicer using test methods approved by the Department The limit will be based on MT WQB-
7 standard using a 100 to 1 dilution.
4 Liquid products shall be analyzed in the concentration they are applied to the street and directly compared
to Table 1. Solid products shall be liquefied at specifications approved by the Department prior to
analysis. In general products will be analyzed in accordance with product category test protocols
developed by the Pacific Northwest Snowfighter's Association (PNS) before being compared to Table 1.
3. The supplier of a product delivered and/or applied that is contaminated with something not specified on the Product
Checklist or contains a specified constituent at a concentration high enough to be a public health or environmental
concern, may be subject to cleanup costs for anything that came in contact with the product, including but not
limited to storage tanks, equipment, soils, and/or groundwater._
B. DEPARTMENT APPROVAL PROCESS
D-8
-------
1, Persons wanting Department approval for a deicer must submit a complete application to the Department, The
complete application must include:
a. A Department supplied Product Checklist;
b. Documentation showing that the product is on the approved PNS product list;
c. Analytical results of testing required in section (A) (2);
d. The most recent Material Safety Data Sheet for the product;
e. Proprietary chemical and physical information on the product which shall be held confidential;
f. Two one liter samples of the product for quality control testing purposes; and
g. Other relevant information that the Department may require which is obtainable by the applicant.
2, The Department shall have 30 days to review the submitted documentation and determine whether the product is
approved. Persons requesting approval shall be notified whether their product is approved within 7 days of the
Department's determination. Once a product has been approved it need not be approved again as long as the
product formulation does not change,
3, Changes to an approved product by the manufacturer or distributor which in any way makes the product different
from the original qualified product will result in removal of the product from the approved list, and may result in
cleanup costs, as per section (A) (3).
C. FIELD DELIVERY OP PRODUCTS
1. A bill of lading and invoice must accompany each shipment The bill of lading and invoice must contain the
following information;
a. Name of product;
b. Supplier and manufacturer of product
c. Destination of delivery;
d. Total number of units being delivered;
e. Total weight of delivery {certified scale, or certified micro flow meter);
f. Lot number. The lot number must enable purchaser to track a delivered product back to its manufacturing point.
date of manufacture, and specific batch;
g. Name of Transport Company, tank trailer or rail car number, point and date of origin;
h. Percent concentration and specific gravity for liquid products; and
i. Contract unit of measure, unit price delivered (invoice only), and total price for units delivered {invoice only).
2. All deicers can be subject to inspection and analysis as delivered. Purchaser shall have the option at the point of
delivery to collect a sample of the product for quality control/quality assurance purposes. No precipitate or
flocculation in liquid products shall be allowed in excess of the specification limits. Materials portraying these or
other uncharacteristic traits or found to contain constituents at concentrations above the limits shown in Table 1,
may be immediately rejected at the option of the buyer or their representative at the delivery location. Cost to
remove an unwanted product and re-supply the purchaser shall be paid by the supplier or manufacturer of the
product. The supplier or manufacturer may also be subject to cleanup costs in accordance with section (A) (3).
3. Each shipment shall be accompanied by a current and clearly legible MSDS.
4. Advance notice must be made for all deliveries. Deliveries shall be made during normal working hours (Monday
through Friday between the hours of 8.00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M.), unless otherwise requested or agreed to by the
purchaser
D. STORAGE AND FIELD APPLICATION OF DEICERS
1. Deicers stored at volumes greater than 1000 gallons or 10,000 pounds (for solids) shall be secondarily contained
(liquids) or covered (solids).
2. Where appropriate based on deicer manufacturer recommendations and/or PNS specifications, deicers stored in
tanks must be circulated to prevent settling and product stratification,
3, Deicers shall be applied in such a manner and at such a rate that pure product (liquid or solid) remains on the
roadway.
4, Deicers shall be applied using trucks equipped with ground-speed controllers Deicers applied for anti-icing
purposes prior to or during a storm event shall be applied at a rate not to exceed 30 gallons per lane mile.
Whenever snow accumulations on the road are equal or greater than 2 inches, deicers shall only be applied after
snow plowing to improve the effectiveness of a deicer and to reduce the amount applied.
5 Deicer may be applied over the entire roadway for main transportation routes identified in the Missoula Street Snow
and Ice Control Plan. Only the area in advance of intersections shall be deiced for residential neighborhood streets
and non-essential transportation routes,
6. The location and amount of deicer applied shall be tallied daily. Yearly volumes of deicer applied shall be provided
to the Department annually by June 1 of each year,
7. Any application of a non-approved deicer or a spill of deicer in an amount greater than 100 gallons or 1,000 pounds
(solid) shall be reported to the Department within 24 hours of application or release,
8. By January 1, 2001, the City of Missoula shall revise their Street Snow and Ice Control Plan to address the
following:
(a) liquid deicer application methods (use of ground-speed controllers);
D-9
-------
(b) rates of application;
(c) use of deicens with respect to the effective temperature and freezing point of the product;
(d) use of snow plows prior to deicer application; and
(e) keeping records on the amounts applied.
(Ord. 3392, 2008; Ord. 3177, 2001; Ord. 3154, 2000; Ord 2S06 (part), 1994),
13.26.050 Pollution prevention permit
A. A person who owns, operates or controls a facility at which any Regulated Substance is handled in an amount equal
to or greater than four times its threshold quantity shall apply for a Pollution Prevention Permit from the Department by the
later of (a) July 1, 1995, or(b) 60 days after the date on which the facility first handled a Regulated Substance in an
amount equal to or greater than four times its threshold quantity. New or replacement facilities which will handle a
Regulated Substance in an amount equal to or greater than four times its threshold quantity shall obtain a pollution
prevention permit prior to obtaining a building permit, facility construction or operation. The Department may order
revisions In the permit application submitted by the regulated facility to be completed within 30 days of receipt of an
administrative order issued pursuant to 13.26.120.
B. In order to obtain a pollution prevention permit, an application forthe permit accompanied by a pollution prevention
plan shall be submitted to the department for approval. The department shall supply a form that can be used for the plan. If
a facility is required by state or federal law to prepare a pollution prevention or release prevention plan, a copy of such
plan, supplemented with such other information as required by this section, shall suffice to meet the pollution prevention
plan requirement of this section. The pollution prevention plan shall contain the following:
1. A discussion of the risks posed by major water quality hazards at the facility and the steps taken to address each
of those risks, including but not limited to;
a. The quantity and toxicity of any regulated substance handled in an amount equal to or greater than four times
its threshold quantity,
b. Potential consequences of any release,
c Location of facility with respect to a water body, groundwater and conduits to groundwater,
d. Personnel training,
e. Engineering controls,
f. Emergency response plans,
g. Preventative maintenance,
h. Process safety,
i. Management structure implemented to control the risks and hazards;
2. A description of:
a. emergency equipment available at the facility to respond to a release of a regulated substance,
b written procedures describing how such equipment will be inspected and maintained, and
c. procedures to control, mitigate andfor remediate any release of regulated substance,
3. For each regulated substance that is handled in an amount equal to or greater than four times its threshold
quantity at the facility, the pollution prevention plan shall describe
a. The state (solid, liquid or gas), quantity and type of container in which each regulated substance is acquired by
the facility,
b. Available alternatives, if any, by which the facility could.
i. Reduce the quantity of regulated substances handled by process changes, product substitution, reuse or
recycling or treatment that does not constitute disposal, and
ii. Adopt handling practices or make site improvements to reduce the potential for contamination,
c The manner and conditions under which each regulated substance is stored and transferred prior to use or
disposition,
d. The manner and conditions under which each regulated substance is used at the facility
a. The manner and process by which any waste regulated substances are treated, recycled or disposed,
D-10
-------
f. The physical structures and/or operational procedures employed at the facility to meet the secondary
containment requirements of this chapter,
g. The procedures to be employed to ensure that regulated substances over the threshold quantity do not
release or otherwise cause contamination during transportation, transfer, use, storage and disposal;
4. Building plans and site development drawings showing compliance with the secondary containment requirements
of this chapter Such plans shall show the pathway of a potential release of a regulated substance, including but not
limited to. information on the location of sewer manholes, injection wells, drainage ditches, nearby streams, rivers or
irrigation ditches and the direction of surface drainage. Such plans shall provide confirmation that the secondary
containment methods are compatible with the materials to be contained and that regulated substances are isolated
from injection wells, floor drains, surface waters and any other surface water or groundwater injection point. The
department may require the plans to be reviewed by a professional engineer if the secondary containment structures
require substantial engineering design. The building or site plans must show the location of regulated substances in
buildings or other designated site areas;
5. Identification of the individuals) or staff position responsible for monitoring releases and threatened releases and
a description of the steps to be taken in the event of a release, including but not limited to, reporting the release to the
department, Missoula 9-1-1 dispatch, the city tire department, rural fire department, National Response Center and any
other entity required by law. The plan should identify the skill and knowledge of the person or position responsible for
actions in the event of a spill,
C The pollution prevention permit shall be valid for a period of two years. The applicant must apply for permit renewal
at least sixty days prior to permit expiration.
D To obtain a pollution prevention permit from the department the applicant shall pay an application fee in an amount
determined by the board,
E. The department shall issue a pollution prevention permit within thirty days of determining that the applicant has
submitted a complete and accurate permit application and the pollution prevention plan complies with the requirements of
this chapter The department may require a facility inspection to ensure compliance with the requirements of this chapter
before a permit is issued. (Ord. 2906 (part), 1994)
13.26.060 Facility closure permit
A, After the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, any person that is required to have a pollution
prevention permit by this chapter must obtain a facility closure permit as required by this section. Applications for a closure
permit shall be filed with the department no later than thirty days after;
1, the facility owned, operated or controlled by said person is permanently closed, or
2. the date on which the facility has been abandoned for one year. If a person is required by state or federal law to
obtain a closure permit, a copy of such permit, supplemented with such other information as may be required by this
section, shall suffice to meet the facility closure permit requirement of this section All applications shall include:
a. A closure permit application form, supplied by the department;
b. A written record identifying the regulated substances and quantities at the facility on the date on which the
facility permanently closed or was abandoned, and a description of the regulated substances removed from the
facility before or at the-time the facility permanently closed or was abandoned;
c. If the facility has underground sumps, injection wells, underground tanks or any other structure that nay have
contained or become contaminated with regulated substances, the application shall include a plan to collect samples
to assess whether contaminants are present near the structure. The department shall assist the applicant in
complying with this requirement:
d. Results of any soil or groundwater sample collected on site,
e. Such other information as the department may require which is relevant to the environmental condition of the
facility.
B If the closure permit application and required submittals are not complete, the department shall notify the applicant
in writing of the deficiencies and the applicant shall have forty-five days to cure the deficiencies
C. The department shall issue a closure permit within thirty days of finding that the closure permit application form is
accurate and complete and all appropriate copies of sample analyses have been submitted to the department showing that
D-ll
-------
the facility has complied with this section (Ord 2S06 (part), 1994).
13.26.070 Reporting of releases
A. A person who owns, operates or controls a facility or a person responsible for a release must immediately report a
release of a regulated substance to the Missoula S-1 -1 center by telephone in the following cases'
1. A release of petroleum in an amount greater than twenty-five gallons,
2. A release of a regulated substance other than petroleum in a quantity which exceeds the lesser of the threshold
quantity of this chapter or the reportable quantity under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended,
B. Exemption from the requirement to report a release is not intended to relieve, in whole or in part, a
person's responsibility to remediate or eliminate contamination caused by a release, as may be required by this chapter or
any other state, federal or local law or regulation. (Ord. 2906 (part), 1994).
13.26.080 Prohibited activity It is unlawful for any person to.
A. Cause contamination or to place, cause to be placed, or allow to remain in place any substance in a location where it
is likely to cause contamination;
B. Violate any provision set forth in a permit for the facility issued pursuant to this chapter;
C Violate any order issued pursuant to this chapter;
D Violate any provision of this chapter. (Ord, 2906 (part), 1994).
13.26.090 Protection of water supply we I is
A. New water supply wells installed after the effective date of this Ordinance shall comply with the following:
1. New and replacement public and private water supply welts must be installed within design standards established by
the Montana Administrative Rules, ARM. 17.38.101 through 17.38.513.
2. Wells of new community and non-community non-transient water systems may not be constructed'
a. Within 1000 feet of any hazardous waste management facility, Class II landfill bulk petroleum storage facility, fuel
pipeline, fueling facility not meeting the design standards of section
13.26.040 (C) or (D) of this Ordinance, chemical manufacturing facility, regulated substance tank not meeting the
requirements of section 13.28,040 (G) of this Ordinance, and any site where a release to groundwater has been reported
to a state or federal agency,
b. Within 250 feet of a Class III landfill, railroad track, the edge of pavement of the principal north-south or east-west
hazardous substance transportation routes, or the subsurface discharge point of a public sewage disposal system.
c. Within 100 feet of a sewer lift station serving a pubiicly-owned or public sewage system, storm water injection
well, or wastewater absorption system, as defined in the Missoula City- County Health Board, Regulation No, 1.
d. Within 50 feet of any sewer main or unlined irrigation ditch.
3. The siting requirements of subsection 13,28,090 (A)(2). may be waived by the Department if it is demonstrated to
the Department through scientific and technical evidence that the proposed location of a new well is the only practical site
available and the potential for contamination to the well or groundwater is reduced by such other measures as the
Department may require.
4 The siting requirements of subsection 13,26.090 (A) (2) shall not be considered by any state or federal agency to
provide an institutional control which would protect public health from contaminants at a site described in subsections
13,26 090 (A) (2) (aj-(d) in order to justify a decision not to clean up contamination at such sites or to not take action to
limit releases of contaminants from such sites which may affect the quality of groundwater or surface water that may affect
the quality of water obtained through community or non-community non-transient public water systems located within the
distances described in subsections 13 26 090 (A) (2) (a)-(d),
B After the effective date of this Ordinance, no person shall construct or operate a new;
1 Hazardous waste management facility Class II landfill, bulk petroleum storage facility, chemical manufacturing
facility, fuel pipeline, fueling facility not meeting the design standards of section
13 26.040 (C) or (D) of this Ordinance, or a regulated substance tank not meeting the requirements of section 13 26.040
(G) of this Ordinance within 1000 feet of a community or non-transient non- community public water supply well
D-12
-------
2. Class 111 landfill, railroad track, or the discharge point of a public sewage disposal system within 250 feet of a
community or non-transient non-community public water supply well.
3. Pubttcly-owned or public sewage system sewer lift station or wastewater absorption system, as defined in the
Missoula City-County Health Board Regulation No 1 within 100 feet of a community or non-transient non-community
public water supply well.
4 Sewer main or storm water injection well within 50 feet of a community or non-transient non- community public water
supply well,
C. No person shall install a new private drinking water supply well if the primary structure located on the property is
situated within 200 feet of a water main which is part of an existing public water supply system owned or operated by the
City of Missoula, a county, or any consolidated city and county water or sewer district as defined in Title 7, chapter 13,
parts 22 and 23. and the property abuts the right-of-way in which the main is located unless the owner of the existing
public water supply system approves of the well.
D. U.S. Highway 93 and Interstate Highway 90 shall serve as the principal North-South and East- West hazardous
substance transportation routes in the Missoula Valley. The City of Missoula shall provide adequate signing to indicate
location of the routes to persons who transport hazardous substances through the valley. (Ord. 3661. 2020: Ord. 3177,
2001, Ord. 3154, 2000, Orel. 2906 (part), 1994).
13.26.100 Variances
A. Purpose. Variances provide limited flexibility from strict compliance with specific ordinance requirements.
B. Applicability. When a person believes he or she meets the criteria for a variance set forth in subsection D below,
such person may apply for board approval of a variance following the procedure in subsection F of this section.
C. Fees, The board shall establish a fair and reasonable vanance application fee based on the cost to give notice of
hearing and investigate the proposed variance. The application fee must be paid in full before a variance will be
considered. Application fees are not refundable. The board may approve changes in fees at regularly scheduled board
meetings.
D. Criteria for Variances, The board may approve of a variance to strict compliance with specific ordinance
requirements only if it finds all of the following:
1, The applicant is subject to special circumstances 'which are:
a. PeculiartD the applicant's facility or situation, and
b. Not caused by the applicant's actions or inaction; and
2, Substantial undue hardship would result from requiring strict compliance with the requirement(s) from which the
variance is sought by:
a. Creating an unreasonable financial burden on the applicant, and
b. Depriving the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other persons similarly situated under the terms of this
chapter;
3, The variance must prevent aquifer and public water supply contamination and protect public health, safety and
welfare to an extent similar to the requirements} from which the variance is sought.
E Variance Restrictions
1, The board may not approve a variance which may adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of any individual.
2 No variance granted shall be construed to relieve an applicant of its obligations under other provisions of this
chapter, under other local, state and federal tews.
3. Variances are nontransferable and apply only to the applicant to whom they are granted for the persod stipulated
by the board.
F. Variance Approval Procedure.
1. A complete variance application shall be submitted to the department, including'
D-13
-------
a. Applicant's name and address;
b. Specific provision(s) of the ordinance from which the variance is requested:
c Legal description or address where alternative is requested:
d. Detailed and accurate description of the proposed alternative under consideration,
e Written explanation addressing each criteria under Section 13,26,100(D)(1) through (3),
f. Other relevant information which the department may require which is obtainable by the applicant.
2. The department shall have seven days to determine if an application is complete,
3, If the department determines that the application is not complete, it shall notify the applicant of the deficieneies.
4. If the department determines that the application is complete, the board shall schedule a public hearing within
forty-five days of the department's determination.
5, The department shall sew notice of the hearing to the applicant's last known address by personal service or
certified mail at least fourteen days before the hearing is scheduled. The department shall publish notice of hearing in
a newspaper of general circulation in Missoula County at least four days before the hearing Notice shall include
a. Name and address of applicant;
b. Time, location and nature of hearing; and
c. Address and phone number where interested persons may obtain information,
G. Order of Hearings.
1. Hearings shall proceed in the following order,
a. First, the board shall hear the staff report, if any, on the proposed variance,
b Second, the applicant shall present relevant evidence to the board,
c. Third, the board shall hear any person in support of or in opposition to the proposed variance and shall
accept any related letters, documents or materials.
H Disposition of Hearing and Continuances.
1. The board shall deny, approve or approve with conditions an application for variance to specific requirements of
this chapter,
2, The board shall inform the applicant of its decision in writing, along with reasons for approving, conditionally
approving, or denying the variance, within fifteen days of its decision,
3, The board may continue a hearing for a period not to exceed forty-five days,
4. A hearing may be continued for longer than forty-five days only if circumstances require a longer period and both
the board and the applicant agree to a longer period.
I. Appeals, Any person adversely affected by a variance decision of the board may initiate judicial review, (Ord, 2908
(part), 1994).
13.26.110 Inspections
A. The department is authorized to enter and inspect at reasonable hours (or at any time on evidence of a release),
upon presentation of credentials with or without prior notice, all facilities within the aquifer protection area which it
reasonably believes may handle regulated substances, in order to determine that the provisions of this chapter are being
followed.
B If a person with authority over a facility will not permit an inspection, the city attorney's office may apply to the city
municipal court for a search warrant, based on probable cause to issue a warrant to inspect, survey or examine the facility
and the premises on which it is located for potential violations of this chapter or in the interest of public health, safety and
general welfare.
C. If a facility appears vacant or abandoned, and the property owner cannot be readily contacted to obtain consent for
an inspection in the interest of public health safety and general welfare an agent of the city may enter any open or
unsecured portion of the facility to conduct an inspection
D-14
-------
D Agents of the city or department shall be provided with official identification and will show their identification when
making an inspection.
E. Law enforcement officers shall assist in making inspections when the department requests their assistance, when
necessary to provide for safe access and entry to the facility and at such time that law enforcement assistance can be
reasonably scheduled or when a clear hazard to public health, safety or welfare exists. (Ord. 2906 (part), 1994).
1X26.120 Enforcement
A. The Department shall have the power and authority to administer and enforce the provisions of this Ordinance,
B Whenever the Department has knowledge or evidence that a violation of this Ordinance has occurred, the
Department may issue a Notice of Violation and Order to.Take Corrective Action to be served personally or by certified
mail on the alleged violator or its agent. This Notice of Violation and Order to Take Corrective Action_shall specify:
1. the provision of this Ordinance or permit alleged to be violated;
2. the facts alleged to constitute the violation: and
3. any penalties sought to be assessed pursuant to section 13.26.130.
This notice may also include an order for corrective action, which shall specify as applicable:
1. The specific nature of corrective action that the Department requires, which may include without limitation:
a. investigation, sampling and analysis to confirm a release or contamination;
b. containment, removal and remedial action to abate and reduce contamination or the threat of contamination;
c. the submission of a corrective action plan and corrective action progress reports or any other information
deemed appropriate to protect human health and the environment: and
2, The time within which the corrective action is to be implemented. This order is final unless, five working days
after the order is received, the offender submits a written request for an administrative review as provided for in Section
(C), or within 10 working days of receipt of the Department's Decision concluding the administrative review, the offender
submits a written request for a hearing before the Board, as provided for in Section (D). Upon good cause shown, the
time frame for requesting a departmental administrative review or a Board review may be extended if made within the
time specified for compliance in the Notice of Violation and Order To Take Corrective Action. In no case however, shall
a request for administrative review or Board Hearing be granted if requested after the compliance date required in the
Department's Order to Take Corrective Action.
C. Administrative review. Any person subject to a Department Notice of Violation and Order to Take Corrective Action
may request an administrative review by the Health Officer, or in the case of Health Officer absence, his or her designee
(Hearing Officer). The Hearing Officer shall schedule an administrative review hearing within ten days of receipt of the
request, but in no case later than the date of compliance required in the Departments Order to Take Corrective
Action. The Hearing officer shall provide written or verbal notice of the date, time and location of the scheduled hearing to
the person requesting the hearing. At the administrative hearing the Hearing Officer shall first hear the staff report, if any,
on the Notice of Violation and Order To Take Corrective Action. Second, the person who requested the hearing may
present relevant information to the hearing officer. Third, the Hearing Officer may hear any person who has relevant
information regarding the Notice of Violation and Order to Take Corrective Action. The Hearing Officer may continue its
administrative review for a reasonable time period following the administrative review hearing in order to obtain information
necessary to make a decision, but in no case shall the administrative review be continued beyond the date of compliance
required in the Department's Order to Take Corrective Action. The Hearing Officer shall affirm, modify or revoke the Notice
of Violation and Order to Take Corrective Action, in writing, followina,completion of the administrative review. A copy of
this decision shall be sent by certified mail or delivered personally to the person who requested the administrative review.
D. Board Hearings Persons subject to a Department Notice of Violation and Order to Take Corrective Action may
submit a written request for a hearing before the Board following conclusion of an Administrative Review, within ten days of
receipt of the Hearing Officers Decision concluding the administrative review, but in case later than the date of compliance
required in the Departments Order to Take Corrective Action. Upon good cause shown, the time frame for requesting a
hearing may be extended if made within the time specified for compliance in the Notice of Violation ad Order to Take
Corrective Action. The Board shall schedule a hearing within 45 days of receipt of this request, but in no case later than
the date of compliance required in the Departments Notice of Violation and Order to Take Corrective Action. Notice of
hearing shall be given by the Department to persons requesting a hearing at the address stated on the request for hearing
or at the last known address, by personal service or by mail, not less than seven days before the hearing is
scheduled. Notice is complete on the date of delivery or mailing. The Department shall publish a notice of hearing in a
D-15
-------
newspaper of general circulation in Missoula County at least four days prior to the hearing. At the hearing, The Board shall
first hear the staff report, if any, on the Notice of Violation and Order To Take Corrective Action, Second, the person who
requested the hearing may present relevant information to the Board, Third, the Board may hear any person who has
relevant information regarding the Notice of Violation ad Order to Take Corrective Action, The hearing may be conducted
informally and need_not follow rules of evidence or procedure applicable to judicial hearings. The Board may impose rules
for the orderly conduct of the hearing. The Board shall affirm, modify, or revoke the Department's Notice of Violation and
Order To Take Corrective Action, in writing, following completion of its review, A copy of this decision shall be sent by
certified mail or delivered personally to the person who requested the hearing. The Board shall maintain a written record
of the hearing and document its final decision in the record,
E, If the person who owns, operates or controls the facility fails to comply with investigation or sampling required in an
order issued pursuant to this section, the Department may conduct said investigation or sampling and the person so
ordered shall be responsible for paying for Department staff time, analytical costs, and any incidental costs associated with
the investigation and/or sampling Failure of said person to pay the Department staff time or analytical costs shall be a
violation of this Ordinance.
F, Instead of issuing the order provided for in subsection (B), the Department may either
1. require the alleged violator to appear before the Board for a hearing at a time and place specified in the notice
and answer the charges complained of; or
2, initiate any other action authorized by this Ordinance,
G, In connection with a Board hearing held under this Chapter, the Board may and on application by a person shall,
compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence on behalf of the persons.
H A person aggrieved by an order of the Board may within fourteen (14) days apply for rehearing upon only one or
more of the following grounds:
1, the Board acted without or in excess of its powers,
2, the order was procured by fraud;
3, the order is contrary to the evidence;
4, the applicant has discovered new evidence, material to him/her, which he/she could not with reasonable
diligence have discovered and produced at the hearing;
5, competent evidence was excluded to the prejudice of the applicant,
I. Within thirty {30} calendar days after the decision, or in the case of rehearing within (30) calendar days of the
rehearing, a party aggrieved thereby may appeal to the municipal court,
J. The municipal court shall hear and decide the cause upon the record of the Board. The court shall determine
whether or not the Board properly exercised its authority, whether or not the findings of the Board were supported by
substantial competent evidence, and whether or not the Board made errors of law prejudicial to the appellant.
K. Either the Board or the person aggrieved may appeal from the decision of the municipal court to the Supreme Court.
(Ord. 3154, 2000; Ord, 2906 (part), 1994).
13.26.130 Criminal penalties
A. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter, or any order made pursuant to this chapter, shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor and subject, upon conviction thereof, to a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars or by
imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed sixty days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each day a violation exists
shall constitute a separate offense
B. Action under this section shall not be a bar to enforcement of this chapter or orders made pursuant thereto, by
injunction or other appropriate remedy,. The board or the department may institute and maintain any and all enforcement
proceedings.
C. All fines collected shall be deposited in the city general fund.
D Pollution prevention efforts made by the violator, the Economic benefit of not complying with any section of
this chapter and the gravity of the offense shall be considered in determining penalties of violations of this chapter.
E. The city may not enter into a vendor or construction contract, grant or loan with any person who has been convicted
of an offense under this chapter. This prohibition shall:
D-16
-------
1. Continue fora period of one year following the date of conviction, and more than one year if said person does not
correct the conditions giving rise to the conviction; and
2 Affect each facility owned or operated by the person.
F. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the municipal court may also order that the offender take action to
enhance public health or the environment by restoring or otherwise improving the quality of the Missoula Valley aquifer in a
manner consistent with public health, safety and general welfare and these provisions of this chapter, (Ord 2906 (part),
1994).
13.26.140 Injunctive relief If a person continues to operate a facility or engage in an activity in violation of the provisions
of this chapter, then the board or the department may file an action for injunctive relief in the district court or in the city
municipal court if the city municipal court has jurisdiction and authority to do so. (Ord. 2908 (part), 1994).
13.26.150 Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or work of this chapter is for any reason held
to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter. The
council declares that it would have passed the chapter and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase and
wordsthereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or words
have been declared invalid or unconstitutional and if for any reason this chapter should be declared invalid or
unconstitutional, then the remaining chapter provisions will be in full force and effect. (Ord. 2906 (part). 1994).
D-17
-------
Figure D-2: 2017 Institutional Controls Agreement
when HI < OKDI I) kl i i1<\ ro.
Natural Resource Damage Piogiam
PO Box 201125
Helena. Ml 59620-1425
f.-HiOj 444-02DJ
21171882# B: 984 P: 482 Pases; 13 F-.S31 M
ซ/8f|
HiiiaRHinfkKiiMini!Riปflg
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS AGREEMENT
I'he Montana Department of Hnvimnmental Quality (DP.Q). (he Montana Department of Justice
(l)OJ) on behalf of its Natural Resource Duawsje Program (NRDPl, and the Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) enter into this agreement relating to the property
owned b> the State of Montana in the former .Vliiltown Reservoir area in Missoula tountv,
Montana, more particularly described as follows:
Hi AC 1S Ol- LAND LOCATED IN Nli'-.ibl' 4 A\'D SEIVNE'^ OF SEC'i ION 20. TIIF ง|,
US or SEC'I ION 21, I Hfc N''i OF SEC110N 2S, 1Mb NWS AND THE SC- OF
SftCl IO\ 27. AND T'IIE Nf'-iNW't Of SECTION 34. ALL IN TOWNSHIP 13 NORTH.
RANGE IS WEST, F.M M, MISSOULA COt i\ |'Y. MONTANA, BEING MORE
PARTICULARY DFSCK1HI-D AS TRACTS 1, 2. 3 AND 4 OF CHR'I1F1CAIE OF
SlfRVFA' NO. 57ST
L CSS AND EXCEPTING A TRACT OF I A\T> BFINO A PORTION OF TRACT 1 OF
CERi II ICATF Or SURVEY NO. 57?> LOCATED l\ THE SEONFU AND NE">SE".
Ol- SECTION 20. TOW'NSI HP 11 NOR 111. RANGE 1S WES t\ PM.M . MISSO! t| A
COUN1 Y. MON FANA, BEING MORE PARTICt T AULA' DESCRIBED AS FR ACT !
Ol" CLRI'II'TCA'IL Ol SURVEY NO ol IE
hi < n \i s
If /uveas, the Milltown Reservoir Sediments Operable I 'nil of the Mtlkmvu Reservoir
Sediments/ Clark fork River National Priorities List Site has been the subject of an
environmental cleanup under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response,
i ompen.satioti, and Liability Act, >12 U, S. C. ง 9601 et seq.. and implemented under the terms of
a Consent Decree involving the United States, the State of Montana, the Confederated Saltslt ami
Kootenai I ribes, the Atlantic Richfield Company, and Northwestern Corporation entered bv the
U.S. District Court for the District of Montana in Case No. CV-89-039-BI -SFH on February 8.
2006
D-18
-------
Whereas, under the terms of the Consent Decree, the State of Montana acquired the real property
through the United States that was previously owned by Northwestern in the area of the former
Militown Reservoir, as described above.
Whereas, DEQ. DOJ. and FWP have agreed that jurisdiction, management, and responsibility
over the property should be transferred to FWP, so that the property can be appropriately
managed as a State Park, The formal transfer of authority over the property from DOJ/NRDP to
FWP will occur through an Executive Order of the Governor,
Whereas, the remedial action implemented for the Militown Reservoir Sediments Operable Unit
left hazardous substances consisting of mine wastes with elevated metals and arsenic in certain
locations on the property.
Whereas, four separate waste repositories are located on the property (Exhibit A1), consisting of
the Upland Disposal Site Repository (Exhibit A2), which contains sediments contaminated with
mine wastes, the Staging Area Repository (Exhibit A3), which contains sediments contaminated
with mine wastes, the Tunnel Pond Repository (Exhibit A4), which contains sediments
contaminated with mine wastes and debris from the demolition of the dam, and its associated
buttress, and the Right Bank Repository (Exhibit A5), which contains debris from the demolition
of the dam. In addition, the 1-90 Buttress (Exhibit A6) serves as a stability structure for the
adjoining interstate. The specific legal locations of each of these repositories is depicted on the
Exhibits hereto.
Whereas, the Property contains areas where residua! contamination is above levels which would
allow for unrestricted residential use.
Whereas, this agreement imposes certain use restrictions and land management practices on the
property to ensure thai the property is properly managed and maintained as appropriate to ensure
protection of human health and the environment.
Whereas, to ensure that the restrictions are maintained into the future as needed, the specific
restrictions applicable to specific areas are identified in detail below, so that any future
landowners and others will have notice of the existence of the hazardous substances on the
property and of the use restrictions necessary to adequately protect and maintain waste
repositories and appropriately limit exposure to residual contamination.
AGREEMENT
Now, therefore, DEQ, DOJ, and FWP, for themselves and for any successor agencies of the State
of Montana, agree as follows:
A. These three agencies, and in particular FWP, as the agency with jurisdiction,
management, and responsibility over the property, shall observe and enforce the
following land use restrictions and land management practices:
D-19
-------
1, Repositories:
a. For the four designated repository locations and the buttress location identified on
Exhibits Al, A2, A3, A4, A5, and A6 hereto, the following shall be prohibited:
(i) any excavation, grading, recontouring, trenching, drilling, digging or other
activity which would disturb or alter the soil cover on the repository or buttress in
a manner that would lessen or interfere with the effectiveness of the cover;
(ii) any alteration, rerouting, or re-grading of drainage features or run-on/run-off
controls or any construction, grading, or other activity that would interfere with
the proper function of drainage features or run-on/run-off controls associated with
any of the repositories:
(hi) any alteration, re-grading, construction or other activity that would interfere
with the proper function of the Tunnel Pond repository buttress or the 1-90
Buttress, as shown on Exhibits Al, A2, A3, A4, A5, and A6 hereto;
(iv) any activity that would obstruct, alter, or interfere with continued use or
maintenance of any monitoring well associated with any of the repositories or
buttresses;
(v) residential use.
b, Permanent signs which identify and depict the specific repository locations will
be placed on the property to notify any party that might be involved in
construction, maintenance, or other activities on the property of the presence of
the repositories and the need to avoid activities which would affect the integrity of
the repository as described herein.
2. Residual contamination: For any portions of the property which are conveyed by the
State to another party, the conveyance documents shall impose use restrictions
prohibiting any residential use of the property conveyed, unless the acquiring party
establishes pursuant to ง 75-10-727, MCA, with appropriate sampling if necessary,
that there is not an unacceptable risk posed to public health, safety, and welfare and
the environment by allowing unrestricted residential use of the portion of the
property. The restrictions include new well installation used as a drinking water
supply for human consumption for which the pertinent monitoring results show an
exceedance of the ground water standard for arsenic.
The restrictions and requirements identified and agreed to herein constitute a binding
institutional control in accordance with Section 727 of the Montana Comprehensive
Environmental Cleanup and Responsibility Act, ง 75-10-727, MCA (2015). That statute provides
ii
D-20
-------
that an owner of real property may, with the approval of 1)1 restrict the use of the owner's real
proper!) to mitigate the risk posed to the public health, safety, and welfare and the environment
by imposing on the real property an appropriate institutional control. Such an institutional control
ma}' be imposed without conveying the property or creating a dominant and servient estate, and
it runs with the land and is binding on all successors in interest to the real property until the
institutional control is removed, in accordance with 75-]t!-727(-l!. The application of these
institutional controls to the property as provided herein has been approved by I)HQ, as required
in that statute, and as evideneed by DEQ'.s signature on this document.
Each of the agencies that is a party hereto and each of their successors and assigns shall notify
the other parties/successors hereto, as well as the EPA Region 8 Montana Office, as soon as
praeticabie of that parts \ discovering or receiving notice of any violation or potential violation
of these institutional controls.
Bach of the agencies that is a party hereto and each of their successors and assigns, as weli as the
EPA. shall be entitled to enforce these requirements and restrictions as an intended beneficiary
thereof,
1 his Agreement and any requirement or restriction herein may be modified only by written
agreement of the parties hereto, or their respective successors and assigns. An\ modification of
this agreement is effective only if it h recorded in the appropriate land records.
In witness whereof, the undersigned execute this Agreement on the dates set out below.
Hi
D-21
-------
MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
By
^-1
Tom Livers. Director
Date; JT/Z2. ' ,ry
STATE OF MONTANA
)
)ss
COUNTY OF LEWIS & CLARK. )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on
by Tom Livers. Director of the Department of Environmental Quality.
KARIS SMITH
NOTARY PUBLIC for tiie
State of Montana
Residing al Helena, Montana
My Commission Expires
June 28,2018
vXj
2017,
1 I u
t
Notary Public in and for the
State of Montana
Residing at M-t loicv I ) i I
My Commission Expires Juxe
Printed Name ,li !)ซn iL
v
D-22
-------
MOV FAN A DEPART MLNT Or ilSTICL
NATURAL RESOURCE EJAMAGE PROGRAM .
J w
Haricy R. Harris, Program Manager
STATE OF MONTANA
)
)ss
COUNTY OF LEWIS & CLARK )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on I , >> ' \ , 2017,
by l larlcy R. Harris, Program Manager of the Department of Justice. Natural Resource Damage
Program,
JULIE JAMES
NOTARY PUBLIC for the
State of Montana
Residing at Helena, Montana
My Commission Expire!
August 31,2017
I !
Notary Public in and for the
State of Montana
Residing at _
My Commission Expires
Printed Name
vi
D-23
-------
MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE, & PARKS
Martha Williams, Director
By: . t*rt > >. - - Dale: />*vte ~d-'i{ Z&i-f
IVlnrfhn V\'i111 nmc Hnpi'lnr *
STATE OF MONTANA )
)ss
COUNTY OF LEWIS & CLARK )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on V ' - ^ J- -' 2017,
by Martha Williams, Director of the Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks.
\j^6taiy I^folic in. and for the
State of Montana
Residing at
My Commis^ieirlxpires
Print^Mfiiie
vii
D-24
JENNIFER HERSOM
NOTARY PUBLIC fof the
SMiofMortkna
Revding Httma, Uontra
-------
"EXHIBIT Al"
REPOSITORY INDEX
RIGHT BANK
REPOSltpRf;
yiMpy\\
UNNEL fqm
EPOSITOR^
190 BUTTRESS
jTAGING AREA
Repository
(UPLAND DISPOSAL
SITE REPOSITORY
hk y' IK j.
The Basis of Bearing for this exhibit Is UTM NADS 3 Zone 12 North.
Distances as shown are grid distances In International feet
D-25
-------
"EXHIBIT A2"
UPLAND DISPOSAL SITE REPOSITORY
Located in a portion of Section 28, Township 31 North Rangel8 West,
Principal Meridian, Montana,
Missoula County, Montana
PLAN VIEW
200' 100* 0'
The Basis of Bearing tor this exhibit Is UTM NAD83 Zone 12 North.
Distances aa shown are grid distances In International feet.
Line Table
Lino t?
Direction
Length
L96
388" 40* 04"E
86.023
L97
N83* 23' 43"E
95.635
L98
N76* 09' 33*E
213JL90
L99
553* 59'01'E
24.623
L100
S14* 16' 36"W
87.861
L103
S27* 27' 35'E
63.853
L104
S56" 51' 40"W
172.641
L10S
N33* 08' 20*W ,
917.697
L106
N58" 51' 40"E
99.764
L107
S60 * 39'16'E
258.123
1108
579' 55'Sit
108.674
D-26
-------
"EXHIBIT A3"
STAGING AREA REPOSITORY
Located in a portion of Section 21, Township 31 North Range 18 West,
Principal Meridian, Montana,
Missoula County, Montana
LAT: N046* 51'56.21"
IONG, W113ฐ 53'11.21"
NORTH: 17041587.5000'
EAST: 918671.5000*
The Baste of Bearing for this enhlbU Is UTM NAD83 Zone 12 North.
Distances as shown are grid distances In International feet
Une Table
Une#
Direction
Length
164
S40 * 20* 46*E
352.949
L65
S46* 33' ore
287.191
166
S52" 14'31'E
193.523
L67
S78* 02' 31'E
234.080
L68
N73 * 54'40-E
274.241
L69
N08* 11' 53"ฃ
59.609
L70
N14" 27" 24-W
66.093
L71
N43* 34' 04*W
198.052
172
NGO* 14' 27^V
248.814
173
S78" 20' 27*W
64.327
L74
N58* 09' 27*W
335.491
L75
N64" 03' 19T/V
289.141
L76
S42" 49' 31"W
167.705
D-27
-------
"EXHIBIT A4"
TUNNEL POND REPOSITORY
Located in a portion of Sections 20 & 21, Township 31 North Range 18 West,
Principal Meridian, Montana,
Missoula County, Montana
N046* 52'
W113" 53' 25.96"
17042302 5000*
917677.0000'
LAT:
LONG;
NORTH:
EAST:
LAT:
LONG:
NORTH:
EAST:
N0469 52'
W113" S3* 29,44"
17042313.5000"
917435.5000"
200' 100' 0'
The Basis of Bearing for this exhibit Is UTM NA083 Zone 12 North.
Distances as shown are grid distances In International feet.
Une Table
Une#
Direction
Length
L28
N19" 36' 13"W
612.502
L29
N20" 54" 06"W
378.401
L30
N39 * 46" 51"W
147.691
L31
S38" 03' 37"W
149.232
L32
S21" 16' 01"W
89.602
L33
$00' 52* 25ME
229.527
L34
509 * 58' 30nE
202.054
L35
513* 08'02"E
61.612
L36
524* 24' 28"W
65.339
L37
S54" 54' 59"E
205,300
L38
S26* 23* 19-E
145.122
L39
S34* 25' 35"E
107.898
140
567 * 53- 26"E
103.619
L41
S87* 06' 49"E
59.576
L42
S70* 43' 51-E
65.150
L43
S87* 12' 26WE
41.049
L44
N09* 14'46-W
108.915
L48
S65" 33' 22"E
48.332
L46
N40" 47'09-E
67.357
L47
N19* 12" 46"W
209.678
148
N22" 11"02"W
166.851
149
N22* 05* 43"W
235.279
ISO
S75* 57 50*W
12-369
LSI
NIB* 26' 06"W
151.789
L52
Nil* 19" 36"W
333,496
LS3
N19* 57' 52"W
130.332
L54
N76* 10"17"W
66.940
L55
S70* 38' 28"W
19.609
L56
S26* 11' 17 "W
67.978
L57
S22* 49' 34*E
181.732
L58
514* 28'13-E
112,055
LS9
510* 59' 50"E
125.810
L60
S15" 22'03-E
156.599
L61
520* 11' 02"E
207.226
L62
S20* 37' 05"E
161.868
L63
S26* 50'46'E
273.474
D-28
-------
"EXHIBIT A5"
RIGHT BANK REPOSITORY
Located in a portion of Section 20, Township 31 North Range 18 West,
Principal Meridian, Montana,
Missoula County, Montana
NW6' 52' 23.14"
Wl 13ฐ 53' 33.23"
17044370.5000"
917247.5000'
N046ฐ 52' 23.80"
Wl 13* 53' 31.(3"
17044434.0000*
917347 0000"
The Basis of Staring for thte ฉxhlbll Is UTM NAD33 Zone 12 North.
Distances as shown are grid distances In International feet
Uno Table
Line#
Direction
Length
LI
N88" 14' 59"E
180.084
L2
S70" 27" 48"E
16.447
L3
S48* 27'24"E
52.775
L4
525* 36'08-W
63.226
L5
S89* 35' 16"W
69.502
L6
N83 * 39' 35"W
36.222
LT
N65* 20'39-W
33.560
L8
N72* 08' 38"W
78*270
L9
N41" 55' 21"W
32.928
L10
N50* 19' 56"E
26,632
Lll
S81* 56' 16"E
25.335
L12
576* 53* 11"E
35.131
L13
S64* 29' 19"E
94.177
L14
S27* 45' 31"E
10.735
LIS
S10* 10' 32*W
19.812
L16
515* 56' 43"W
10.920
L17
S36* 36' 25"W
21,800
LIS
S48* 21' 59" W
18.062
L19
S67" 04' 04-W
28.231
L20
N59* 44' 37"W
13.892
L2l
N46* 21* 50"W
29.707
L22
N36* 52' 12"W
20.000
L23
N33* 11' 06"W
42.296
L24
N47* 22' 50"W
33.985
L25
N29* 29' 14"W
24.602
L26
N15* 57' 26*E
4.894
L27
N73* 59' 21-E
14,699
D-29
-------
"EXHIBIT A6"
190 BUTTRESS
Located in a portion of Section 21, Township 31 North Range IS West,
Principal Meridian, Montana.
Missoula County, Montana
Urn#
ปซ#ซ,
m
nm-wtrm
in
iw w h'n
ปปซซ
m
Nit* w ซrw
1M.W3
is#
SW SJ-4b'W
IZJ.TtO
uri
set* ซฆ srm
w.oai
Lis
OM' W D3ซe
TM.7S3
lit
1*62.749
UK
ปr 32'33"ฃ
งงป3iฃS
D-30
-------
Figure D-3: Powell County Superfund Overlay District
POWELL COUNTY
ZONING & DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS
I' tyvv-i H Oc> ud ty lFl_in nin .y; lD>2Jj-aitrr>Snt
h'lixiOuri Suitfi HJ1
Eaai3Lt>dg^MT 54722
di -irnm ini; ri&t"lLcOu irt vm t. ฃbv
Ptepated by:
tbeeR Looob Mont.
Truly the last best plate
D-31
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTERI - GENERAL PROVISIONS 1
I-A. Title 1
I-B. Authority 1
I-C. Purposes ..................... 1
1-1). Preservation of Rights 2
I-K. Jurisdiction 2
I-1*'. Severability '2
CIIAPTKK II ADMINISTRATION AND I'UOCKDl UK
11 - A. Planning Department 3
II-13. Planning Board 3
II-C. Board of Adjustment 3
( llAPTi.R 111 1)1-A ILOPMEM < KRTIlU 'ATE RKQllRED ....4
III-A, Development Certificate 4
III-i 3 applications for a Development Certificate for the purpose of constructing 4
II I-C. Application!, lor a Development Certificate must be accompanied 4
I1I-D. Procedure lor Application. Review and Granting a Development Certificate 4
III-E. General Requirements for Development Certificate Approval 5
CHAPTER IV-CONDITIONAL I'SE PERMIT UEQITRKD ,,...7
IV-A. For uses other than those which can he authorized by a Development Certificate 7
1Y-B. Applications 7
1V-C Conditions required 7
1Y-D, Procedure for Application. Review and Granting a CUP 7
IV-1%. Requirement for Application Review and Approval of a CUP for Communication
1V-F, Requirement for Application Review and Approval of a CUP for Wind Generation
Powell County Zoning & Development Regulations
January 7.
D-32
-------
IV-G. Requirement lor Application Re\ icw and Approval of Transmission J.ine Corridors,, 12
IV-H. General Requirements For Conditional Use Permit Approval 13
CHAPTKR V- SPFCIFTC DISTRICT REQl IRKMKM S FOR DFVFLOPMKNT
C1RTI1 ICATI. OR CONDITIONAL I'SK PLRMIT APPRO\ Al 16
1. Hie Board of County Commissioners may granl a variance 16
2. In addition to the specific standards 16
V-A. Rural Community District < 1 -acre minimum residential lot size! 1?
V-B. District No. 1 (1-90 Strip, 5-aere minimum residential lot size) 19
Y-C, District No. 2 (20-aere minimum residential lot size) 22
Y-l). District No, 3 (160-aere minimum residential lot size) 24
V-K. District .Mo. 4 (40-aere minimum residential lot size j 27
Y-F. District No. 5 (Deer Lodge "donut" with minimum lot sizes determined by water and
sewer/septic permit requirements) 30
ClIAPTKR \ [ SP1 CI! IC OYKRLAY DISTRK T RKQl IRKMI.N I'S 32
Yl-A. Airport Safety Overlay Districts 32
YI-B. Floodplam and Stream Setback Ov erlay District 32
VI-C. Important Fish and Wildlife Area Overlay District,... 33
VI-D. Planned I "nit Development Overlay District 33
Yl-E. Ground Water Recharge Overlay District 35
YI-F. Superllmd Overlay District 35
CHAPTKR YII- B1FF1 RING AND SCRKKNING RKQITRKMFNTS 37
VH-11 Minimum buffer requirements 37
VII-C. Buffer width reduction: berms 38
YH-D Buffer width reduction; additional plantings 38
VII-K, Minimum buffer width 38
Y1I-F. Buffer crossing and inclusions 38
Powell County Zoning & Development Regulations
January 7, 21Mป9
- U -
D-33
-------
VII-G. Plant Materials Specifications 39
VII-H. Maintenance 39
CHAPTER VIII "NONCONFORMING I'SKS AND STRI CTI RF>ป
,40
CHAPTER IX - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT . 41
EX-A. Board of Adjustment 41
IX-B. Powers of the Board of Adjustment 41
IX-C. Proceedings of the Board of Adjustment 41
1X-1). Procedures lor Variance Requests 41
IX-E. Requirements for Granting a Variance 42
1X-F. Procedures for I tearing and Acting on Appeals from Actions of Planning Board 43
IX-G. Slay of Proceedings 43
IX-H. Appeals front Decisions of the Board of Adjustment 43
( llAPTKR X I l l s AM) ENFORt FMK.NT....
X-A. F>
X-R. Enforcement
Cll.VPTKR XI - AMF.NDMKM'S TO THESE UECl J
XI-A. Proposals
XI-H, Planning Hoard Recommendations
XI-C, Procedures bv County Commissioners
VlTOiNS
44
.44
....44
.... 46
.... 46
....46
....46
C HAPTER XII - DEFINITION OF TERMS USED IN THESE REGULATIONS
ปซป
47
Adopted: 2-20-M6
Amended: 11-28-00
.Amended: 2-15-05
Revised: 10-16-06
Amended: 2-26-0.'
Amended: 1-07-09
Amended: 4-27-1 I
Copies of supporting resolutions can he obtained at the Planning Department.
Powell County Zemins Development Regulations
Januarv ?.
-ill -
D-34
-------
L owned by a property owners' association, or
ii, Dedicated lo public use, if acceptable lo the County Commissioners, or
iii, A Conservation Easement (CK)to be entered into in accordance with 76-6-101
through 76-6-211, MCA. For the purposes ol'a PUD. the CE must be approved by
the Planning Board, or
iv, A combination of i, ii and iii, above, if approved b\ the County Commissioners.
h. If a CK is to be entered into, within 30 working days of receipt of a draft CK with a
letter of support from the qualified organization that will hold the CE. the Planning
Board shall approve or disapprove the CK. The reasons for approval or disapproval
must he stated in writing and made available to the applicant. If the draft CK and
supporting letter are not submitted with the application for the PUD. the CUP and. if
appropriate, the subdivision Preliminary Plat may be approved with the condition that
the final CK be submitted and approved, and executed and filed with the Powell
County Clerk & Recorder prior to the tiling of the subdivision Final Plat.
VI K. Ground Water Recharge Overlay District - Ibis district is responsive to the c lark fork
Basin Water Management Plan and is depicted by maps on file in the Planning Department.
VI-E-1. Performance standards
(Reserved)
YI-E-2. Use restrictions - Residential densities in this <>. erla\ District shall be no more
than one residence per 20 acres.
VI-F, Superfund Cherlaj District - This District covers the area contaminated b> mining and
smelting wastes from operations further upstream in the Butte and Anaconda areas. The
contaminated areas lie along the Clark fork River and the Valiton Ditch, which lies east of
the Clark Fork Riser. Maps of the Superfund On erla\ District are available at the Powell
County Planning Dep;irtment.
VI-F-1. Purpose - The purpose of establishing this Overtax District is lo implement she
Growth Polic> by protecting public health and safety while allowing appropriate
development activities in the Powell Count)' portion of the CI arks Fork Superfund Site.
This purpose will be accomplished by:
a. .\ssuring that future land use ill the Superfund Ov erlay District is compatible with the
presence of potential contaminants and the various remedial actions required to
isolate those potential contaminants from die environment.
b. Requiring that any development in this Overlay District be preceded by soil testing
and. if approved, employ construction practices that arc consistent with the permanent
protection of the environment and public health.
Powell County Zoning & Development Regulations
January- ?. 20H9
35
D-35
-------
The requirements of this overlay district also serv e as institutional controls in the
context of the federal Superfund law. The federal government recognizes the use of
institutional controls as appropriate and necessary in Superfund areas, The preamble
to the Revved National Contingency Plan (53 CT'li .? 1394 et seq.i states:
"EPA expects to use institutional controls such as water use and deed
restrictions to supplement engineering controls as appropriate for short and
long-term management to prevent or limit exposure to hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants. Institutional controls may be used
during the conduct of the Rl/FS (Remedial Action Feasibility Study) and
Implementation of the Remedial Action and, where necessary as a
component of the completed remedy, (at 300.430(a)( l)(iii)(D)f
VI 12. i)e> clopmcnt on Sifts (ontaiiimg Soil ( aps or Other Barriers or Structures
Required In Nufifrt'und J.aws
a. (Reserved)
\ I-l-J. Development On Sites \\ luw No Remedial Stiuetures Have Been Installed
a. Where no remedial structures exist, the total arsenic content of any soil to be
excavated or graded shall be determined, and that information shall be submitted with
the application for a Conditional I Tse Permit (CI I5). All testing shall follow the
proKvoIs of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
b. If soil testing shows levels of arsenic exceeding the permissible levels for the
proposed use that are established in section YI-F-4.. the developer shall present a plan
for the reduction of those lev els. The remedies proposed may include, but are not
limited to, tilling the soil, mineral or chemical treatment of the soil, a clean fill cap. an
impermeable barrier, or others. Before approving a proposed remedy. Powell Count>
shall consider its practicability and costs as vvell as its long term effectiveness in
isolating contaminated or potentially contaminated soil or materials from the
environment.
c. Dust suppression measures may be required whenever a new arsenic reduction
remedy is constructed. The administrator may require air quality monitoring, at the
developer's expense, to ensure the elleetiveness of the dust suppression measures,
d. Arsenic reduction remedies shall be sited and designed to minimize erosion caused by
surface runoff. Erosion control techniques may include any effective combination of
paving the surface, diverting runoff, and planting.
e. Only clean fill shall be imported into the Superfund Overlay /one or any site within
the Superfund Overlay Zone. The import of more than one cubic yard or fill requires
explicit approval as part of a Conditional I 'se Permit, and such a permit shall be
approved only where the specific sources of the fill is identified and approved as
Powell County Zoning & Development Regulations
January 7 2W
- 36 -
D-36
-------
providing "clean iill". Imported I ill is subject to random testing to check compliance
with this performance standard.
Vl-F-4. Conditional I'so Permit Required - All use changes and development in (lie
Superfund Overlay Zone are subject to the securing of a Conditional Use Permit. All
applications for a CUP or variance in the Superfund Overlay /.one shall include the
following additional information beyond that which is required lor any CUP or variance.
a, A detailed grading plan showing the depth of all proposed excavations and the
volume of soil to Lie moved.
b. Where no remedial structures exist on a site, the application materials shall include
arsenic tests. as required b\ Powell Count)', and detailed plans (if necessary) lor
achieving compliance with the maximum arsenic level allowed for the proposed use.
I he permissible arsenic levels are as follows;
c. Powell County may contract for the professional assistance needed to ensure the
adequacy of applications materials and compliance with the performance standards
adopted in this chapter. The actual cost of such assistance shall be the responsibility
of the developer and no certificate of compliance shall be issued where these costs
have not been reimbursed to the county.
Yl-P-5. W i lls - A development certificate shall be required to drill or dig a well in the
Superfund Overlay Zone. Prior to the issuance of a completion certificate of any well in
this overlay district, it shall be tested for cohlbnn bacteria, arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, mercury and nitrate and the results of the tests submitted to
Powell County. No certificate of compliance shall be issued for any well in which the
water exceeds stale water quality standards for the proposed use.
\ I-F-6. Notice to Purchasers - Before any parcel or am interest :n any parcel, tn !hc
Superfund Overlay Zone is conveyed the follow ingstatement shall be placed on the
deed, contract for sale, or other instrument of conveyance: "11 vis parcel is within a
Superfund site. A permit must be obtained before any development or construction
covered by these regulations is initiated."
( 11APTI R VII- Bl H I.RIM; AMI) SCKKKNINC; RKQl IRKMi M S
VI1-A. Purpose - I .andscapitig requirements are an essential clement in mitigating potential
land use conflicts. The purpose of this chapter is to assure that the landscaped butlers required
by these regulations effectively accomplish that goal. Screening requirements are added to the
buffer requirements in some development districts,
Vll-lt. Minimum buffer requirements - The width of required buffers shall \ an v\ irh the
nature of the uses being separated, the height of the buildings being separated and the
r.w
residential areas
commercial industrial area*
agricultural recreational areas
Pirmissibh'. Irsenic Level
250 ppm
500 ppm
1.000 ppm
Powell County Zoning ซS- Develupuioit Regulations
Jhiibiut 7. I0M9
... 37...
D-37
-------
APPENDIX E - PRESS NOTICES
C8 - M ssouiian Class if ed. Wednesday, October 7, 2020
yfiissoulian&^niBSsengBr
Wednesday Classified ^ซฆ
208 GENERAL HELP
209 GENERAL HELP
Alissoulian
Full TlmeMailroom Inserter
PT positions, nights.
production facility. There are foil and part-lme positions available for
evening shifts. The schedule varies and may include weekends and holi-
days Duties include preparing newspapers for delivery by earlier and by
mail, inserfng supplement, ar
-------
SILVER STATE POST, OCTOBER 7, 2020 13
fnM u"uu,d suus 1 t< i ll
<^llr!r\1 'wl'onn,',"tel P'ote^o" ฃ r S, <
Milltown Reservoir Sediments/Clark Fork
Elver Superfund Site Five-Year Review
Tlte FPA and (he Montana Depat!ment ot Pnvitonmental Quality arc conductmg
the third, five-year renew of the Milltown Reservoir Sediments/Clark Fork River
Superlurul site (the SiLe^ in Milltown, Mont The purpose ot the live-year review
ts to make sure that selected cleanup actions effectively piotect human health and
the environment, The live-year review is scheduled to be completed by November
2020.
Hie Site includes about 120 miles ot the Clark Fork River upstream of the Milltown
Dam and Reservoir To manage cleanup efforts, the FPA tnoke the Sue into three
operable umls (OIK) OI'l was ongmallytbe MilltownDrmkmgWaler Supply and
is now pact ot i SU2. OI72 ts the Milltown Reservoir Sediments area, OU3 is l he
Clark Fork Rivet aiea up stream ol OlT2 and downstream of the Silver Bow Creek/
Butte 'Yrea Supertund -ite and the Anaconda Smelter Superlund site.
Cleanup Actions
Cleanup began in 1984 and is nearly complete at OU2 and ongoing at OU3 The
OU2 remedv includes- a replacement water system lot Milltown, a bypass channel
at the reservoir, removal of contaminated materials, removal ot the Milltown
Dam, temporary ground watei controls until the Milltown aquitet recoveis, other
institutional contiols, and long-term monitoring of satface water and groundwater
The OU3 remedy mdudes; soils and sediment removal and disposal outside ot
the Oil, some m-place treatment of soils, revegetat ion of removed or treated areas,
streambank stabilization, weed control, institutional controls and monitoring.
We Want to Hear from ion!
As pait ot this process, EPA will interview c i immunity members and stakeholders who
have concerns, questions, or information about the site thai they think F.PA should
consider The deadline to schedule an interview is October 30, 2020. Please contact
EPAs Beth Archer to request an interview by phone, or video conference or to have
the interview questions emailed to you.
Contact
Beth Archer, FPA Community Involvement Coordinator
(303) 3l2-n611, archer.elizabeth(,Depa.gov
Additional Site Information
Visit the website {www epa gov/superkrod/rmlltown-teservoir) oi the Site's
Information Repositories (pending COVID-l^ availability):
Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site, 260 Warren Lane, Deei 1 odue, MT 50722
Missoula City'County l.ibiary, MM East Main Street, Missoula, MT 59802
E-2
-------
APPENDIX F - INTERVIEW FORMS
MILL TOWN RLSLRYOIR/CLARK IORK RIYLRSl I'LRI I M) SI TV.
i im:-m:ar review interview iorm
Site Name: Milltown Reservoir / Clark Fork River
EPA ID: MTD980717565
Subject name: Keith Large, Joel Chavez
Subject affiliation: MDEQ Project Officers
Interview date: 10/06/2020
Interview time:
Interview format (Select): Email
Interview category (Select): State
Interview Introduction
EPA conducts regular checkups, called Five-Year Reviews, at Superfund sites. A Five-Year Review is
a way to evaluate the progress of cleanup actions and make sure they are protecting people and the
environment.
As part of the Five-Year Review for the Milltown Reservoir / Clark Fork River Superfund site,
EPA is speaking with community members to hear their concerns and gather more information about
site conditions. We are interested in your opinions and would like you to be as candid as possible.
Your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official position
representing a local community group or organization. Please answer the following questions as
applicable to your knowledge or situation.
