Search Frequent Questions

Filter By:

Active filters:

Remove all filters

Displaying 1 - 15 of 16 results

  • Do settlement communications, such as past “agreements in principle,” impact the implementation of the final Consent Decrees?

    The parties are bound by the terms of the various final, publicly available consent decrees. These consent decrees were made available for public comment before they were finalized and entered by the Court. Past settlement communications and documents created in the course of settlement discussions have been incorporated (or not)…

    • Last published:

  • What is the Confidentiality Order?

    The Confidentiality Order (Order) is a court order entered by the Federal District Court for the District of Montana (Court) on August 8, 2002, and amended by the Court on December 31, 2003, that applies to Superfund settlement negotiations in the Clark Fork River Basin, including the following sites: Silver…

    • Last published:

  • How does EPA ensure that the potentially responsible parties complete their work?

    All cleanup activities performed by the PRPs are subject to enforcement instruments (i.e., consent decrees or administrative orders) that provide for EPA approval of all deliverables and oversight of all work performed by the PRPs.

    • Last published:

  • Why is the Confidentiality Order important?

    The Confidentiality Order (Order) has been, and continues to be, effective in assisting the parties in reaching settlements under the framework established by the Court in US v. ARCO and still pending in court – six consent decrees to date have been entered since the Order was issued. There are…

    • Last published:

  • What is EPA doing?

    EPA is working with its governmental partners and other stakeholders to investigate and address the issue. Most recently, EPA issued a letter to the state of Minnesota requesting a plan of action to address nitrate contamination in drinking water.

    • Last published:

  • What projects has EPA been involved with in Butte related to the Superfund site?

    A variety of actions and activities have been implemented to address the contamination in Butte, including: Assessments of risk have been conducted to quantify actual and potential human health risks due to potential exposure to tailings, waste rock, yard soils, indoor dust, attic dust, mercury vapor, surface water, and ground…

    • Last published:

  • Why were the consent decree negotiations under a confidentiality order?

    The confidentiality order was issued by the federal district court in 2002 to encourage and facilitate settlement negotiations. The court determined that the confidentially order was appropriate to ensure that the parties were afforded the opportunity to engage in frank, open discussion so that litigation could be settled promptly and…

    • Last published:

  • How do I have my drinking water tested in the future?

    Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) recommends you use an accredited laboratory to test your water. Contact an accredited laboratory to get sample containers and instructions or ask your county environmental or public health services if they provide well testing services. Accredited Labs in Minnesota Accepting Drinking Water Samples from Private…

    • Last published:

  • Is formaldehyde a contaminant of concern from the derailment?

    Last week, an East Palestine resident reported to EPA that they had a skin reaction from handling soil in their backyard after digging a swimming pool. EPA tested the soil and did not detect high hazard chemicals. The device used for testing did indicate that low levels of formaldehyde might…

    • Last published:

  • What does the Confidentiality Order not cover?

    The Order does not apply to technical documents, discussions, and meetings concerning the implementation of the consent decrees that occur after the Court entered the consent decrees.

    • Last published:

  • What work are the potentially responsible parties required to complete at Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit?

    EPA will conduct oversight in consultation with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) on all work to be implemented by Atlantic Richfield and Butte-Silver Bow County. Atlantic Richfield will perform work in the Butte Reduction Works, Northside Tailings, Diggings East, Buffalo Gulch, East Buffalo Gulch, and Grove Gulch areas…

    • Last published:

  • Is the Confidentiality Order still in effect?

    Yes. The Order states that all settlement discussions and documents “shall be kept confidential both during and after the negotiations and not disclosed to third persons.” (Order at 1-2).

    • Last published:

  • What does the Confidentiality Order cover?

    The Confidentiality Order applies to: All settlement discussions among and between the parties and any third parties. . .in settlement negotiations conducted pursuant to the Streamside Tailings Consent Decree settlement framework, as well as all documents prepared for settlement purposes or exchanged by the participants in such negotiations, shall be…

    • Last published:

  • Who is covered by the Confidentiality Order?

    Atlantic Richfield Company, Butte-Silver Bow County, the United States, the State of Montana, (including the Department of Environmental Quality and the Natural Resource Damage Program), and any third parties who join them in settlement negotiations.

    • Last published:

  • Why are the potentially responsible parties at the site allowed to help design the cleanup plan?

    EPA has a longstanding policy to pursue "enforcement first" throughout the Superfund cleanup process. Existing EPA guidance emphasizes that a major component of the "enforcement first" policy is that potentially responsible parties should conduct remedial actions whenever possible. Under the existing Consent Decree, the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) are required…

    • Last published: