Opinion
3:15-cv-00117-RCJ-WGC
06-01-2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., Plaintiffs, v. BARRICK GOLDSTRIKE MINES, INC., Defendant.
ORDER
This case arises from alleged violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"). Pending before the Court is a Motion to Enter Consent Decrees (ECF No. 11) filed by the United States and the State of Nevada. The Motion also seeks entry of a Consent Decree in a related case, United States et al. v. Newmont USA Limited, 3:15-cv-00119-RCJ-WGC ("Newmont"). Defendant Barrick and Defendant Newmont have each filed statements in support of the Consent Decrees. (Barrick, ECF No. 13; Newmont, ECF No. 11).
Barrick owns and operates a gold mining facility near Elko, Nevada where it mines and processes gold ore. (Barrick Compl. ¶¶ 13, 16, 18, ECF No. 1). Newmont owns and operates a gold mining facility near Carlin, Nevada where it likewise processes gold ore. (Newmont, Compl. ¶¶ 13, 16, 18, ECF No. 1). The Complaints against each Defendant alleges that they (1) failed to determine whether their mercury bleed streams were hazardous, (Barrick Compl. ¶¶ 28-33, Newmont Compl. ¶¶ 30-35); (2) engaged in improper treatment to meet land disposal restrictions, (Barrick Compl. ¶¶ 39-48, Newmont Compl. ¶¶ 45-54); and (3) failed to maintain a facility contingency plan, (Barrick Compl. ¶¶ 55-60, Newmont Compl. ¶¶ 55-60). The Complaint against Barrick alleges a violation for treatment and disposal of its mercury bleed stream without a permit, (Barrick Compl. ¶¶ 34-38), while the complaint against Newmont alleges a violation for the treatment, storage, and disposal of its mercury bleed stream as well as a violation for the storage and treatment of lead assay waste without a permit, (Newmont Compl. ¶¶ 36-44).
The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") brought these charges against Defendants and demanded that Defendants alter their behavior to comply with RCRA. After counseling and negotiations, the parties have entered into Consent Decrees that resolve the Complaints against both Barrick and Newmont. The Decrees state that each Defendant has cooperated with the EPA by making the necessary adjustments and that they are now in compliance with RCRA. (Barrick Decree 3, ECF No. 2-1; Newmont Decree 4, ECF No. 2-1). Additionally, the Barrick Decree requires Barrick to pay a $196,000 civil penalty, with half paid to the United States and half paid to the State, (Barrick Decree 7-8), while the Newmont Decree requires Newmont to pay a $395,000 civil penalty, also divided equally between the United States and the State of Nevada, (Newmont Decree 8-9). Both Defendants consent to the entry of the Decrees without further notice. (Barrick Decree ¶ 37; Newmont Decree ¶ 37).
As required by law, the United States published the Notice of Settlement in the Federal Register and received two comments in return, one for each case and apparently submitted by the same individual. The comments essentially claim that the civil penalties are too low. (See Comments, ECF Nos. 11-2, 11-3). However, after reviewing the allegations against Defendants, the contents of the Decrees, and the instant Motion, the Court is satisfied that the parties engaged in an arms-length negotiation that resulted in a fair and reasonable settlement, especially given the Plaintiffs' representation that Defendants are now in compliance with RCRA.
Therefore, there being good cause appearing, the Court grants the Motion and orders the entry of the Consent Decrees.
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Enter Consent Decrees (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED. The Consent Decrees in each case shall be entered. The Clerk is further ordered issue final judgment accordingly and to close both cases.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 1, 2015
/s/_________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge