MISSOULA — The old facilities at Marshall Mountain contain some hazardous substances, so the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is considering some ways that Missoula County might deal with them.
On Friday, the DEQ released an analysis of some of the structures at Marshall Mountain and presented five alternatives of how Missoula County might get rid of hazardous substances before going any further with recreation development. The DEQ is taking public comment on the alternatives until Jan. 23.
Marshall Mountain used to be a ski area until 2002, so unlike industrial sites, hazardous chemicals don’t immediately pop to mind. But it’s been around since 1919, and buildings from the early to mid-20th century were often built using asbestos shingles, roofing and coatings and were covered with lead-based paint.
That’s the case with most of the 16 structures on the property. In addition, soil samples collected beneath the rope-tow bull wheel for the bunny hill were found to be contaminated with lead, likely from the paint flaking off the bull wheel. Finally, all the light fixtures contained a total of 134 fluorescent light tubes that contain mercury.
The contamination at Marshall Mountain requires a brownfield cleanup. Missoula County bought the 480-acre property in March, so it has to remove most of the hazardous substances before it can consider any additional improvements or development.
Some asbestos components can remain because there is no health risk if they’re left alone. But when disturbed, such as during renovation, asbestos can release fibers that can lead to cancer if inhaled. Lead paint is more of a problem since it can be absorbed through the skin and can leach into groundwater.
Missoula-based consultant Newfields Companies did the Brownfield Cleanup analysis and developed four alternatives that include various amounts of building demolition in addition to the No Action alternative. All four alternatives include chemical abatement.
Alternative 1 has no demolition, so its cost is estimated at around $38,000. But it would also be only moderately effective because while it would remove the asbestos and lead hazards, leaving old buildings could limit development options and they might continue to deteriorate.
At the other end of the spectrum, Alternative 2 would require demolition of all the buildings, and while highly effective, the cost is estimated at $105,000. Alternative 2 would also have the highest amount of greenhouse gas emissions.
Newfields recommended Alternative 4, which would demolish the base lodge/clock tower and the rope-tow shack along with 3.7 cubic yards of contaminated soil but leave all other outbuildings standing, including the main base building. The cost would be about $67,000.
“This alternative abates all asbestos-containing building materials and universal waste, and prepares the site for reuse, while preserving some of the outbuildings for interim storage and maintenance uses,” the report said.
The county hasn’t chosen a redevelopment plan. But Newfields went on to recommend deconstruction rather than demolition to reduce climate impacts. Reuse and recycling of building materials can save landfill space and reduce emissions from landfills and transportation, although deconstruction costs “are roughly estimated at 30% higher than demolition costs, with the salvage value being a large determining factor.”
The public can submit comments to Colleen Owen at Cowen@mt.gov, by calling 406-755-8954 or mail comments to Montana Department of Environmental Quality Brownfields Program, 655 Timber Wolf Parkway, Kalispell, MT 59901.
At Missoula County, contact Sindie Kennedy at skennedy@missoulacounty.us, call 406-258-3688 or mail comments to Missoula County Grants and Community Resources, 200 West Broadway, Missoula, MT 59802.