Site Orientation:
The Site currently consists of three operable units. Operable Unit 1 was focused on providing a safe water
supply to Milltown area residents through establishment of a public water supply system for the town of
Milltown. Operable Unit 2 is the Milltown Reservoir Sediments Operable Unit (MRSOU) and includes
approximately 540 acres in the Clark Fork River and Blackfoot River floodplain. MRSOU consists of the
area encompassed by the former Milltown Dam and Reservoir and the area where arsenic contamination
exists in groundwater. Operable Unit 3 is the Clark Fork River Operable Unit (CFROU). It consists of
approximately 120 river miles of the Clark Fork River and extends from the confluence of the old Silver Bow
Creek channel with the reconstructed lower Mill-Willow bypass, near Anaconda, to the maximum former
Milltown Reservoir pool elevation east of Missoula. The Milltown Reservoir/ Clark Fork River site is one of
four contamination areas, jointly known as the Clark Fork Basin Sites.
Questions:
1. Which operable units are you most familiar with and would like to discuss during this interview?
DEQ is responding to this Five Year Review for the entire site and will provide operable unit
specific feedback accordingly throughout this questionnaire.
2. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have taken place
to date?
Milltown Reservoir Sediments OU: Yes.
Clark Fork River OU: The State of Montana, Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), is the lead
Agency responsible for the on-going Remedial Action at the Site. As the lead Agency, DEQ is intimately
F-l
-------
familiar with environmental issues associated with the Site.
3. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse activities
(as appropriate)?
Milltown Reservoir Sediments OU: The OU1 remedy is performing very well.
Clark Fork River OU: The Remedial Action is progressing and has been successful to date.
4. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site?
Milltown Reservoir Sediments OU: The OU1 remedy is working well and meeting all the ROD criteria.
Clark Fork River OU: The Remedy has been generally successful. Incorporation of "lessons learned," will
ensure continued future success.
5. What have been the effects of this Site on the surrounding community, if any?
Milltown Reservoir Sediments OU: The surrounding community benefited from the reuse of Milltown after
the RA cleanup was completed in 2012 with the opening of the State Park.
Clark Fork River OU: The surrounding community has benefited from knowing contamination associated
with being located in, or immediately adjacent, to a Superfund Site, is in the process of being remediated.
6. Are you aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding environmental issues or the remedial action from
residents since implementation of the cleanup?
Milltown Reservoir Sediments OU: No.
Clark Fork River OU: Work associated with this OU directly impacts many area residents and is highly
visible to others. Inquiries are common. Complaints have been limited to date, but have been satisfactorily
addressed.
7. Are you aware of any changes to state laws or local regulations that might affect the
protectiveness of the Site's remedy?
Milltown Reservoir Sediments OU: No.
Clark Fork River OU: No.
8. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?
Milltown Reservoir Sediments OU: No.
Clark Fork River OU: Nothing to date.
9. Are you comfortable with the status of the institutional controls at the Site? If not, what are the
associated outstanding issues or recommended institutional controls?
Milltown Reservoir Sediments OU: Yes, I am comfortable with the current ICs.
Clark Fork River OU: Institutional Controls (IC's) have not been developed or implemented at the Site. An
IC Plan will be drafted and vetted with the public as Site work progresses.
F-2
-------
10. Has your office conducted any site-related activities or communications in the past five years? If so, please
describe the purpose and results of these activities.
Milltown Reservoir Sediments OU: Yes, annual site inspections and monitoring are conducted. No issues
identified.
Clark Fork River OU: Community Interviews were conducted in 2016, as part of the Community Relations
Plan. The overall public view of the plan was positive, with the expressed desire for continued action, local
employment opportunities, and respect for the wishes of private property owners.
11. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency
response, vandalism or trespassing?
Milltown Reservoir Sediments OU: None have been reported to DEQ.
Clark Fork River OU: Minor trespassing issues.
12. How effective has EPA and/or the State's communication been in the past? Do you feel you have been
kept adequately informed? How can EPA and/or the State best provide site-related information in the
future?
Milltown Reservoir Sediments OU: Past communication was always good between the agencies.
Communication remains effective and responsive between EPA and DEQ.
Clark Fork River OU: EPA has not had a Regional Project Manager (RPM) assigned to the Site for some
time. Communications have suffered because of that. However, in the spring of 2020, EPA rectified that,
with the appointment of an RPM to the Site. Communication is now excellent. DEQ presently feels
informed.
13. What is your greatest concern moving forward with the cleanup at the Site or in specific areas?
Milltown Reservoir Sediments OU: OU1 has been in O&M since 2012. Some minor O&M issues regarding
runoff and associated erosion are being addressed and will continue to be addressed as needed.
Clark Fork River OU: The continuation of a positive relationship with the EPA.
14. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project,
including the management or operation of the Site's remedy?
Milltown Reservoir Sediments OU: No.
Clark Fork River OU: No.
15. Is there anything we have not covered that you would like to share?
Milltown Reservoir Sediments OU: No.
Clark Fork River OU: No.
16. As a reminder, your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your
official position representing a local community group or organization. If you are representing an
organization, do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this
F-3
-------
questionnaire in the Five-Year Review Report?
These are DEQ's responses. Keith Large is the project officer for Milltown Reservoir Sediments OU and
Joel Chavez is the project officer for the Streamside Tailings and Clark Fork River Operable Units.
Keith Large: klarge@mt.gov; Office: 406-444-6569; Mobile: 406-431-2253
Joel Chavez: ichavez@,mt.gov: Office: 406-444-6407; Mobile: 406-431-2251
Closing
Thank you for participating in the interview process. We are grateful for the opportunity to learn from
you. EPA expects to finalize the Five-Year Review in mid-2021. When complete, the Five-Year
Review will be available on the site's web page, www.epa.gov/superfund/milltown-reservoir
F-4
-------
MILL TOW N RKSKRYOIR/CLARK IORK RIYKRS1 PLRI I M) SI I I!
i im:-m:ar ri:mi:\v im i:rmi:\v iorm
Site Name: Milltown Reservoir / Clark Fork River
EPA ID: MTD980717565
Subject name: Doug Martin
Subject affiliation: NRDP
Interview date: 10/7/2020
Interview time:
Interview format (Select): Email
Interview category (Select): State
Interview Introduction
EPA conducts regular checkups, called Five-Year Reviews, at Superfund sites. A Five-Year Review is
a way to evaluate the progress of cleanup actions and make sure they are protecting people and the
environment.
As part of the Five-Year Review for the Milltown Reservoir / Clark Fork River Superfund site,
EPA is speaking with community members to hear their concerns and gather more information about
site conditions. We are interested in your opinions and would like you to be as candid as possible.
Your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official position
representing a local community group or organization. Please answer the following questions as
applicable to your knowledge or situation.
Site Orientation:
The Site currently consists of three operable units. Operable Unit 1 was focused on providing a safe water
supply to Milltown area residents through establishment of a public water supply system for the town of
Milltown. Operable Unit 2 is the Milltown Reservoir Sediments Operable Unit (MRSOU) and includes
approximately 540 acres in the Clark Fork River and Blackfoot River floodplain. MRSOU consists of the
area encompassed by the former Milltown Dam and Reservoir and the area where arsenic contamination
exists in groundwater. Operable Unit 3 is the Clark Fork River Operable Unit (CFROU). It consists of
approximately 120 river miles of the Clark Fork River and extends from the confluence of the old Silver Bow
Creek channel with the reconstructed lower Mill-Willow bypass, near Anaconda, to the maximum former
Milltown Reservoir pool elevation east of Missoula. The Milltown Reservoir/ Clark Fork River site is one of
four contamination areas, jointly known as the Clark Fork Basin Sites.
Questions:
1. Which operable units are you most familiar with and would like to discuss during this interview?
Operable Unit 2 and 3.
2. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have taken place
to date?
Yes, I participated in the ROD development for MT NRDP for OU2 and OU3.1 also participated in the
NRDA at both sites. For OU2 I was the Project Manager for the implementation of the Restoration Actions.
3. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse activities
(as appropriate)?
For the Milltown Reservoir Sediments, OU2, the removal of contaminated sediments, restoration and
F-5
-------
redevelopment activities have been a success. The groundwater cleanup results are yet to be determined, but
monitoring data appears to be trending towards cleaner water, it is just not happening as quickly as EPA had
predicted.
For the Clark Fork River, OU3, the cleanup is occurring at an appropriate rate, but slower than predicted in
the ROD. The waste is being removed successfully from the floodplain and streambanks in a fashion the
State proposed during settlement discussions. Landowners are working with the State.
4. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site?
At Milltown, OU2, the performance of the remedy is good. As noted above, groundwater is not cleaning up
as predicted, but monitoring shows trends in a cleaner direction. Remedy revegetation is performing well.
On the Clark Fork River, OU3, the current remedy is performing as expected. Implementation is not at the
rate once predicted, but the removal of the waste from streambanks and the floodplain is effectively
improving the Clark Fork River system.
5. What have been the effects of this Site on the surrounding community, if any?
With the implementation of the State's restoration plan and development of the Milltown State Park at the
Milltown Sediments OU, there are positive impacts. The fact that these two actions were implemented using
State NRD funds provide the local communities with positive effects at no cost to the local communities.
Communications with local residents indicates a great deal of appreciation and use of the site.
For the Clark Fork River, OU3,1 understand the surrounding communities are looking forward to the
completion of the work, but they also know it will be sometime before the work is completed.
6. Are you aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding environmental issues or the remedial action from
residents since implementation of the cleanup?
For the Milltown site, OU2, the only complaints I am aware of have to do with the 1-90 bridges EPA was
responsible for mitigating. Some still wonder why EPA did not remove and replace the bridges and why
Montana Department of Transportation is doing it now.
For the CFR OU3, the biggest complaint is the length of time the remedy is taking and the loss of fish
habitat associated with the streambank construction. NRDP is working with DEQ on streambank techniques
to decrease the time to recovery.
7. Are you aware of any changes to state laws or local regulations that might affect the
protectiveness of the Site's remedy?
No
8. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?
No
9. Are you comfortable with the status of the institutional controls at the Site? If not, what are the
associated outstanding issues or recommended institutional controls?
Yes, things at both sites seem to be working.
10. Has your office conducted any site-related activities or communications in the past five years? If so, please
describe the purpose and results of these activities.
F-6
-------
Milltown, OU2, the NRDP implemented the Restoration Actions at Milltown in coordination with the
remedial action. NRDP has completed numerous maintenance activities (weed control, vegetation
augmentation, channel repairs) and has implemented its monitoring plan. Monitoring results were provided
to EPA for 2017.
On the CFR OU3, NRDP has integrated restoration actions with DEQ's remedial actions such as additional
revegetation, borrow area restoration, tributary stream reconnections, and establishing ICs to protect the
remedial areas. In addition, NRDP works to improve instream flow, enhance fish passage, and conserve
critical habitats (fee title acquisition and conservation easements) along the river corridor.
11. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency
response, vandalism or trespassing?
None at Milltown.
On the CFR OU3, NRDP assisted DEQ with the implementation of BMPs to reduce the flow of salts from
the slickens carrying heavy metals into the river in 2020.
12. How effective has EPA and/or the State's communication been in the past? Do you feel you have been
kept adequately informed? How can EPA and/or the State best provide site-related information in the
future?
More communications are also better. At the Milltown, OU2, site there is not a need for significant public
out-reach at this time, but in the past EPA and the State coordinated on many public meetings that were well
attended and accepted.
On the CFR, OU3, the State DEQ responds well to request for public information, but since a local group
has taken it upon itself to hold public meetings, it might indicate a need for more communications to the
public.
13. What is your greatest concern moving forward with the cleanup at the Site or in specific areas?
Not concerned with the Milltown site. For the CFR OU3 site I am concerned with the pace of the remedial
action and whether or not the State will be able to fully implement the most robust remedy possible.
14. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project,
including the management or operation of the Site's remedy?
A public meeting to provide the local community with a status update would be beneficial. NRDP should
provide an update on the Restoration also.
For the CFR OU3, public outreach is also needed to inform the public.
15. Is there anything we have not covered that you would like to share?
16. As a reminder, your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your
official position representing a local community group or organization. If you are representing an
organization, do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this
questionnaire in the Five-Year Review Report?
Yes.
F-7
-------
Closing
Thank you for participating in the interview process. We are grateful for the opportunity to learn from
you. EPA expects to finalize the Five-Year Review in mid-2021. When complete, the Five-Year
Review will be available on the site's web page, www.epa.gov/superfund/milltown-reservoir
F-8
-------
MILL TOW N RLSLRYOIR/CLARK FORK RIYKRS1 PLRI I M) SI I I!
i im:-m:ar ri:mi:\v im i:rmi:\v form
Site Name: Milltown Reservoir / Clark Fork River
EPA ID: MTD980717565
Interviewer name: Ken Champagne, Beth Archer Interviewer affiliation: EPA RPM, EPA CIC
and Kirby Webster and Skeo
Subject name: Jeffrey Johnson Subject affiliation: National Park Service at
Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site
Interview date: 10/26/2020 Interview time: 10 am
Interview format (Select): Phone
Interview category (Select): Federal Agency
Interview Introduction
EPA conducts regular checkups, called Five-Year Reviews, at Superfund sites. A Five-Year Review is
a way to evaluate the progress of cleanup actions and make sure they are protecting people and the
environment.
As part of the Five-Year Review for the Milltown Reservoir / Clark Fork River Superfund site,
EPA is speaking with community members to hear their concerns and gather more information about
site conditions. We are interested in your opinions and would like you to be as candid as possible.
Your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official position
representing a local community group or organization. Please answer the following questions as
applicable to your knowledge or situation.
Site Orientation:
The Site currently consists of three operable units. Operable Unit 1 was focused on providing a safe
water supply to Milltown area residents through establishment of a public water supply system for
the town of Milltown. Operable Unit 2 is the Milltown Reservoir Sediments Operable Unit
(MRSOU) and includes approximately 540 acres in the Clark Fork River and Blackfoot River
floodplain. MRSOU consists of the area encompassed by the former Milltown Dam and Reservoir
and the area where arsenic contamination exists in groundwater. Operable Unit 3 is the Clark Fork
River Operable Unit (CFROU). It consists of approximately 120 river miles of the Clark Fork River
and extends from the confluence of the old Silver Bow Creek channel with the reconstructed lower
Mill-Willow bypass, near Anaconda, to the maximum former Milltown Reservoir pool elevation
east of Missoula. The Milltown Reservoir/ Clark Fork River site is one of four contamination areas,
jointly known as the Clark Fork Basin Sites.
Questions:
1. Which operable units are you most familiar with and would like to discuss during this
interview?
OU3 - CFROU.
F-9
-------
2. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have
taken place to date?
Yes.
3. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse
activities (as appropriate)?
I think that the project is going very well. MDEQ has made adjustments to their cleanup approach
based on experience at other phases within the Operable Unit. Maintenance has been pretty
minimal at this time. Reuse activities are ongoing. People have been able to fish and use the river
recreationally before, during and after remediation.
4. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site?
I think the current performance is going as expected.
5. What have been the effects of this Site on the surrounding community, if any?
Recreationally it has impacted fishing. There have been some fish kills that are believed to have
been a result of contamination being carried into the water during high water events or significant
rainfalls. It may have also affected some ranchers. If there are slickens, it might have affected
where cattle can be.
6. Are you aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding environmental issues or the remedial
action from residents since implementation of the cleanup?
Yes. There is a wide spectrum of reaction to the cleanup. Some people are very strongly for it.
Some people are at the other extreme who do not want anything done on their property and do not
understand why this work is being carried out. Overall, the reaction has been favorable especially
now that it has been 4 to 5 years since remediation started and people have an opportunity to see
what it looks like after remedy implementation with vegetative regrowth and wildlife returning.
7. Are you aware of any changes to state laws or local regulations that might affect the
protectiveness of the Site's remedy?
No.
8. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?
Yes. The State of Montana has been in the process of putting in conservation easements, primarily
by purchasing ranches and putting in easements and reselling ranches. That is the biggest change in
projected land use.
9. Are you comfortable with the status of the institutional controls at the Site? If not, what are the
associated outstanding issues or recommended institutional controls?
Yes, I'm comfortable with the status. There are limited institutional controls at the site. Where the
remedy has not been implemented yet, it is mostly privately owned. Where the remedy has been
implemented, there are some restrictions to access, primarily along riverbanks to let vegetation get
F-10
-------
established. These are not in high traffic areas for walking or fishing. There are signs posted. I think
they are working.
10. Has your office conducted any site-related activities or communications in the past five years? If
so, please describe the purpose and results of these activities.
Yes. We have participated in DEQ public meetings, produced newsletters, talked to different
community stakeholders like Rotaries, the City of Deer Lodge, or Powell County Commissioners.
Last month Joel Chavez and I met with an environmental class from University of Montana to give
a site tour.
11. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as
emergency response, vandalism or trespassing?
There has been no emergency response. No vandalism. We have had a little bit of trouble with
trespassing specific to Grant-Kohrs Ranch, but nothing ongoing.
12. How effective has EPA and/or the State's communication been in the past? Do you feel you
have been kept adequately informed? How can EPA and/or the State best provide site-related
information in the future?
EPA and the States communication in the past has been excellent. I have been more than
adequately informed. When I have questions or concerns, I have received responses and some
adjustments have been made. I would like to continue what we have been doing for the future.
13. What is your greatest concern moving forward with the cleanup at the Site or in specific
areas?
I don't have any concerns. Everybody is following the remedial design and approved documents
and plans. DEQ is making adjustments to their future activities for future phases based on lessons
learned. That is very good.
14. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding any aspects of the
project, including the management or operation of the Site's remedy?
No.
15. Is there anything we have not covered that you would like to share?
No.
16. As a reminder, your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in
your official position representing a local community group or organization. If you are
representing an organization, do you consent to have your name included along with your
responses to this questionnaire in the Five-Year Review Report?
Yes.
F-ll
-------
Closing
Thank you for participating in the interview process. We are grateful for the opportunity to learn from
you. EPA expects to finalize the Five-Year Review in mid-2021. When complete, the Five-Year
Review will be available on the site's web page, www.epa.gov/superfund/milltown-reservoir
F-12
-------
MILLTOWN RESERVOIR/CLARK IORK RIYLRSl PERI I NDSITE
i ive-vear review
INTERN'!EW FORM
Site Name: Milltown Reservoir / Clark Fork River
EPA ID: MTD980717565
Interviewer name:
Interviewer affiliation:
Subject name: Don Booth
Subject affiliation: Booth Consulting
Interview date: 10/7/20
Interview time: 7:00 AM
Interview location: NA
Interview format (Select):
Email
Interview category (Select): PRP
Interview Introduction
EPA conducts regular checkups, called Five-Year Reviews, at Superfund sites. A Five-Year Review is
a way to evaluate the progress of cleanup actions and make sure they are protecting people and the
environment.
As part of the Five-Year Review for the Milltown Reservoir / Clark Fork River Superfund site,
EPA is speaking with community members to hear their concerns and gather more information about
site conditions. We are interested in your opinions and would like you to be as candid as possible.
Your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official position
representing a local community group or organization. Please answer the following questions as
applicable to your knowledge or situation.
Site Orientation:
The Site currently consists of three operable units. Operable Unit 1 was focused on providing a safe
water supply to Milltown area residents through establishment of a public water supply system for
the town of Milltown. Operable Unit 2 is the Milltown Reservoir Sediments Operable Unit
(MRSOU) and includes approximately 540 acres in the Clark Fork River and Blackfoot River
floodplain. MRSOU consists of the area encompassed by the former Milltown Dam and Reservoir
and the area where arsenic contamination exists in groundwater. Operable Unit 3 is the Clark Fork
River Operable Unit (CFROU). It consists of approximately 120 river miles of the Clark Fork River
and extends from the confluence of the old Silver Bow Creek channel with the reconstructed lower
Mill-Willow bypass, near Anaconda, to the maximum former Milltown Reservoir pool elevation
east of Missoula. The Milltown Reservoir/ Clark Fork River site is one of four contamination areas,
jointly known as the Clark Fork Basin Sites.
Questions:
1. Which operable units are you most familiar with and would like to discuss during this interview?
MRSOU
2. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have taken
place to date?
Yes
F-13
-------
3. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse activities (as
appropriate)?
The Milltown project provides a case study that shows multiple stakeholders can efficiently
work together to reach consensus on design and safe implementation of an integrated
remediation/restoration/reuse approach.
4. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site?
Remedy achieved most remedial performance standards (i.e., surface water criteria, protection of
wetlands and biological resources, reclamation, historic preservation, etc.), restored a free flowing
river and is protective of the environment. Contaminant concentrations in site groundwater have not
fully met all groundwater standards but the remedy is protective of human health because a
replacement water supply provides clean water to the Milltown community.
