May 25, 2012

U.S. EPA Reaches Settlement With Company for nearly $1 Million at Anaconda Copper Mine Superfund Site

SAN FRANCISCO – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reached an agreement with the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARC) to reimburse EPA for costs incurred from cleanup actions at the Anaconda Mine site near Yerington. The settlement, for $940,085, is the third settlement for costs at this site, bringing the total collected to $5,910,121. The funds will be placed into an account and used for future actions at the site.

“This settlement furthers EPA’s efforts to have companies responsible for environmental contamination pay their share of cleanup costs,” said Jane Diamond, Director of the Superfund Division in EPA’s Pacific Southwest Region. “EPA will use this money to address urgent cleanup needs at the site and continue our work investigating the site and overseeing the actions of ARC.”

EPA and ARC, under EPA’s enforcement authority, are continuing to investigate site contaminants in soil and groundwater and address contamination that affects the community. Actions completed in the winter included the removal of over 6,000 tons of soil contaminated with radioactive materials and 27,000 feet of pipe contaminated with asbestos and radioactive materials. More than 26 acres of mine tailings were also capped to limit standing, acidic water that could lead to wildlife deaths, and to minimize migration of dust containing hazardous substances. The work was completed a month ahead of schedule and one-third of the work crew was local labor.

Originally known as the Empire Nevada Mine, the site began operation around 1918 and was acquired in 1953 by Anaconda Minerals. From 1977 to 1982 the company was owned by ARC and then sold to Don Tibbals, a local resident, who subsequently sold most of his interests to Arimetco Inc.

Arimetco operated a copper recovery operation from existing ore heaps within the site from 1989 to November 1999. Arimetco has terminated operations at the site and is currently managed under the protection of the United States Bankruptcy Court in Tucson, Ariz.

The threats on the site come from metals contaminating the groundwater that could impact human health. Mining operations enhanced levels of naturally occurring uranium, making the radioactive substance more pervasive and mobile in and around the site. Additional concerns include contaminated surface water that can impact wildlife. 

© Copyright 2012 United States Environmental Protection Agency

About the Author

EPA

The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment.

EPA's purpose is to ensure that::

  • all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work;
  • national efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available scientific information;
  • federal laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and effectively;
  • environmental protection is an integral consideration in U.S. policies concerning natural resources, human...
202-272-0167

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.