CFAC: What is the role of government?

Now that Glencore has permanently closed the Columbia Falls Aluminum Co. smelter and hired Roux Associates to develop a remedial investigation work plan for cleaning up the site, a question on the minds of many locals is, “What can be expected?”

Glencore’s secretive nature, its origins under Marc Rich, once one of America’s most notorious wanted felons, and accusations that it wasn’t honest about claims that it intended to restart CFAC have harmed its reputation.

The Swiss-based commodities trading company’s December 2014 announcement that it broke off cleanup talks with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality added to that problem for many locals.

CFAC corporate secretary Cheryl Driscoll, spokesman Haley Beaudry and even Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Whitefish, have criticized the idea of putting the smelter site on the Superfund’s National Priority List for cleanup.

They note that none of the 18 Superfund sites in Montana have been removed from the Superfund list — even sites that have been on the list for 31 years. Superfund listing slows cleanup efforts and taints the site’s reputation for future economic development, they said.

DEQ spokeswoman Jeni Flatow responded to that argument in a March 18 e-mail to the Hungry Horse News.

“Remember, it took a long time for these sites to get this way, and it can take a long time to clean them up,” she wrote. “Sites with contamination such as at CFAC need to have an authority, whether state or federal, that assures cleanup is protective of human health and the environment.”

To allow Glencore to simply do what it wants with the closed smelter site without having a process in place to ensure that the cleanup is “adequately protective, meets applicable legal requirements or addresses all the threats the site poses to groundwater, the Flathead River or other receptors, would leave citizens and the environment without the protection that is normally required under the law,” Flatow wrote.

DEQ is also concerned about future development after cleanup is completed and consider that “an important component of determining the overall cleanup strategy.” Flatow cited numerous grant opportunities offered by the Environmental Protection Agency for remediated sites.

“Most Americans live within three miles of a Superfund site, and thousands of acres of land have been reclaimed and are being reused across the nation, that is back on the tax rolls,” she wrote. “Having a voluntary, non-regulated cleanup performed may actually hinder re-use.”

Going through a state or federal Superfund process could actually help redevelopment efforts for a contaminated site like the CFAC site, DEQ maintains.

“During any future site transfer, part of due diligence would uncover the history and the recommendations to list the site,” Flatow wrote. “Most future buyers will not want to take on that potential liability.”

Rob Parker, the EPA Region 8 site assessment manager now overseeing the CFAC site response, gave some insight on whether Glencore could sell the property before the cleanup was entirely completed — including the landfills.

“Selling a property does not sell liability under the Superfund law,” he said in a March 13 e-mail to the Hungry Horse News. “EPA would attempt to recover costs from viable parties deemed responsible for the contamination as defined by the law, which could include past owners and operators of a facility.”

Superfund law contains provisions for what it calls a “bona fide prospective purchaser,” parties that could acquire a former industrial site and not be held liable for cleanup. These provisions were updated in the EPA’s 2002 Brownfield Amendments.

To qualify as a BFPP under the amendments, a party must make all the “appropriate inquiries” prior to acquiring the property and show it has “no affiliation” with the liable party. A BFPP also must not impede the response action or natural resource restoration work.