5. What have been the effects of this Site on the surrounding community, if any?
Long-term positive effects of the integrated remediation / restoration approach include improved
recreational access and environmental benefits. Other impacts to the community included
construction traffic delays, loss of dam property tax revenue, and the need to drill deeper private
wells when the reservoir was drained.
6. Are you aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding environmental issues or the remedial action from
residents since implementation of the cleanup?
No
7. Are you aware of any changes to state laws or local regulations that might affect the protectiveness of the
Site's remedy?
No
8. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?
Land use changed from hydroelectric project reservoir to state park after remedy implementation but
I am not aware of any further projected changes other than addressing safety concerns associated
with pedestrian traffic beneath a railroad bridge that currently restricts public access to the Bonner
Development portion of the state park.
9. Are you comfortable with the status of the institutional controls at the Site? If not, what are
the associated outstanding issues or recommended institutional controls?
County regulations and availability of the replacement water supply protect against well
installation/use in areas where groundwater exceeds standards and easements/state ownership protect
areas of wastes left in place. Establishment of a controlled groundwater area under state regulations
could be considered to provide additional long-term protection against groundwater use.
F-14
-------
10. Has your office conducted any site-related activities or communications in the past five years? If so, please
describe the purpose and results of these activities.
Yes -1 have been conducting semiannual site inspections and submitting annual reports to the
agencies.
11. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency
response, vandalism or trespassing?
Nothing that has required emergency response or been associated with vandalism. Minor issues
related to localized reseeding, weed management, soil cover replacement, stormwater ditch clean-
out, etc. have been addressed under O&M.
12. How effective has EPA and/or the State's communication been in the past? Do you feel have been kept
adequately informed? How can EPA and/or the State best provide site-related information in the future?
I believe agency communication has been effective and I have been kept well informed.
Existing information kiosks at the park are a good means to provide site-related information.
13. What is your greatest concern moving forward with the cleanup at the Site or in specific areas?
RA completion requires certification that all remedy performance standards have been met but post RA
groundwater monitoring results show that while remedy implementation significantly reduced
contaminant concentrations achievement of the 10 ppb arsenic groundwater standard in all compliance
wells is unlikely. The ROD allowed the PRPs to seek waiver of the groundwater performance standards
based on technical impracticability (TI) if these standards are not met within the 10 year time-frame
provided in the ROD (i.e., by 2023). Consideration should be given to allowing the TI evaluation to
proceed.
14. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project,
including the management or operation of the Site's remedy?
Efficiencies could potentially be realized by consolidating weed control/O&M of PRP responsibility areas
(i.e., repositories) with restoration/state park land management responsibilities.
15. Is there anything we have not covered that you would like to share?
I've appreciated the productive working relationships brought to this project by all involved.
16. As a reminder, your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official
position representing a local community group or organization. If you are representing an organization, do
you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this questionnaire in the Five-Year
Review Report?
Yes
F-15
-------
Closing
Thank you for participating in the interview process. We are grateful for the opportunity to learn from
you. EPA expects to finalize the Five-Year Review in mid-2021. When complete, the Five-Year
Review will be available on the site's web page, www.epa.gov/superfund/milltown-reservoir
F-16
-------
MILL TOWN RLSLRYOIR/CLARK IORK RIYLRSl PLRI I M) SI TV.
i im:-m:ar review interview iorm
Site Name: Milltown Reservoir / Clark Fork River
EPA ID: MTD980717565
Interviewer name: Ken Champagne, Beth Archer Interviewer affiliation: EPA RPM, EPA CIC
and Kirby Webster and Skeo
Subject name: Carl Hamming Subject affiliation: Anaconda-Deer Lodge
County
Interview date: 10/21/2020 Interview time: 12 p.m.
Interview format (Select): Phone
Interview category (Select): Local Government
Interview Introduction
EPA conducts regular checkups, called Five-Year Reviews, at Superfund sites. A Five-Year Review is
a way to evaluate the progress of cleanup actions and make sure they are protecting people and the
environment.
As part of the Five-Year Review for the Milltown Reservoir / Clark Fork River Superfund site,
EPA is speaking with community members to hear their concerns and gather more information about
site conditions. We are interested in your opinions and would like you to be as candid as possible.
Your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official position
representing a local community group or organization. Please answer the following questions as
applicable to your knowledge or situation.
Site Orientation:
The Site currently consists of three operable units. Operable Unit 1 was focused on providing a safe water
supply to Milltown area residents through establishment of a public water supply system for the town of
Milltown. Operable Unit 2 is the Milltown Reservoir Sediments Operable Unit (MRSOU) and includes
approximately 540 acres in the Clark Fork River and Blackfoot River floodplain. MRSOU consists of the
area encompassed by the former Milltown Dam and Reservoir and the area where arsenic contamination
exists in groundwater. Operable Unit 3 is the Clark Fork River Operable Unit (CFROU). It consists of
approximately 120 river miles of the Clark Fork River and extends from the confluence of the old Silver Bow
Creek channel with the reconstructed lower Mill-Willow bypass, near Anaconda, to the maximum former
Milltown Reservoir pool elevation east of Missoula. The Milltown Reservoir/ Clark Fork River site is one of
four contamination areas, jointly known as the Clark Fork Basin Sites.
Questions:
1. Which operable units are you most familiar with and would like to discuss during this interview?
I am more familiar with the Clark Fork, though I have floated through the reservoir and know
some of the history.
2. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have taken place
to date?
Yes.
F-17
-------
3. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse activities
(as appropriate)?
Some great work has been done in the past and continues to move forward. I am a little disappointed by the
slow down on the Clark Fork because I have concern for the ongoing contamination from the upper phases
and the long term ability of stretching the remaining funds to cover the remediation of the Clark Fork, for
Reach A, not to mention Reaches B and C.
4. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site?
I think it has been a learning process. Some phases seemed to prioritize cost and others complete removal. I
think they have learned through the remediation of the upper phases so that they can bring back ecological
function faster in the future phases. I think there are elements that they've learned that will be incorporated
into remediation plans for future phases. I think they are trying to be as cost effective and efficient as
possible, but I'm worried that in the long run as those funds are dwindling.
5. What have been the effects of this Site on the surrounding community, if any?
I think a little bit of confusion by the local community, both Anaconda-Deer Lodge and Deer Lodge Valley
about the progression of the cleanup, why they have moved from upstream to downstream and back up to
upstream properties.
There have been some local economic benefits from remediation work and local subcontractors coming into
the town. There are obvious economic impacts. With Superfund in general there is a little bit of jadedness
where some folks feel like their opinions or thoughts or preferences are not going to influence the actual
process itself. So, they are shrugging their shoulders a little bit - thinking that they don't have a voice in the
matter.
6. Are you aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding environmental issues or the remedial action from
residents since implementation of the cleanup?
I am aware of concerns about which phases are prioritized and jumping downstream to do Grant-Kohrs
Ranch when visible slickens exist upstream of Galen which seem like they should be tended to first, or
sooner than further downstream phases where contamination doesn't appear to be as dramatic. There is
general thinking that if downstream contamination is addressed before upstream, then the remediated
downstream phases might be re-contaminated during high flows by the portions that have not yet been
cleaned up.
Arrowstone Park, I believe it is phases 13 and 14, has visible slickens and areas of no vegetative growth, yet
it's open to the public for all sorts of recreational activities. There are some concerns about what the kids
and regular users of the Park are being exposed to when they're playing in the river or on the riverbanks.
7. Are you aware of any changes to state laws or local regulations that might affect the
protectiveness of the Site's remedy?
No.
8. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?
None that I can think of.
9.
Are you comfortable with the status of the institutional controls at the Site? If not, what are the
F-18
-------
associated outstanding issues or recommended institutional controls?
I think Powell County still needs to adopt institutional control language into development regulations to
increase awareness. Not that there will be a lot of development in the floodplain, but helping people
understand what sort of controls can be implemented on the property. Especially as new folks are moving
into the valley and purchasing agricultural properties.
10. Has your office conducted any site-related activities or communications in the past five years? If so, please
describe the purpose and results of these activities.
No.
11. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency
response, vandalism or trespassing?
None that I am aware.
12. How effective has EPA and/or the State's communication been in the past? Do you feel you have been
kept adequately informed? How can EPA and/or the State best provide site-related information in the
future?
I think it has been a challenge for the State. They have had a few different initiatives. They tried a newsletter
and email updates. They have run into an issue of staff turnover. It is an issue because you start to establish a
relationship with a person if there is a question from a landowner. But with the loss of consistency, it
presents a new challenge to feel as comfortable contacting or referring a landowner to them. I appreciated
DEQ putting out newsletters and doing some email blasts to let people know what is being worked on and a
general timeline. Those were easy to share and distribute with other folks.
The DEQ personnel on the Clark Fork were very willing to present to the rotary, hospital board/foundation,
planning board, and County Commissioners. People were able to see it on a publicized agenda and know
they are going to be there. So, they knew they could ask questions in person, or allow the local paper, the
Silver State Post to cover the meeting.
13. What is your greatest concern moving forward with the cleanup at the Site or in specific areas?
If funds start to run low - how are DEQ and EPA going to handle remediation work needing to get done.
What if it gets political and controversial which phases will get proper treatment? Or if the State must try
and stretch insufficient funds across numerous phases? Is there a strategy in place to deal with these issues?
All the while wondering if the cleanup will still be able to do the river justice.
14. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project,
including the management or operation of the Site's remedy?
One thing I learned through Deer Lodge and Anaconda is that the local politicians and stakeholders
appreciate when local contractors or subcontractors are used for cleanup activities. I know there is a formal
bid process and not absolute control of who secures the project and who their subs are, but there are a lot of
complaints when it goes to an outfit that is out-of-state or the region. There is a lot of appreciation when the
bid is awarded to a local outfit.
15. Is there anything we have not covered that you would like to share?
No.
16. As a reminder, your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your
F-19
-------
official position representing a local community group or organization. If you are representing an
organization, do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this
questionnaire in the Five-Year Review Report?
Yes.
Closing
Thank you for participating in the interview process. We are grateful for the opportunity to learn from
you. EPA expects to finalize the Five-Year Review in mid-2021. When complete, the Five-Year
Review will be available on the site's web page, www.epa.gov/superfund/milltown-reservoir
F-20
-------
MILL TOW N RKSKRYOIR/CLARK IORK RIYKRS1 PLRI I M) SI I I!
i im:-m:ar ri:mi:\v im i:rmi:\v iorm
Site Name: Milltown Reservoir / Clark Fork River
EPA ID: MTD980717565
Subject name: Travis Ross
Subject affiliation: Missoula Valley Water
Quality District/Msla County
Interview date: 10/13/20
Interview time: 8:30
Interview format (Select): Email
Interview category (Select): Local Government
Interview Introduction
EPA conducts regular checkups, called Five-Year Reviews, at Superfund sites. A Five-Year Review is
a way to evaluate the progress of cleanup actions and make sure they are protecting people and the
environment.
As part of the Five-Year Review for the Milltown Reservoir / Clark Fork River Superfund site,
EPA is speaking with community members to hear their concerns and gather more information about
site conditions. We are interested in your opinions and would like you to be as candid as possible.
Your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official position
representing a local community group or organization. Please answer the following questions as
applicable to your knowledge or situation.
Site Orientation:
The Site currently consists of three operable units. Operable Unit 1 was focused on providing a safe water
supply to Milltown area residents through establishment of a public water supply system for the town of
Milltown. Operable Unit 2 is the Milltown Reservoir Sediments Operable Unit (MRSOU) and includes
approximately 540 acres in the Clark Fork River and Blackfoot River floodplain. MRSOU consists of the
area encompassed by the former Milltown Dam and Reservoir and the area where arsenic contamination
exists in groundwater. Operable Unit 3 is the Clark Fork River Operable Unit (CFROU). It consists of
approximately 120 river miles of the Clark Fork River and extends from the confluence of the old Silver Bow
Creek channel with the reconstructed lower Mill-Willow bypass, near Anaconda, to the maximum former
Milltown Reservoir pool elevation east of Missoula. The Milltown Reservoir/ Clark Fork River site is one of
four contamination areas, jointly known as the Clark Fork Basin Sites.
Questions:
1. Which operable units are you most familiar with and would like to discuss during this interview?
OU 1 and 2
2. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have taken place
to date?
Yes
3. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse activities
(as appropriate)?
I feel this has been a successful cleanup, maintenance and reuse. The piers in the Blackfoot are the most
F-21
-------
concerning aspect of the remediation.
4. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site?
That it is performing as it was designed and is meeting the remediation objectives
5. What have been the effects of this Site on the surrounding community, if any?
Increased public safety, better river health, better ecological health and improved access to natural resources
6. Are you aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding environmental issues or the remedial action from
residents since implementation of the cleanup?
One issue has come up wherein someone wanted to drill a well within or in proximity of the arsenic plume
on the former Stimson property. Milltown Water Users would not grant connection to the system which then
forced the developer (fire station to use a private well). We would still prefer new developments connect to
the tested PWS. This was a water rights issue reportedly.
7. Are you aware of any changes to state laws or local regulations that might affect the
protectiveness of the Site's remedy?
No
8. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?
No
9. Are you comfortable with the status of the institutional controls at the Site? If not, what are the
associated outstanding issues or recommended institutional controls?
Yes
10. Has your office conducted any site-related activities or communications in the past five years? If so, please
describe the purpose and results of these activities.
Yes, we have had big concerns with the piers that have been left in the Blackfoot River. MRL has objected
to their removal, though modeling was completed during Proposed Plan selection and Montana Dept of
Transportation has secured funding for their removal. They are a public safety concern.
11. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency
response, vandalism or trespassing?
No
12. How effective has EPA and/or the State's communication been in the past? Do you feel you have been
kept adequately informed? How can EPA and/or the State best provide site-related information in the
future?
EPA has been responsive to requests for data. It would be nice to get cumulative testing data tables (Scribe)
as they get updated
13. What is your greatest concern moving forward with the cleanup at the Site or in specific areas?
Public Safety risks of the piers in the Blackfoot and the objection of MRL to their removal, stating that
F-22
-------
removing them would threated the upstream railroad bridge.
14. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project,
including the management or operation of the Site's remedy?
Assistance with model review for pier removal and coordination with Montana Dept of Transportation
would be helpful
15. Is there anything we have not covered that you would like to share?
No
16. As a reminder, your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your
official position representing a local community group or organization. If you are representing an
organization, do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this
questionnaire in the Five-Year Review Report?
Yes
Closing
Thank you for participating in the interview process. We are grateful for the opportunity to learn from
you. EPA expects to finalize the Five-Year Review in mid-2021. When complete, the Five-Year
Review will be available on the site's web page, www.epa.gov/supcrfund/milltow n-rcscrvoir
F-23
-------
MILL TOW N RLSLRYOIR/CLARK lORK RIYLRSl I'LRI I M) SI I I!
i im:-m:ar review interview iorm
Site Name: Milltown Reservoir / Clark Fork River
EPA ID: MTD980717565
Subject name: Karen Knudsen
Subject affiliation: Clark Fork Coalition
Interview date: 11/2/2020
Interview time:
Interview format (Select): Email
Interview category (Select): Community Organization
Interview Introduction
EPA conducts regular checkups, called Five-Year Reviews, at Superfund sites. A Five-Year Review is
a way to evaluate the progress of cleanup actions and make sure they are protecting people and the
environment.
As part of the Five-Year Review for the Milltown Reservoir / Clark Fork River Superfund site,
EPA is speaking with community members to hear their concerns and gather more information about
site conditions. We are interested in your opinions and would like you to be as candid as possible.
Your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official position
representing a local community group or organization. Please answer the following questions as
applicable to your knowledge or situation.
Site Orientation:
The Site currently consists of three operable units. Operable Unit 1 was focused on providing a safe water
supply to Milltown area residents through establishment of a public water supply system for the town of
Milltown. Operable Unit 2 is the Milltown Reservoir Sediments Operable Unit (MRSOU) and includes
approximately 540 acres in the Clark Fork River and Blackfoot River floodplain. MRSOU consists of the
area encompassed by the former Milltown Dam and Reservoir and the area where arsenic contamination
exists in groundwater. Operable Unit 3 is the Clark Fork River Operable Unit (CFROU). It consists of
approximately 120 river miles of the Clark Fork River and extends from the confluence of the old Silver Bow
Creek channel with the reconstructed lower Mill-Willow bypass, near Anaconda, to the maximum former
Milltown Reservoir pool elevation east of Missoula. The Milltown Reservoir/ Clark Fork River site is one of
four contamination areas, jointly known as the Clark Fork Basin Sites.
Questions:
1. Which operable units are you most familiar with and would like to discuss during this interview?
OU2
2. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have taken place
to date?
Yes
3. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse activities
(as appropriate)?
With the exception of the sawed-off piers still sitting in the Blackfoot River, I would give this project five
F-24
-------
out of five stars. Milltown was a world-class cleanup that resulted in rich riparian and floodplain complexity,
superb natural river function, and an ecologically-healthy, resilient river. The Milltown State Park is fast
becoming a hub for public recreation (both active and passive), as well as river stewardship (lots of
volunteer plantings) and nearby light industry is congruent with the history of the place and respectful of its
revitalized natural assets. The public also appreciates that the story of Indigenous Peoples' connection to the
site is upfront and center in the interpretive panels at both the park and on the bluff.
4. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site?
The remedy is functioning extremely well. The rich and complex habitat that is now re-established at the site
is a testament to the design and execution of this remedy.
5. What have been the effects of this Site on the surrounding community, if any?
It's been a huge boon to surrounding communities, in terms of an improved physical environment, better
access to tremendous ecological and recreational assets, and a revitalized local economy.
6. Are you aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding environmental issues or the remedial action from
residents since implementation of the cleanup?
The issues that have crossed my radar include the bridge piers still sitting in the Blackfoot river and
inundation and congestion from river recreationists during hot summer months.
7. Are you aware of any changes to state laws or local regulations that might affect the
protectiveness of the Site's remedy?
No
8. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?
No
9. Are you comfortable with the status of the institutional controls at the Site? If not, what are the
associated outstanding issues or recommended institutional controls?
Yes
10. Has your office conducted any site-related activities or communications in the past five years? If so, please
describe the purpose and results of these activities.
Yes. CFC has conducted many talks, tours (some floating, some from the bluff, some from the north-side
park) and has collaborated with FWP on volunteer planting days. We routinely highlight Milltown in our
communications right around the March 28 anniversary of the removal of the dam.
11. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency
response, vandalism or trespassing?
Not that I'm aware of.
12. How effective has EPA and/or the State's communication been in the past? Do you feel you have been
kept adequately informed? How can EPA and/or the State best provide site-related information in the
future?
Communications were outstanding in the past. We'd like to be kept in the loop on testing of groundwater
F-25
-------
and other monitoring data points, as well as the game plan for the bridge piers left in the Blackfoot.
13. What is your greatest concern moving forward with the cleanup at the Site or in specific areas?
The bridge piers in the Blackfoot pose a big risk to public safety, they interfere with natural river function
and flows, they are trespassing on a riverbed that belongs to the public, and they are a visual blight. What is
the plan for removing them?
14. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project,
including the management or operation of the Site's remedy?
Hold MT Dept. of Transportation's feet to the fire to remove the bridge piers from the middle of the
Blackfoot.
15. Is there anything we have not covered that you would like to share?
No
16. As a reminder, your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your
official position representing a local community group or organization. If you are representing an
organization, do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this
questionnaire in the Five-Year Review Report?
Yes
Closing
Thank you for participating in the interview process. We are grateful for the opportunity to learn from
you. EPA expects to finalize the Five-Year Review in mid-2021. When complete, the Five-Year
Review will be available on the site's web page, www.epa.gov/supcrfund/milltow n-rcscrvoir
F-26
-------
MILL TOW N RKSKRYOIR/CLARK IORK RIYKRS1 PLRI I M) SI I I!
n ye-year reyieny iyieryiew iorm
Site Name: Milltown Reservoir / Clark Fork River
EPA ID: MTD980717565
Subject name: Alex Leone
Subject affiliation: Clark Fork Coalition (CFC)
Interview date: 11/2/2020
Interview time:
Interview format (Select): Email
Interview category (Select): Community Organization
Interview Introduction
EPA conducts regular checkups, called Five-Year Reviews, at Superfund sites. A Five-Year Review is
a way to evaluate the progress of cleanup actions and make sure they are protecting people and the
environment.
As part of the Five-Year Review for the Milltown Reservoir / Clark Fork River Superfund site,
EPA is speaking with community members to hear their concerns and gather more information about
site conditions. We are interested in your opinions and would like you to be as candid as possible.
