White Pine Sash Mill History and Environmental Factors

 Missoula Lumber formerly operated on the site that is now considered the White Pine Sash Mill Superfund cleanup site.  Missoula Lumber was a sub-affiliate with Largey Lumber, based out of Butte, Montana. Missoula Lumber operated through the late 19th century and in 1917 became what we today consider the White Pine and Sash mill. The facility operated as White Pine and Sash from 1917 until 1996. The mill primarily manufactured wooden windows during its operational era.

Up until the late 1980's, the mill was a primary local employer for both men and women of Missoula's North and Westside residents. In the late 80's, the logging industry began to slow relative to previous decades and eventually closed in 1996.

At the time of the mills closure in 1996, the mill was owned by Huttig Building Products. According to Bob Oaks, a North Missoula Community Development Corporation (NMCDC) member, Huttig B.P. is self proclaimed "the nation's largest distributor of building products and mill work with 36 branches covering 44 states." Oaks also added, that "Huttig B.P. is a subsidiary of the multinational Crane Co."

The companies influence extends beyond regional soils and lumber use. The proclaimed "... nation's largest distributor..." according to Oaks as a means to remove an underground fuel tank acquired $450,000 from, "Montana Petroleum Release and Compensation Fund, which is funded by a state fuel tax..."

According to the Huttig B.P. annual 2013 financial report, within its "Legal Proceedings" section, "We are involved in various claims and litigation arising principally in the ordinary course of business. We believe that the disposition of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our business or our financial condition."

In Huttig B.P.'s 2013 financial report opening letter addressed to their shareholders, the company reported a, "net income from continuing operations of $3.6 million in 2013..." The document added, "For the year ended December 31, 2013, we generated net sales of $561.5 million."

In the "Legal Proceedings" portion of the document which addresses the current state of legal action on the Missoula, Montana White Pine Sash Superfund site, Huttig B.P. acknowledges spending less than $0.5 million each year since 2011. The statement continues, "...we have accrued $0.6 million for future costs of remediating this site, which management believes represents a reasonable estimate based on current facts and circumstances and the currently expected costs of remediation."  The document acknowledges, until the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) settles on a final cleanup level, "management cannot estimate the top of the range of loss or cost to Huttig of the final remediation order."   

According to the Montana DEQ, Huttig B.P. is responsible for cleanup costs. As of now the DEQ, given its goal of complying with the Comprehensive Environmental Cleanup and Responsibility Act (CECRA), has estimated the total cost for "preferred remedy" to cost $7,937,487. This figure is based on site cleanup standards, which meet the needs for the site's current zoning of commercial/industrial. The DEQ has estimated costs for residential standards to approach $20 million.

The cause for the cleanup at the White Pine Sash Mill is attributed to the mill's prior use of various contaminants. These contaminants include pentachlorophenol, dioxins, petroleum, methane and metals. Pentachlorophenol is considered the greatest contributor among contaminants. Its use began during the 1930's. According to Oaks, "window sashes and doors were dipped into a vat or tank containing a penta solution to reduce the potential for mold and other fungal infestations."

The primary concerns are groundwater, surface/subsurface soil, and soil vapor (air) contamination.

Below the soils surface the Missoula aquifer steadily flows between 45-60 deep. Above the aquifer sits multiple "perched aquifers". These are stagnant water tables believed to house the majority of the pentachlorphenol contaminated ground water. The DEQ has proposed injecting an oxidant which destroys all matter it comes in contact with, hazardous or not.

The DEQ has in regards to surface and subsurface soils intents to preform excavation and Ex-site bio-remediation. This entails soil excavation to a depth of 15 feet. Ex-site treatment suggests placement in a land treatment unit (LTU) until chemical levels are deemed safe. No explanation has been assuredly provided for the placement of soils post decontamination.

In regards to soil vapor, construction workers during excavation practices are thought to be at greatest risk. Use of hazardous chemical indicators will be used during all excavation to ensure safety of physical cleanup crew members. Upon excavation, it is thought the dangers of soil vapors will leave with the transportation of excavated soils.

Beyond physical decontamination, short and long-term monitoring practices are planned. Timeline for monitoring is dependent of monitoring results.

Remedial design is said to be finalized and begin winter 2014.