United States of America et al v. Newmont USA Limited

Filing 12

ORDER granting Motion to Enter Consent Decree (Docket #11 in 3:15-cv-00117). Clerk to issue judgment and close case. Case terminated. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 6/1/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.,

7

Plaintiffs,

8

3:15-cv-00117-RCJ-WGC

vs.

ORDER

9

BARRICK GOLDSTRIKE MINES, INC.,

10

Defendant.

11
12

This case arises from alleged violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

13

(“RCRA”). Pending before the Court is a Motion to Enter Consent Decrees (ECF No. 11) filed

14

by the United States and the State of Nevada. The Motion also seeks entry of a Consent Decree

15

in a related case, United States et al. v. Newmont USA Limited, 3:15-cv-00119-RCJ-WGC

16

(“Newmont”). Defendant Barrick and Defendant Newmont have each filed statements in support

17

of the Consent Decrees. (Barrick, ECF No. 13; Newmont, ECF No. 11).

18

Barrick owns and operates a gold mining facility near Elko, Nevada where it mines and

19

processes gold ore. (Barrick Compl. ¶¶ 13, 16, 18, ECF No. 1). Newmont owns and operates a

20

gold mining facility near Carlin, Nevada where it likewise processes gold ore. (Newmont,

21

Compl. ¶¶ 13, 16, 18, ECF No. 1). The Complaints against each Defendant alleges that they (1)

22

failed to determine whether their mercury bleed streams were hazardous, (Barrick Compl. ¶¶ 28–

23

33, Newmont Compl. ¶¶ 30–35); (2) engaged in improper treatment to meet land disposal

24
1

1

restrictions, (Barrick Compl. ¶¶ 39–48, Newmont Compl. ¶¶ 45–54); and (3) failed to maintain a

2

facility contingency plan, (Barrick Compl. ¶¶ 55–60, Newmont Compl. ¶¶ 55–60). The

3

Complaint against Barrick alleges a violation for treatment and disposal of its mercury bleed

4

stream without a permit, (Barrick Compl. ¶¶ 34–38), while the complaint against Newmont

5

alleges a violation for the treatment, storage, and disposal of its mercury bleed stream as well as

6

a violation for the storage and treatment of lead assay waste without a permit, (Newmont Compl.

7

¶¶ 36–44).

8

The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) brought these charges against

9

Defendants and demanded that Defendants alter their behavior to comply with RCRA. After

10

counseling and negotiations, the parties have entered into Consent Decrees that resolve the

11

Complaints against both Barrick and Newmont. The Decrees state that each Defendant has

12

cooperated with the EPA by making the necessary adjustments and that they are now in

13

compliance with RCRA. (Barrick Decree 3, ECF No. 2-1; Newmont Decree 4, ECF No. 2-1).

14

Additionally, the Barrick Decree requires Barrick to pay a $196,000 civil penalty, with half paid

15

to the United States and half paid to the State, (Barrick Decree 7–8), while the Newmont Decree

16

requires Newmont to pay a $395,000 civil penalty, also divided equally between the United

17

States and the State of Nevada, (Newmont Decree 8–9). Both Defendants consent to the entry of

18

the Decrees without further notice. (Barrick Decree ¶ 37; Newmont Decree ¶ 37).

19

As required by law, the United States published the Notice of Settlement in the Federal

20

Register and received two comments in return, one for each case and apparently submitted by the

21

same individual. The comments essentially claim that the civil penalties are too low. (See

22

Comments, ECF Nos. 11-2, 11-3). However, after reviewing the allegations against Defendants,

23

the contents of the Decrees, and the instant Motion, the Court is satisfied that the parties engaged

24
2

1

in an arms-length negotiation that resulted in a fair and reasonable settlement, especially given

2

the Plaintiffs’ representation that Defendants are now in compliance with RCRA.

3
4

Therefore, there being good cause appearing, the Court grants the Motion and orders the
entry of the Consent Decrees.

5
6

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enter Consent Decrees (ECF No.

7

11) is GRANTED. The Consent Decrees in each case shall be entered. The Clerk is further

8

ordered issue final judgment accordingly and to close both cases.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

June 1, 2015
Dated: _______________________

12
13

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3