Your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official position
representing a local community group or organization. Please answer the following questions as
applicable to your knowledge or situation.
Site Orientation:
The Site currently consists of three operable units. Operable Unit 1 was focused on providing a safe water
supply to Milltown area residents through establishment of a public water supply system for the town of
Milltown. Operable Unit 2 is the Milltown Reservoir Sediments Operable Unit (MRSOU) and includes
approximately 540 acres in the Clark Fork River and Blackfoot River floodplain. MRSOU consists of the
area encompassed by the former Milltown Dam and Reservoir and the area where arsenic contamination
exists in groundwater. Operable Unit 3 is the Clark Fork River Operable Unit (CFROU). It consists of
approximately 120 river miles of the Clark Fork River and extends from the confluence of the old Silver Bow
Creek channel with the reconstructed lower Mill-Willow bypass, near Anaconda, to the maximum former
Milltown Reservoir pool elevation east of Missoula. The Milltown Reservoir/ Clark Fork River site is one of
four contamination areas, jointly known as the Clark Fork Basin Sites.
Questions:
1. Which operable units are you most familiar with and would like to discuss during this interview?
OU3
2. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have taken place
to date?
Yes
3. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse activities
(as appropriate)?
Although the State has made significant strides on the upper Clark Fork River, the cleanup is 20% complete
and behind schedule. Fish populations in the upper portion of the river are near all-time lows and remain
F-27
-------
depressed from Galen to Turah. Some of the most heavily contaminated reaches of river continue to leach
toxic contamination into the river and just last year another major fish kill was documented near Galen.
While the CFC has appreciated the recent proactive approach to mitigate some of these risks over the short-
term, we also recognize the need to chart a new course forward that better integrates restoration and
remediation actions and prioritizes cleanup of high risk areas.
4. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site?
See comment #3.
5. What have been the effects of this Site on the surrounding community, if any?
The superfund stigma in the upper Clark Fork continues to detrimentally impact and constrain community
development in places like Drummond, Deer Lodge and Anaconda. Although there is growing interest in the
recreational potential of the upper Clark Fork there continue to be barriers towards progress (such as the well
publicized fish kill that occurred in September of 2019). The slow progress and lack of transparency has also
led to many communities feeling left out disenchanted and fed-up with the process.
6. Are you aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding environmental issues or the remedial action from
residents since implementation of the cleanup?
The CFC often acts as a conduit for relaying complaints and concerns from local community members
related to the cleanup on the upper Clark Fork. Some of the most prominent complaints and concerns
include the following. Fishing interests (both commercial and recreational) are worried that the cleanup is
doing more harm to the fishery than good. As one long time fisher noted "they're creating a fish desert with
the cleanup." These fishing interests would like to see more emphasis put on the recovery of the fishery and
are concerned by the lack of aquatic habitat post cleanup. Local communities have also complained about
the pace of the cleanup and lack of overall transparency. What's the plan after Phase 3 is completed? Where
does design review stand? How will funding be prioritized going forward? How can the public comment on
design? These are important questions that need to be addressed publicly.
7. Are you aware of any changes to state laws or local regulations that might affect the
protectiveness of the Site's remedy?
no
8. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?
no
9. Are you comfortable with the status of the institutional controls at the Site? If not, what are the
associated outstanding issues or recommended institutional controls?
This question needs much more background information that is specific to the UCF. What institutional
controls? Feel free to give me a call if you'd like to explain further.
10. Has your office conducted any site-related activities or communications in the past five years? If so, please
describe the purpose and results of these activities.
The Clark Fork Coalition has been deeply engaged in Superfund cleanup on the upper Clark Fork River for
over 30 years. As landowners, we witnessed firsthand the restoration and remediation of 4 miles of the
mainstem and understand the challenges faced in this gargantuan cleanup effort. As a scientific advocacy
organization, we have been tracking design processes, spearheading restoration projects and engaging local
stakeholders. Over the last 5 years the CFC spearheaded several public outreach events in Deer Lodge and
F-28
-------
Anaconda. We also initiated dozens of tours and floats with stakeholders, landowners and government
representatives. We also regularly communicate with our supporters on the status of the cleanup and related
activities.
11. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency
response, vandalism or trespassing?
The CFC was very heartened with the State's recent attempts to mitigate the risks associated with last year's
fish kill near Galen (by installing emergency berms on high-risk slickens). We'd like to see more proactive
approaches like this utilized in the future.
12. How effective has EPA and/or the State's communication been in the past? Do you feel you have been
kept adequately informed? How can EPA and/or the State best provide site-related information in the
future?
Very poor. With the dissolution of CFRTAC and the slow down in clean up progress there has been very
little attempt to meaningfully communicate with the general public. The CFC has been doing a much better
job than the EPA or State related to outreach and communications.
13. What is your greatest concern moving forward with the cleanup at the Site or in specific areas?
We are concerned that there might not be enough funding to complete a thorough cleanup at the site.
14. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project,
including the management or operation of the Site's remedy?
From an overarching design perspective the CFC supports diversifying floodplain designs and lowering
floodplain elevations; the integration of more naturalized bank treatments; the use of woody debris as
habitat; and the prioritization of contaminant removal in high-risk areas. The preservation of high value bank
habitats, the use of large wood in bank treatments and the integration of instream habitat design features may
help bridge the aquatic habitat void that occurs as a result of cleanup activities. The CFC is not alone in
wanting to see more emphasis on aquatic habitat and both MT FWP and local users have expressed similar
desires. We'd also like to see an emphasis on transparency going forward and would be more than willing to
help the State/EPA communicate with local communities more effectively.
15. Is there anything we have not covered that you would like to share?
16. As a reminder, your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your
official position representing a local community group or organization. If you are representing an
organization, do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this
questionnaire in the Five-Year Review Report?
Yes
Closing
Thank you for participating in the interview process. We are grateful for the opportunity to learn from
you. EPA expects to finalize the Five-Year Review in mid-2021. When complete, the Five-Year
Review will be available on the site's web page, www.epa.gov/supcrfund/milltow n-rcscrvoir
F-29
-------
MILL TOW N RKSKRYOIR/CLARK IORK RIYKRS1 PLRI I M) SI I I!
i im:-m:ar ri:mi:\v im i:rmi:\v iorm
Site Name: Milltown Reservoir / Clark Fork River
EPA ID: MTD980717565
Subject name: Casey Hackathorn
Subject affiliation: Trout Unlimited
Interview date: 11/5/2020
Interview time:
Interview format (Select): Email
Interview category (Select): Community Organization
Interview Introduction
EPA conducts regular checkups, called Five-Year Reviews, at Superfund sites. A Five-Year Review is
a way to evaluate the progress of cleanup actions and make sure they are protecting people and the
environment.
As part of the Five-Year Review for the Milltown Reservoir / Clark Fork River Superfund site,
EPA is speaking with community members to hear their concerns and gather more information about
site conditions. We are interested in your opinions and would like you to be as candid as possible.
Your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official position
representing a local community group or organization. Please answer the following questions as
applicable to your knowledge or situation.
Site Orientation:
The Site currently consists of three operable units. Operable Unit 1 was focused on providing a safe water
supply to Milltown area residents through establishment of a public water supply system for the town of
Milltown. Operable Unit 2 is the Milltown Reservoir Sediments Operable Unit (MRSOU) and includes
approximately 540 acres in the Clark Fork River and Blackfoot River floodplain. MRSOU consists of the
area encompassed by the former Milltown Dam and Reservoir and the area where arsenic contamination
exists in groundwater. Operable Unit 3 is the Clark Fork River Operable Unit (CFROU). It consists of
approximately 120 river miles of the Clark Fork River and extends from the confluence of the old Silver Bow
Creek channel with the reconstructed lower Mill-Willow bypass, near Anaconda, to the maximum former
Milltown Reservoir pool elevation east of Missoula. The Milltown Reservoir/ Clark Fork River site is one of
four contamination areas, jointly known as the Clark Fork Basin Sites.
Questions:
1. Which operable units are you most familiar with and would like to discuss during this interview?
MRSOU and CFROU
2. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have taken place
to date?
Yes.
3. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse activities
(as appropriate)?
The Milltown Reservoir site appears to be very successful a decade after completion. The habitat is
F-30
-------
recovering very well and the river system is functioning naturally. The improvements at Milltown State Park
are being enjoyed by the public and the entire site is an asset to our community.
The Clark Fork River OU is a work in progress. I've been pleased by the results of the cleanup to date and
the restoration is trending in the right direction. There have been limited opportunities for public
participation in the last couple of years and I have only seen the most recent phase from floating through it.
I'm concerned with the budget trajectory and hope that there is enough funding to complete high-quality
remediation and restoration for the remainder of the work. Given the time scale of the work, I think there is
ample opportunity for peer review and adaptive management to ensure the best possible outcomes by the
time the project is completed.
4. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site?
My impression of the Milltown is remedy is that it is performing as designed.
On the Clark Fork, the remedy appears to be performing as designed and removing contaminants from the
floodplain. The pace of the work is of some concern given that some contaminants continue to erode into the
river during rain and high flow events.
5. What have been the effects of this Site on the surrounding community, if any?
At Milltown, the area seems to be on a continual growth trajectory that may or may not be related to the
cleanup but the amenities that came with redevelopment of the site and the adjoining areas certainly can't
hurt.
On the Clark Fork, it remains to be seen if there will be any change in the Deer Lodge Valley. There does
seem to be an increase in recreational use but given that the larger project hasn't been completed and the
fishery is still suffering, they are likely not related.
6. Are you aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding environmental issues or the remedial action from
residents since implementation of the cleanup?
I have heard about some concerns with the active nature of the floodplain above Milltown on the Clark Fork
River but that is largely the result of restored natural processes that are beneficial to the resource.
7. Are you aware of any changes to state laws or local regulations that might affect the
protectiveness of the Site's remedy?
No.
8. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?
No.
9. Are you comfortable with the status of the institutional controls at the Site? If not, what are the
associated outstanding issues or recommended institutional controls?
Yes.
10. Has your office conducted any site-related activities or communications in the past five years? If so, please
describe the purpose and results of these activities.
No.
F-31
-------
11. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency
response, vandalism or trespassing?
No.
12. How effective has EPA and/or the State's communication been in the past? Do you feel you have been
kept adequately informed? How can EPA and/or the State best provide site-related information in the
future?
I'd prefer to be more engaged on the CFROU. Since CFRTAC has become inactive, there really hasn't been
a forum for public engagement on the site.
13. What is your greatest concern moving forward with the cleanup at the Site or in specific areas?
On the CFROU, it is ensuring efficient and cost effective remedy while maximizing restoration potential of
the river corridor and recovering the fishery.
14. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project,
including the management or operation of the Site's remedy?
Would like to see more opportunities for improving and innovating cost-effective approaches to maximizing
habitat outcomes for restoration in combination with remedy on the CFROU.
15. Is there anything we have not covered that you would like to share?
16. As a reminder, your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your
official position representing a local community group or organization. If you are representing an
organization, do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this
questionnaire in the Five-Year Review Report?
Yes.
Closing
Thank you for participating in the interview process. We are grateful for the opportunity to learn from
you. EPA expects to finalize the Five-Year Review in mid-2021. When complete, the Five-Year
Review will be available on the site's web page, www.epa.gov/superfund/milltown-reservoir
F-32
-------
MILL TOW N RLSLRYOIR/CLARK FORK RIYKRS1 PLRI I M) SI I I!
i im:-m:ar ri:mi:\v im i:rmi:\v iorm
Site Name: Milltown Reservoir / Clark Fork River
EPA ID: MTD980717565
Interviewer name:
Interviewer affiliation:
Subject name: Dr. Erick Greene
Subject affiliation: University of Montana
Subject contact information: Div. of Biol. Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula MT 59801
Interview date: 28 Sept 2020
Interview time: 0900 h
Interview location: At home
Interview format (Select): Email
Interview category (Select): State
Interview Introduction
EPA conducts regular checkups, called Five-Year Reviews, at Superfund sites. A Five-Year Review is
a way to evaluate the progress of cleanup actions and make sure they are protecting people and the
environment.
As part of the Five-Year Review for the Milltown Reservoir / Clark Fork River Superfund site,
EPA is speaking with community members to hear their concerns and gather more information about
site conditions. We are interested in your opinions and would like you to be as candid as possible.
Your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official position
representing a local community group or organization. Please answer the following questions as
applicable to your knowledge or situation.
Site Orientation:
The Site currently consists of three operable units. Operable Unit 1 was focused on providing a safe
water supply to Milltown area residents through establishment of a public water supply system for
the town of Milltown. Operable Unit 2 is the Milltown Reservoir Sediments Operable Unit
(MRSOU) and includes approximately 540 acres in the Clark Fork River and Blackfoot River
floodplain. MRSOU consists of the area encompassed by the former Milltown Dam and Reservoir
and the area where arsenic contamination exists in groundwater. Operable Unit 3 is the Clark Fork
River Operable Unit (CFROU). It consists of approximately 120 river miles of the Clark Fork River
and extends from the confluence of the old Silver Bow Creek channel with the reconstructed lower
Mill-Willow bypass, near Anaconda, to the maximum former Milltown Reservoir pool elevation
east of Missoula. The Milltown Reservoir/ Clark Fork River site is one of four contamination areas,
jointly known as the Clark Fork Basin Sites.
Questions:
1. Which operable units are you most familiar with and would like to discuss during this interview?
I am most familiar with operable units 1 and 2.
2. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have taken place
to date?
F-33
-------
Yes. I am the co-director of the Clark Fork Watershed Education Program (along with Rayelynn
Brandl), and I am also the director of the Montana Osprey project. We receive funding from the Natural
Resources damage program for educational programs that focus on the EPA superfund site. We also
conduct ecotoxicology studies using ospreys (since they are at the top of the aquatic foodchain) to
monitor levels of heavy metals throughout the Upper Clark Fork basin.
3. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse activities (as
appropriate)?
I have been incredibly impressed at how balanced, efficient and cost effective the project has been.
There are lots of competing needs and requests for the money - everything from moving
contaminated soils, re-vegetating huge areas, cleaning up water supplies, and educating the next
generation of stewards of the river. I have felt that the process of having projects evaluated
regularly by the Advisory Council has been extremely fair and balanced. In my view, the careful
stewardship of the cleanup money has achieved a great "bang for the buck."
4. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site?
The remedy of operable unit 2 is pretty remarkable. The new Confluence State Park is a gem for the
state, and what used to be a toxic sludge pit is now is a showcase for what can be done for remediation
and restoration. The vegetation and wildlife at the site now are spectacular -1 now take my classes and
family there to learn and enjoy. The areas where we work in operable unit 3 are still undergoing
cleanup, so these are definitely works in progress. I have been working mainly near Drummond, Deer
Lodge, Race Track, Galen and Warm Springs. These areas are in various stages of remediation and
restoration, but the trajectory for the cleanup is excellent in my opinion.
5. What have been the effects of this Site on the surrounding community, if any?
In my opinion the effects on the surrounding communities have been huge and positive. For our
educational programs, we have taken many thousands of students and adults to the Clark Fork River to
learn about aquatic ecology, the history of mining in the basin, and what is being done to clean things
up. The interest from the communities has been great. Places like Confluence State Park are a huge
boost to the nearby communities. Lots of people, both local and visitors, stop in at the park (about
35,000 last summer according to Mike Kustudia!). This is a showcase for the cleanup, and is a boost
for the local communities.
6. Are you aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding environmental issues or the remedial action from
residents since implementation of the cleanup?
Early on there were folks who were opposed to the removal of Milltown Dam and the cleanup. But
now that the project is fairly far along, when I interact with people all along the Clark Fork River all
I hear is positive.
7. Are you aware of any changes to state laws or local regulations that might affect the protectiveness of the
Site's remedy?
No.
F-34
-------
8. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?
No.
9. Are you comfortable with the status of the institutional controls at the Site? If not, what are the associated
outstanding issues or recommended institutional controls?
I am comfortable with the institutional controls at the sites. In my experience, the leadership teams
take their jobs really seriously - they spend a lot of time in the field, they have intimate knowledge
of what is going on, and they are passionate about the cost-effective cleanup of the Clark Fork River.
10. Has your office conducted any site-related activities or communications in the past five years? If so, please
describe the purpose and results of these activities.
We conduct field trips and educational programs, as well as sampling blood and feathers from
osprey chicks, from Butte to Missoula.
11. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency
response, vandalism or trespassing?
No.
12. How effective has EPA and/or the State's communication been in the past? Do you feel have been kept
adequately informed? How can EPA and/or the State best provide site-related information in the future?
I consider the on-going clean-up of the UCFR as one of the great success stories in our area. In my
experience, most people (local, regional and national) have virtually no idea of the scope of things
that are going on with the cleanup. I would like to see more effective positive communication about
the EPA Superfund project - there are lots of exciting things to crow about.
13. What is your greatest concern moving forward with the cleanup at the Site or in specific areas?
Now that we are entering the last phases of the cleanup, I would like to see some of the projects
continue, and not just have the rug pulled out.
14. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project,
including the management or operation of the Site's remedy?
Just keep on with the good work!
15. Is there anything we have not covered that you would like to share?
No. As you can tell, I have been incredibly positive and supportive of the overall project. The job
has been massive, and those guiding the process have so many balls in the air. My hat is off to
them for what I consider a balanced and fair approach.
16. As a reminder, your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official
position representing a local community group or organization. If you are representing an organization, do
you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this questionnaire in the Five-Year
Review Report?
Yes. I represent part of Clark Fork Watershed Education Program and the Montana Osprey Project.
F-35
-------
Closing
Thank you for participating in the interview process. We are grateful for the opportunity to learn from
you. EPA expects to finalize the Five-Year Review in mid-2021. When complete, the Five-Year
Review will be available on the site's web page, www.epa.gov/superfund/milltown-reservoir
F-36
-------
MILL TOWN RLSLRYOIR/CLARK lORK RIYLRSl PLRIl M) SI TV.
i im:-m:ar review interview iorm
Site Name: Milltown Reservoir / Clark Fork River
EPA ID: MTD980717565
Interviewer name: Ken Champagne, Beth Archer Interviewer affiliation: EPA RPM, EPA CIC
and Kirby Webster and Skeo
Subject name: Joe Griffin Subject affiliation: Clark Fork Coalition, Clark
Fork Watershed Education Program, Citizens
Technical Environmental Committee, retired
MDEQ
Interview date: 10/19/2020 Interview time: 9 a.m.
Interview location: N/A
Interview format (Select): Phone/Email
Interview category (Select): Community Organization
Interview Introduction
EPA conducts regular checkups, called Five-Year Reviews, at Superfund sites. A Five-Year Review is
a way to evaluate the progress of cleanup actions and make sure they are protecting people and the
environment.
As part of the Five-Year Review for the Milltown Reservoir / Clark Fork River Superfund site,
EPA is speaking with community members to hear their concerns and gather more information about
site conditions. We are interested in your opinions and would like you to be as candid as possible.
Your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official position
representing a local community group or organization. Please answer the following questions as
applicable to your knowledge or situation.
Site Orientation:
The Site currently consists of three operable units. Operable Unit 1 was focused on providing a safe water
supply to Milltown area residents through establishment of a public water supply system for the town of
Milltown. Operable Unit 2 is the Milltown Reservoir Sediments Operable Unit (MRSOU) and includes
approximately 540 acres in the Clark Fork River and Blackfoot River floodplain. MRSOU consists of the
area encompassed by the former Milltown Dam and Reservoir and the area where arsenic contamination
exists in groundwater. Operable Unit 3 is the Clark Fork River Operable Unit (CFROU). It consists of
approximately 120 river miles of the Clark Fork River and extends from the confluence of the old Silver Bow
Creek channel with the reconstructed lower Mill-Willow bypass, near Anaconda, to the maximum former
Milltown Reservoir pool elevation east of Missoula. The Milltown Reservoir/ Clark Fork River site is one of
four contamination areas, jointly known as the Clark Fork Basin Sites.
F-37
-------
Questions:
1. Which operable units are you most familiar with and would like to discuss during this interview?
I'm most familiar with Clark Fork River (OU3), which is still being actively remediated. But I'm also
familiar with the now complete Milltown Reservoir Sediments (OU2), which is re-naturalizing itself.
2. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have taken place
to date?
Yes. I am becoming more familiar with the Clark Fork River remedy and restoration. I have been on several
evaluation tours and float trips with the Clark Fork Coalition and MT Fish Wildlife and Parks. In most
respects I have been watching at a distance with my main focus on the cleanup and restoration of the main
tributaries to the Clark Fork - Warm Springs Creek and Silver Bow Creek.
My background is in geology and I have an interest in natural stream morphology. Silver Bow Creek is now
a wholly rebuilt stream and floodplain that over time appears to be re-naturalizing itself. There are lessons to
be learned that can apply to the Clark Fork.
On the Clark Fork, whether to preserve robust habitat at the expense of removing more of the streamside
tailings seems to be a growing consideration. In the now complete Phases 1, 2, 4 and 5, there was a very
aggressive approach which left little in the way of mature vegetation and hence good fish habitat such as
overhanging banks and vegetation. There seems to be a willingness on the part of the stakeholders to
reevaluate how to approach the next phases. I find that exciting. I believe adaptive management, learning
from Silver Bow Creek, Warm Springs Creek, the now complete phases of the Clark Fork, is a robust
approach to design, construction and restoration. Learning as you go, from the mistakes and successes.
Ultimately, a river will heal itself, but can take a long time.
An additional concern is the slickens that are directly connected to the river. In 2019, during a severe
summer thunderstorm, one or more slickens ponded highly contaminated water that then overtopped
containment berms, discharging to the river and causing a fish kill. That event triggered additional discussion
on the need for more immediate actions for those streamside hot spots.
3. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance, and reuse?
I am impressed by the way people are working together. I'm seeing more flexibility in the cleanup approach.
I'm fascinated by the evolving approaches and I'm trying to keep up on the recent documents. I work with
Clark Fork Coalition. It is really an outside group having a big effect on how to do the cleanup. I find it very
impressive.
4. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site?
I take a long view. The main thing is there is a lack of habitat in rebuilt areas. Some of the design features
didn't work as designed. Floods were supposed to spill out onto the floodplain, which really didn't happen,
even during high flow years such as 2018. It is pretty hard to get the design exactly right. My long view is to
give it some time and it will do better. What was learned from the performance of completed phases should
help design and build the future phases. I think the balance between more aggressive removal and
preserving good habitat with limited contamination is shifting, for good reason, toward preserving habitat.
5. What have been the effects of this Site on the surrounding community, if any?
When I was still working with a consulting firm, we did some work on Arrowstone Park in Deer Lodge. I
think that park is now a real asset for the community. As I've learned from the Greenway along Silver Bow
F-38
-------
Creek, these amenities go a long way toward building community acceptance of the short-term disruption
constructing the remedy for long-term amenities.
I have also taken part in a series of three meetings on the Warm Springs Ponds, in Anaconda, Deer Lodge
and Butte. These communities have interest in these cleanups in general. But there is a difference between
Butte/Anaconda, where issues are largely urban, and the Clark Fork cleanup, where the Agencies are largely
dealing with agricultural communities and small towns. It is a quite different cleanup. There are many
farmers and ranchers that own land along the Clark Fork and the Agencies are faced with completing
floodplain cleanup with agricultural end land use requirements.
6. Are you aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding environmental issues or the remedial action from
residents since implementation of the cleanup?
If you were to go to Missoula and talk about Milltown, people love it and are amazed by the cleanup. It has
been so successful, both as a cleanup and as restoring the confluence of the Clark Fork and the Blackfoot.
But as for the Clark Fork (OU3) cleanup, sentiments runs the gamut. In the immediate past, Montana DEQ
worked very closely with the National Park Service at Grant-Kohrs Ranch to craft a cleanup that is
compatible with a national park. DEQ also worked with local ranchers in Phases 5 and 6, to preserve and
enhance hay fields adjacent to the river. However, there is ongoing concern amongst anglers over losing
fish habitat. One fishing guide expressed frustration that the lack of habitat in the rebuilt reaches has
affected his guiding business.
7. Are you aware of any changes to state laws or local regulations that might affect the
protectiveness of the Site's remedy?
Under Superfund law, EPA must adopt relevant applicable laws and standards (ARARs) that frame the
"protectiveness" of the remedy. But over the arc of the cleanup, EPA needs the flexibility to consider
waivers of those adopted standards. EPA adopted the Montana's aquatic-life standard for copper, which is
based on measuring the total recoverable fraction. EPA waived the State's standard and apply the Federal
standard, which is based on the dissolved fraction, based on technical impracticability of meeting the State
standard. Having been party to technical impracticability analyses at both the Anaconda NPL site and the
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area NPL site, I believe that the waiver decision for the Clark Fork was arbitrary.
8. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?
EPA and DEQ have worked hard to address the concerns and needs of land owners.
9. Are you comfortable with the status of the institutional controls at the Site? If not, what are the
associated outstanding issues or recommended institutional controls?
At all the Clark Fork Basin Superfund Sites managers have learned to be cautious about closing the
public lands out of sites using fences. The focus is on a remedy and institutional controls that does not
preclude public access. The agencies have developed risk based action levels that recognize exposure
to contaminates is different at residential as opposed to recreational areas. That allows broad access to
public lands and recreational uses.
10. Has your office conducted any site-related activities or communications in the past five years? If so,
please describe the purpose and results of these activities.
Yes - as part of both the Clark Fork Watershed Education Program and the Clark Fork Coalition, I have
helped with K-12 environmental education in Deer Lodge, Drummond, Philipsburg and Missoula.
11. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency
F-39
-------
response, vandalism, or trespassing?
Not that I am aware of.
12. How effective has EPA or the State's communication been in the past? Do you feel youhave been kept
adequately informed? How can EPA and/or the State best provide site-related information in the future?
I have been really involved here in Butte. It is a difficult thing. As part of Citizens Technical Environmental
Committee (CTEC), we are given money to be an interface between the agencies and the public. A large part
of that role is organizing and hosting public meetings. I have learned that it is an extremely difficult task.
Generally, unless it is in their back yard, people are not engaged. Anaconda and Butte are large
communities that have more direct health concerns than Clark Fork communities. I keep myself informed.
EPA's websites have been getting better and better having site documents and site-related information.
Community engagement and education can be difficult.
13. What is your greatest concern moving forward with the cleanup at the Site or in specific areas?
I do not necessarily have a concern. There are no cookie-cutter approaches to cleaning up working with a
river system. I have learned a fair amount of patience after 30-years Superfund work, so I will watch with
interest the evolving adaptive management approach to the rest of the cleanup. And the river will play it's
own role in long-term restoration - of that I am sure.
14. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project,
including the management or operation of the Site's remedy?
My recommendation goes beyond the Clark Fork cleanup and entails the entire Clark Fork Basin Superfund
Complex. The success of the Clark Fork cleanup necessarily relies on the success of restoring Silver Bow
Creek and the four streams of Anaconda.
The lack of a comprehensive approach to restoring the streams of the three NPL sites is disturbing. At this
point in the cleanup, we should be taking a watershed approach. And while recognizing that CERCLA is
not responsible for all watershed ills, CERCLA work has focused scientific energy on the watershed, albeit
in piecemeal fashion.
I strongly recommend that EPA, DEQ, the Natural Resource Damage Program, and Montana Fish Wildlife
and Parks begin a broader collaboration between stakeholders and begin to evaluate the robust
environmental database that is currently available to understand what is limiting ecologic restoration of the
watershed. The endeavor should begin with a thorough evaluation of the current monitoring programs with
the intent of identifying gaps, coordinating data collection, and assuring that the data is readily available to
all interested parties. EPA, Atlantic Richfield, DEQ and FWP are currently collecting data, it is piecemeal
and much of it is hard to access. The data collection should be enhanced to address related, but not
specifically CERCLA issues such as temperature, nutrients and tributary flows.
I suggest that EPA and the State of Montana set up an upper Clark Fork Basin Commission or Working
Group to evaluate the watershed's ecologic restoration using the enhanced database and help to guide the
various agencies working to find solutions.
15. Is there anything we have not covered that you would like to share?
At some point it will be really important to take an integrated watershed approach to the cleanups at all three
Superfund sites since they all affect each other.
16. As a reminder, your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your
official position representing a local community group or organization. If you are representing an
F-40
-------
organization, do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this
questionnaire in the Five-Year Review Report?
Please use my name, Joe Griffin, DEQ - Retired. I am only speaking for myself. But I am the vice
president of Citizens Technical Advisory Committee, a technical advisor to Clark Fork Watershed
Education Program, and a member of the Clark Fork Coalition Technical Advisory Board.
Thank you,
Joe Griffin
Closing
Thank you for participating in the interview process. We are grateful for the opportunity to learn from
you. EPA expects to finalize the Five-Year Review in mid-2021. When complete, the Five-Year
Review will be available on the site's web page, www.epa.gov/superfund/milltown-reservoir
F-41
-------
APPENDIX G - SITE INSPECTION CHECKLISTS
MRSOU Inspection Checklist
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site Name: Milltown Sediments OU
Date of Inspection: 9/21/2020
Location and Region: Milltown. Missoula County.
Montana. EPA Region 8
EPA ID: MTD980717565
Agency, Office or Company Leading the Five-Year
Review: EPA
Weather/Temperature: Sunny and 80ฐF
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
1X1 Landfill cover/containment
~ Access controls
1X1 Institutional controls
~ Groundwater pump and treatment
~ Surface water collection and treatment
1X1 Other: establish public water system for Milltown: remove contaminated sediment: streambank
stabilization
1X1 Monitored natural attenuation
~ Groundwater containment
~ Vertical barrier walls
Attachments:
Inspection team roster attached
~ Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (check all that apply)
1. O&M Site Manager Don Booth PRP Contractor
Name Title
Interviewed ~ at site ~ at office ~ by phone Phone:
Problems, suggestions ~ Report attached:
10/07/2020
Date
2. O&M Staff
Name Title
Interviewed ~ at site ~ at office ~ by phone Phone:
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:
Date
3. Local Regulatory Authorities and Response Agencies (i.e., state and tribal offices, emergency
response office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office,
recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices). Fill in all that apply.
Agency MDEO
Contact Keith Large
Name
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:.
Project
Manager
Title
10/06/2020
Date
Phone No.
Agency Missoula Valley Water Quality District
Contact Travis Ross
Name
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:.
Environmental 10/13/2020
Health
Supervisor
Title
Date
Phone No.
Agency
Contact
Name Title
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:
G-l
Date
Phone No.
-------
Asencv
Contact
Name Title
Problems/sussestions PI Rcoort attached:
Date
Phone No.
Asencv
Contact
Name Title
Problems/suggestions PI Report attached:
Date
Phone No.
4.
Other Interviews (optional) PI Report attached:
Dr. Erick Greene, Joe Griffin, Doug Martin, Karen Knudsen and Casey Hackathorn
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS VERIFIED (check all that apply)
1.
O&M Documents
1X1 O&M manual ~ Readily available
~ Up to date
~ N/A
~ As-built drawings ~ Readily available
~ Up to date
IX|n/a
1X1 Maintenance logs ~ Readily available
~ Up to date
~ n/a
Remarks:
2.
Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan
1 1 Readily available
1 1 Up to date
1X1 N/A
~ Contingency plan/emergency response plan
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
1X1 N/A
Remarks:
3.
O&M and OSHA Training Records
Remarks:
1 1 Readily available
1 1 Up to date
1X1 N/A
4.
Permits and Service Agreements
~ Air discharge permit
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
1X1 N/A
~ Effluent discharge
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
[XI N/A
~ Waste disposal, POTW
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
[XI N/A
PI Other Dcrmits:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
1X1 N/A
Remarks:
5.
Gas Generation Records
Remarks:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
[XI N/A
6.
Settlement Monument Records
Remarks:
1X1 Readily available
~ Up to date
~ n/a
7.
Groundwater Monitoring Records
Remarks:
1X1 Readily available
1X1 Up to date
~ n/a
8.
Leachate Extraction Records
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
[XI N/A
Remarks:
G-2
-------
9. Discharge Compliance Records
~ Air ~ Readily available ~ Up to date ฃ3 N/A
~ Water (effluent) ~ Readily available ~ Up to date ฃ3 N/A
Remarks:
10. Daily Access/Security Logs
~ Readily available ~ Up to date ^ N/A
Remarks:
IV. O&M COSTS
1. O&M Organization
153 State in-house
1 1 Contractor for state
1 1 PRP in-house
1X1 Contractor for PRP
1 1 Federal facility in-house
1 1 Contractor for Federal facility
n
2. O&M Cost Records
1 1 Readily available
1 1 Up to date
1 1 Funding mechanism/agreement
in place Unavailable
Orieinal O&M cost estimate:
1 1 Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From: To:
I-! Breakdown attached
Date Date
Total cost
From: To:
I-! Breakdown attached
Date Date
Total cost
From: To:
I-! Breakdown attached
Date Date
Total cost
From: To:
I-! Breakdown attached
Date Date
Total cost
From: To:
I-! Breakdown attached
Date Date
Total cost
3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs during Review Period
Describe costs and reasons:
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS ^ Applicable ~ N/A
A. Fencing
1. Fencing Damaged ~ Location shown on site map ~ Gates secured ^ N/A
Remarks:
G-3
-------
B.
Other Access Restrictions
1.
Signs and Other Security Measures
1 1 Location shown on site map
[El n/a
Remarks:
C.
Institutional Controls (ICs)
1. Implementation and Enforcement
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented
I~1 Yes
|KI No
~ n/a
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced
~ Yes
|EI No
~ n/a
Type of monitoring (e.g.. self-reporting, drive b\ ):
Freauencv:
Responsible partv/agencv:
Contact
Name Title
Date
Phone no.
Reporting is up to date
I~1 Yes
~ No
IE|n/a
Reports are verified by the lead agency
I~1 Yes
~ No
IE1 N/A
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met
I~1 Yes
lElNo
~ n/a
Violations have been reported
I~1 Yes
|E|No
~ n/a
Other problems or suggestions: ~ Report attached
2. Adequacy ~ ICs are adequate ^ ICs are inadequate ~ N/A
Remarks: Some institutional controls are in place to protect the remedy and to prevent exposure to
contaminated groundwater and soil. A 2017 Institutional Controls Agreement for state-owned property
restricts residential use and the installation of drinking water wells. The 2017 Institutional Controls
Agreement also prohibits disturbing the repositories and using them for residential use. The southwestern
portion of the MRSOU is not subject to the 2017 ICs Agreement: residential use is prevented in that area
by state laws prohibiting/restricting residential development in floodwavs and floodplains. Most of the
MRSOU is now part of Milltown State Park. The Missoula Valley Water Quality Ordinance prohibits
installing public water wells in the vicinity of the arsenic plume. Additional institutional controls may be
needed for areas of the MRSOU not included in the 2017 ICs Agreement to restrict private well
installation in the Milltown area.
D. General
1. Vandalism/Trespassing ~ Location shown on site map ^ No vandalism evident
Remarks: Rafting is now allowed.
2. Land Use Changes On Site ~ N/A
Remarks: Milltown State Park opened in 2018. Blackfoot River will be widened under 1-90 as part of
highway project.
3. Land Use Changes Off Site ^ N/A
Remarks:
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads ~ Applicable ^ N/A
1. Roads Damaged ~ Location shown on site map ~ Roads adequate ~ N/A
Remarks:
G-4
-------
B.
Other Site Conditions
Remarks:
VII. LANDFILL COVERS ^Applicable
~ n/a
A.
Landfill Surface
1.
Settlement (low spots)
~ Location shown on site map
Settlement not evident
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
2.
Cracks
1 1 Location shown on site map
I>^1 Cracking not evident
Leneths:
Widths:
Deaths:
Remarks:
3.
Erosion
1 1 Location shown on site map
1 1 Erosion not evident
Area extent:
Deoth:
Remarks: Sloueh on hillside above Tunnel Pond Repository due to heaw rains
4.
Holes
~ Location shown on site map
E3 Holes not evident
Area extent:
Deoth:
Remarks:
5.
Vegetative Cover
1X1 Grass
Cover properly established
153 No signs of stress
1 1 Trees/shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)
Remarks:
6.
Alternative Cover (e g
, armored rock, concrete)
M N/A
Remarks:
7.
Bulges
1 1 Location shown on site map
Bulges not evident
Area extent:
Heisht:
Remarks:
8.
Wet A rcas/Water Damage ^ Wet areas/water damage not evident
n Wet areas
1 1 Location shown on site map
Area extent:
1 1 Ponding
1 1 Location shown on site map
Area extent:
I~1 Seeps
1 1 Location shown on site map
Area extent:
1 1 Soft subgrade
1 1 Location shown on site map
Area extent:
Remarks:
9.
Slope Instability
1 1 Slides
~ Location shown on site map
No evidence of slope instability
Area extent:
Remarks:
G-5
-------
B.
Benches ~ Applicable ^ N/A
(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in
order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.)
1.
Flows Bypass Bench
Remarks:
1 1 Location shown on site map
1 1 N/A or okay
2.
Bench Breached
Remarks:
1 1 Location shown on site map
1 1 N/A or okay
3.
Bench Overtopped
Remarks:
1 1 Location shown on site map
1 1 N/A or okay
C.
Letdown Channels I
3 Applicable ~ N/A
(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)
1.
Settlement (Low spots)
Area extent:
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map
No evidence of settlement
Depth:
2.
Material Degradation
Material tvpe:
~ Location shown on site map
1)^1 No evidence of degradation
Area extent:
Remarks:
3.
Erosion
Area extent:
Remarks:
1 1 Location shown on site map
No evidence of erosion
Depth:
4.
Undercutting
Area extent:
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map
No evidence of undercutting
Depth:
5.
Obstructions
Tvpe:
~ No obstructions
I-! Location shown on site mat) Area extent:
Size:
Remarks: Sediment from sloush on hillside above Tunnel Pond Repository allowed veeetation to
srow in ditch
G-6
-------
6.
Excessive Vegetative Growth Tydc:
~ No evidence of excessive growth
~ Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow
I-! Location shown on site mat) Area extent:
Remarks: Sediment from sloueh on hillside above Tunnel Pond Repository allowed veeetation to
grow in ditch
D.
Cover Penetrations EH Applicable ^ N/A
1.
Gas Vents EH Active EH Passive
1 1 Properly secured/locked EH Functioning EH Routinely sampled
EH Good condition
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration EH Needs maintenance
EH N/A
Remarks:
2.
Gas Monitoring Probes
1 1 Properly secured/locked EH Functioning EH Routinely sampled
EH Good condition
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration EH Needs maintenance
EH N/A
Remarks:
3.
Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
1 1 Properly secured/locked EH Functioning EH Routinely sampled
EH Good condition
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration EH Needs maintenance
EH N/A
Remarks:
4.
Extraction Wells Leachate
1 1 Properly secured/locked EH Functioning EH Routinely sampled
EH Good condition
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration EH Needs maintenance
EH N/A
Remarks:
5.
Settlement Monuments EH Located EH Routinely surveyed
EH N/A
Remarks:
E.
Gas Collection and Treatment EH Applicable ^ N/A
1.
Gas Treatment Facilities
I~1 Flaring EH Thermal destruction
EH Collection for reuse
1 1 Good condition EH Needs maintenance
Remarks:
2.
Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping
1 1 Good condition EH Needs maintenance
Remarks:
3.
Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)
1 1 Good condition EH Needs maintenance EH N/A
Remarks:
G-7
-------
F.
Cover Drainage Layer ~ Applicable ^ N/A
1
Outlet Pipes Inspected ~ Functioning
Remarks:
~ n/a
2
Outlet Rock Inspected ~ Functioning
Remarks:
~ n/a
G.
Detention/Sedimentation Ponds ~ Applicable
M N/A
1.
Siltation Area extent: Depth:
1 1 Siltation not evident
Remarks:
~ n/a
2.
Erosion Area extent: Depth:
1 1 Erosion not evident
Remarks:
3.
Outlet Works ~ Functioning
Remarks:
~ n/a
4.
Dam EH Functioning
Remarks:
~ n/a
H. Retaining Walls ฃ3 Applicable ~ N/A
1
Deformations ~ Location shown on site map
153 Deformation not evident
Horizontal displacement: Vertical displacement:
Rotational displacement:
Remarks:
2
Degradation ~ Location shown on site map
Remarks:
153 Degradation not evident
I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge ^ Applicable
~ n/a
1.
Siltation ~ Location shown on site map
~ Siltation not evident
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks: Sediment from sloush on hillside above Tunnel Repository allowed vesetation to srow in
ditch
2.
Vegetative Growth ~ Location shown on site map
1 1 Vegetation does not impede flow
~ n/a
Area extent:
Type:
Remarks: Sediment from sloush on hillside above Tunnel Repository allowed vesetation to srow in
ditch
3.
Erosion ~ Location shown on site map
153 Erosion not evident
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
G-8
-------
4. Discharge Structure Q Functioning
|E1 N/A
Remarks:
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS ~ Applicable
[g] N/A
1. Settlement O Location shown on site map
1 1 Settlement not evident
Area extent:
Dcoth:
Remarks:
2. Performance Monitoring Tydc of monitorine:
1 1 Performance not monitored
Freauencv:
1 1 Evidence of breaching
Head differential:
Remarks:
IX. GROUNDWATER/SURF ACE WATER REMEDIES ^Applicable ~ N/A
A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps and Pipelines
~ Applicable N/A
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps and Pipelines
~ Applicable [XI N/A
C. Treatment System ~ Applicable N/A
D. Monitoring Data
1. Monitoring Data
1^1 Is routinely submitted on time ฃ3 Is ฐf acceptable quality
2. Monitoring Data Suggests:
1^1 Groundwater plume is effectively contained ~ Contaminant concentrations are declining
E. Monitored Natural Attenuation
1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
1^1 Properly secured/locked ^ Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition
1 1 All required wells located Q Needs maintenance
~ n/a
Remarks:
X. OTHER REMEDIES
If there are remedies applied at the site and not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical
nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction.
G-9
-------
XL OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
A.
Implementation of the Remedy
Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed.
Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is designed to accomplish (e.g., to contain contaminant
plume, minimize infiltration and gas emissions).
The MRSOU remedial action continues to function as desisned. The Drimarv obiectives of the remedial
action are to reduce or eliminate the sroundwater arsenic plume. and reduce the threat to aauatic life
below the dam from the release of contaminated sediments. The EPA replaced Milltown's public water
suddIy systems and provided permanent maintenance fundins. Public and private water suddIv wells
monitored bv the local health department have been consistently below the arsenic drinkins water
standard. The Milltown Dam was removed, contaminated sediments were excavated or canoed, and the
Clark Fork River is flowins in the new channel with no sedimentation or erosion issues identified.
Floodplain vesetation has achieved performance standards and monitorins continues. Contaminated
sediments were excavated and placed in the Tunnel Pond Repository, which was then covered. The on-site
repositories. Interstate 90 bank improvements, removal and re-sradins of the Bypass Channel, bridse
replacements and strensthenins of the Interstate 90 Bridee abutments on the Blackfoot River are
completed and functionins as desisned.
B.
Adequacy of O&M
Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In
particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
O&M appears to be adeauate.
C.
Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high
frequency of unscheduled repairs that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised
in the future.
Arsenic concentrations in eroundwater have decreased sisnificantlv since the cleanup besan. but still
exceed the cleanup soal. Over the past five years, the arsenic concentration has decreased in the most
hishlv contaminated well: other wells have had stable, increasins or decreasins trends. The ROD
anticipated that the cleanup soals would be achieved about four to 10 years after completion of dam and
sediment removal. It has now been about nine years since substantial construction was completed in 2012.
Based on the concentration trends over the past five years, the EPA does not expect eroundwater to
achieve the arsenic standard within the next several years. Therefore, this FYR retains the
recommendation from the 2016 FYR to determine whether additional measures are needed to reduce
arsenic concentrations below the cleanup soal.
D.
Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
None identified.
MRSOU Site Inspection Participants:
Ken Champagne, EPA
Michael Kustudia, Milltown State Park
Don Booth (PRP contractor)
Kris Cook and Michael Langguth (PRP subcontractor)
Treat Suomi, Skeo (EPA's FYR contractor)
Doug Martin, Montana Natural Resource Damage Program
G-10
-------
CFROU Inspection Checklist
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site Name: Clark Fork River OU
Date of Inspection: 9/22/2020
Location and Region: Milltown. Missoula County.
Montana. EPA Region 8
EPA ID: MTD980717565
Agency, Office or Company Leading the Five-Year
Review: EPA
Weather/Temperature: Low 70s and hazy
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
Landfill cover/containment
~ Access controls
Institutional controls
~ Groundwater pump and treatment
~ Surface water collection and treatment
K| Other: in-situ treatment of soil and sediment
~ Monitored natural attenuation
~ Groundwater containment
~ Vertical barrier walls
Attachments:
Inspection team roster attached
~ Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (check all that apply)
1. O&M Site Manager
Name
Interviewed ~ at site ~ at office ~ by phone
Problems, suggestions ~ Report attached:
Title
Phone:
Date
2. O&M Staff
Name
Interviewed ~ at site ~ at office ~ by phone
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:
Title
Phone:
Date
3. Local Regulatory Authorities and Response Agencies (i.e., state and tribal offices, emergency
response office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office,
recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices). Fill in all that apply.
Agency Anaconda-Deer Lodge County
Contact Carl Hamming
Name
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:.
Title
10/21/2020
Date
Phone No.
Agency MDEO
Contact Joel Chavez
Name
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:.
Project
Manager
Title
10/06/2020
Date
Phone No.
Agency Missoula Valley Water Quality District
Contact Travis Ross
Name
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:.
Environmental 10/13/2020
Health
Supervisor
Title
Date
Phone No.
Agency.
Contact
Name
Title
G-ll
Date
Phone No.
-------
Problems/sueeestions PI Rcoort attached:
Asencv
Contact
Name Title
Problems/suggestions PI Report attached:
Date
Phone No.
4.
Other Interviews (optional) PI Report attached:
Dr. Erick Greene, Joe Griffin, Doug Martin, Alex Leone, Casey Hackathorn, Jeffrey Johnson
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS VERIFIED (check all that apply)
1.
O&M Documents
1X1 O&M manual ~ Readily available
~ Up to date
~ n/a
1X1 As-built drawings ~ Readily available
~ Up to date
~ n/a
1X1 Maintenance logs ~ Readily available
1 1 Up to date
~ n/a
Remarks:
2.
Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan
1X1 Readily available
~ Up to date
~ n/a
1 1 Contingency plan/emergency response plan
M Readily available
1 1 Up to date
~ n/a
Remarks:
3.
O&M and OSHA Training Records
Remarks:
1X1 Readily available
~ Up to date
~ n/a
4.
Permits and Service Agreements
~ Air discharge permit
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
[XI N/A
~ Effluent discharge
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
[XI N/A
~ Waste disposal, POTW
1 1 Readily available
1 1 Up to date
1X1 N/A
PI Other Dcrmits:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
[XI N/A
Remarks:
5.
Gas Generation Records
Remarks:
1 1 Readily available
1 1 Up to date
1X1 N/A
6.
Settlement Monument Records
Remarks:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
[XI N/A
7.
Groundwater Monitoring Records
Remarks:
1 1 Readily available
1 1 Up to date
1X1 N/A
8.
Leachate Extraction Records
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
[XI N/A
Remarks:
G-12
-------
9. Discharge Compliance Records
~ Air ~ Readily available ~ Up to date ฃ3 N/A
~ Water (effluent) ~ Readily available ~ Up to date ฃ3 N/A
Remarks:
10. Daily Access/Security Logs
~ Readily available ~ Up to date ^ N/A
Remarks:
IV. O&M COSTS
1. O&M Organization
153 State in-house
E3 Contractor for state
1 1 PRP in-house
1 1 Contractor for PRP
1 1 Federal facility in-house
1 1 Contractor for Federal facility
n
2. O&M Cost Records
1 1 Readily available
1 1 Up to date
1 1 Funding mechanism/agreement
in place Unavailable
Orieinal O&M cost estimate:
1 1 Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From: To:
I-! Breakdown attached
Date Date
Total cost
From: To:
I-! Breakdown attached
Date Date
Total cost
From: To:
I-! Breakdown attached
Date Date
Total cost
From: To:
I-! Breakdown attached
Date Date
Total cost
From: To:
I-! Breakdown attached
Date Date
Total cost
3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs during Review Period
Describe costs and reasons:
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS ^ Applicable ~ N/A
A. Fencing
1. Fencing Damaged ~ Location shown on site map ~ Gates secured ~ N/A
Remarks: Fencins is dresent to orotcct new veeetation.
G-13
-------
B. Other Access Restrictions
1. Signs and Other Security Measures ~ Location shown on site map ~ N/A
Remarks: Access along much of Reach A is open and available for recreation. Access in the Grants-Kohr
area is restricted by gates and fencing.
C. Institutional Controls (ICs)
1. Implementation and Enforcement
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented
I~1 Yes
|KI No
~ n/a
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced
~ Yes
|EI No
~ n/a
Type of monitoring (e.g.. self-reporting, drive b\ ):
Frequency:
Responsible partv/agencv:
Contact
Name Title
Date
Phone no.
Reporting is up to date
I~1 Yes
~ No
IE|n/a
Reports are verified by the lead agency
I~1 Yes
~ No
IE1 N/A
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met
I~1 Yes
lElNo
~ n/a
Violations have been reported
I~1 Yes
|E|No
~ n/a
Other problems or suggestions: ~ Report attached
2. Adequacy ~ ICs are adequate ^ ICs are inadequate ~ N/A
Remarks: Powell County's Superfund Overlay District restricts installation of wells and requires permits
for land use changes. Institutional controls are needed for segments of the CFROU that are in other
counties. Additional institutional controls may also be needed: as stated in the ROD, these could include
deed restrictions, permanent funding for Arrowstone Park, and groundwater sampling and use controls.
D. General
1. Vandalism/Trespassing ~ Location shown on site map No vandalism evident
Remarks:
2. Land Use Changes On Site ^ N/A
Remarks:
3. Land Use Changes Off Site ^ N/A
Remarks:
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads ^ Applicable ~ N/A
1. Roads Damaged ~ Location shown on site map Roads adequate I I N/A
Remarks:
B. Other Site Conditions
Remarks:
G-14
-------
VII. LANDFILL COVERS ^Applicable
~ n/a
A.
Landfill Surface
1.
Settlement (low spots)
~ Location shown on site map
E3 Settlement not evident
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
2.
Cracks
1 1 Location shown on site map
1^1 Cracking not evident
Leneths:
Widths:
Deaths:
Remarks:
3.
Erosion
1 1 Location shown on site map
1^1 Erosion not evident
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
4.
Holes
~ Location shown on site map
E3 Holes not evident
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
5.
Vegetative Cover
1 1 Grass
1^1 Cover properly established
I~1 No signs of stress
1 1 Trees/shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)
Remarks:
6.
Alternative Cover (e g
, armored rock, concrete)
M N/A
Remarks:
7.
Bulges
1 1 Location shown on site map
Bulges not evident
Area extent:
Heisht:
Remarks:
8.
Wet A rcas/Water Damage ^ Wet areas/water damage not evident
n Wet areas
1 1 Location shown on site map
Area extent:
1 1 Ponding
1 1 Location shown on site map
Area extent:
I~1 Seeps
1 1 Location shown on site map
Area extent:
1 1 Soft subgrade
1 1 Location shown on site map
Area extent:
Remarks:
9.
Slope Instability
1 1 Slides
~ Location shown on site map
1^1 No evidence of slope instability
Area extent:
Remarks:
G-15
-------
B. Benches ~ Applicable ^ N/A
(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in
order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.)
C. Letdown Channels ~ Applicable ^ N/A
(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)
D. Cover Penetrations ~ Applicable ^ N/A
E. Gas Collection and Treatment ~ Applicable ^ N/A
F. Cover Drainage Layer ~ Applicable ^ N/A
G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds ~ Applicable ^ N/A
H. Retaining Walls ~ Applicable ^ N/A
I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge ~ Applicable ^ N/A
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS ~ Applicable ^ N/A
IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES ~ Applicable Kl N/A
X. OTHER REMEDIES
If there are remedies applied at the site and not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical
nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction.
XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
A. Implementation of the Remedy
Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed.
Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is designed to accomplish (e.g., to contain contaminant
plume, minimize infiltration and gas emissions).
Cleanup is underway in Reach A of the CFROU. Reach B will be cleaned up after cleanup is complete in
Reach A. The EPA determined that Reach C requires no further action. Long-term monitoring is
underway to assess groundwater, surface water and vegetation during and after cleanup. Additional
monitoring efforts include streambed sediments, macroinvertebrates. periphvton. nutrients and fish
populations. During the September 2020 FYR site inspectioa participants observed some eroded
rivcrbanks w here stabilization is planned.
B. Adequacy of O&M
Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In
particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
O&M appears to be adequate.
C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high
frequency of unscheduled repairs that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised
in the future.
None identiried
D. Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
None identified
CFROU Site Inspection Participants:
Ken Champagne, EPA
Joel Chavez, MDEQ
Jeffrey Johnson, National Park Service at Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site
G-16
-------
Don Booth (PRP contractor)
Tim Riley, MDEQ
Brian Bartkowiak, Montana Natural Resource Damage Program
Bo Downing, Montana Natural Resource Damage Program
Treat Suomi, Skeo
G-17
-------
APPENDIX H - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS
Left: Eroded area above Tunnel Pond Repository; Right: Vegetation in perimeter ditch as a result of eroded area
above Tunnel Pond Repository
H-l
MRSOU Inspection Photos
Figure
Left: Tunnel Pond Repository; Right: Tunnel Pond Repository drainage ditch
-------
Figure H-3:
Confluence of Blackfoot and Clark Fork Rivers
Figure H-4: Buttress Along Interstate 90
H-2
-------
Figure H-5:
Figure H-6:
View of new Milltown State Park from overlook
Lower Part of Right Bank Repositor
Milltown State Park
H-3
-------
Figure H-7:
Figure H-8:
Milltown State Park Signage
Milltown State Park ]
ฎ - - I I
. - , .s Jงฃ sg. V- Sปฃ c
" 'ป ' ij, > ฃ ',>
H-4
-------
H-5
-------
H-6
-------
CFROU Inspection Photos
Figure H-12: Area with Remediation Underway
H-7
-------
Figure
Figure H-15: Bank Stabilization on Clark Fork River with Sediment Deposition on Inside Curve
H-14: Bank Stabilization on Clark Fork River
H-8
-------
Figure H-16: Eroded Bank Where Stabilization is Planned
Figure H-17: Clark Fork Phase 1 Below Warm Springs Ponds
H-9
-------
Figure H-18: MDEQ Enclosures to Protect Plants
H-10
-------
Figure H-20: Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site
H-ll
-------
H-12
-------
Figure H-24: Newly Planted Vegetation
H-13
-------
Figure H-26: Phase 2
H-14
-------
Figure H-28: Phase 4
Figure H-29: Phase 5
H-15
-------
Figure H-30: Phase 6
H-16
-------
Figure H-32: Recreation on Clark Fork River in the Area of Grant-Kohrs Ranch
H-17
-------
APPENDIX I - ARAR REVIEW
Section 121 (d)(2)(A) of CERCLA specifies that Superfund remedial actions must meet any federal
standards, requirements, criteria or limitations that are determined to be ARARs. ARARs are those
standards, criteria or limitations promulgated under federal or state law that specifically address a
hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location or other circumstance at a
CERCLA site. Chemical-specific ARARs are specific numerical quantity restrictions on individually
listed contaminants in specific media. Examples of chemical-specific ARARs include the MCLs specified
under the Safe Drinking Water Act as well as the Ambient Water Quality Criteria enumerated under the
Clean Water Act.
Groundwater A RA Rs
The decision documents established federal MCLs and Montana Water Quality Standards as ARARs for
groundwater at the Site. This FYR compared the numerical values listed in the Site's decision documents
against the current federal and state standards to identify any changes that could affect protectiveness of
the remedy (Table 1-1). The state standard for arsenic is now the same as the federal standard, which was
selected in the 2004 ROD.
Table 1-1: Previous and Current ARARs for Groundwater COCs
Alt Alt Values in 2004 KOI)
Currenl ARAR Values
COC
(H
g/L.)
(us
/ L)
AKAR ( hanปe?
SlaU"'
Federal1'
Statcc
Federal'1
State standard now
Arsenic
20
10
10
10
matches federal
standard
Cadmium
5
5
5
5
No change
Copper
1,300
1,300
1,300
1,300
No change
Lead
15
15
15
15
No change
Zinc
2,000
N/A
2,000
N/A
No change
Notes:
a) Sources: April 2004 CFROU ROD, page A-22; December 2004 MRSOU ROD, page A-21
b) Sources: April 2004 CFROU ROD, page A-6; December 2004 MRSOU ROD, page A-6
c) Human health standards for groundwater from Montana Numeric Water Quality Standards - Circular
DEQ-7. June 2019. Accessed 10/15/2020 at
httos://dea.mt.eov/Portals/112/Water/WOPB/Standards/PDF/DE07/DEO-7.t)df.
d) Federal MCLs accessed 10/15/2020 at https://www.epa.eov/eround-water-and-drinkine-water/national-
Driman-drinkine-watcr-rceulations.
Surface Water ARARs
The decision documents established federal ambient water quality criteria and Montana Water Quality
Standards as ARARs for surface water at the Site. Numerical values listed in decision documents were
compared to current federal and state standards to identify any changes that could affect protectiveness of
the remedy (Table 1-2). For each COC, this FYR compared the most stringent surface water ARAR value
identified in the 2004 RODs against the most stringent current surface water ARAR value. This
comparison shows that none of the COCs now have a more stringent surface water ARAR value than they
had at the time of the 2004 RODs.
1-1
-------
Table 1-2: Previous and Current ARARs for Surface Water COCs
(ฆ()(ฆ
ARAR \ ;iliK's in 2004 RC)l)s (uป/l.)
Cmiti-iH ARAR Y;ilui-s (iiป/l.)
ARAR
CIi;iiiปi-\'
Sink-1
l-iik-nil1'
Sl;ili-1'
l-i-ik-nil
A(|ll;ilk l.ili-
1 III I11SII1
1 kill 111
A(|ii;ilk l.il'i-
1 III m;ill
1 k;il 111
A(|ii;ilk l.il'i-
11 iiiiiiiii
1 kill 111
A(|ii;ilii l.il'i''1
llllllkill
1 li'iillh"
Aillli-
Chninii'
(MC
CCC1
.Willi-
('lininii'
CMC-
CCC 1
Arsenic
340
150
18
340
150
10
340
150
10
340
150
10
No change
Cadmium
2.1*
0.27*
N/A
2.0*
0.25*
5
1.9*
0.79*
5
1.8*
0.72*
5
No change
Copper
18*h
12*h
l,300*h
13*
9.0*
1,300
J4*h
9 3*h
l,300h
N/A
N/A
1,300
No change
Lead
81*
3.2*
15
65*
2.5*
15
82*
3.2*
15
65*
2.5*
15
No change
Zinc
119*
119*
2,000
120*
120*
N/A
120*
120*
7,400
120
120
N/A
No change
Notes:
* = value indicated is for a hardness of 100 mg/L
a) Sources: April 2004 CFROU ROD, pages A-l 9 through A-20; December 2004 MRSOU ROD, page A-l 8. In cases of slight numerical differences between the two
RODs, the more stringent standard is presented.
b) Source: April 2004 CFROU ROD, page A-l
c) Montana Numeric Water Quality Standards - Circular DEQ-7. June 2019. Accessed 10/15/2020 at
httDs://dea.mt.20v/Portals/l 12/Water/W0PB/Standards/PDF/DE07/DE0-7.Ddf. Values corresDondina to a hardness of 100 ma/L were calculated usina the eauations in
DEQ-7.
d) National Recommended Water Oualitv Criteria - Aauatic Life Criteria for freshwater. Accessed 10/15/2020 at https://www.epa.aov/wac/national-recommended-water-
aualitv-criteria-aauatic-life-criteria-table.
e) CMC = Criterion Maximum Concentration is an estimate of the highest concentration of a material in surface water to which an aquatic community can be exposed
briefly without resulting in an unacceptable effect.
f) CCC = Criterion Continuous Concentration is an estimate of the highest concentration of a material in surface water to which an aquatic community can be exposed
indefinitely without resulting in an unacceptable effect.
a) Federal MCLs accessed 10/15/2020 at https://www.epa.aov/around-water-and-drinkina-water/national-primarv-drinkina-water-reaulations.
h) The state surface water standards for copper apply only to the MRSOU. The state surface water standards for copper were waived in the CFROU ROD and replaced with
these federal water quality criteria measured only on the dissolved portion of the sample: acute 13 ng/L, chronic 9 ng/L, human health 1,300 ng/L.
1-2
------- |