| Newmont's Ahafo cyanide spill In October 2009, a cyanide spill occurred at the Ahafo mine that killed a large number of fish and threatened the water of local communities.
A Ghanaian Ministerial Panel that evaluated the spill and its aftermath recommended that Denver-based Newmont Mining be fined US$ 4.9 million for failing to prevent the spill or to properly report on and investigate the spill.
The following text is from the Ministerial Panel report on the October 2009 spill:
"The panel pointed out that the company's acts and omissions relating to pre-incident, during the incident, and post-incident activities in terms of the following were inappropriate:
- application of hypochlorite without effective assessment and evaluation of the spillage characteristics
- delay in notifying the regulatory bodies
- delay in notifying the downstream communities
- improper environmental sampling (the basis of the company using results of laboratory analysis, when the requisite samples, according to the environmental manager, were taken without following the necessary sampling protocol)...
The panel [concluded that] NGGL was negligent due to the following:
- operating the raw water, process water, and event ponds simultaneously without appropriate surveillance/physical presence
- post-incident management in terms of internal and external notifications
- delayed notification of incident coupled with the absence of the storage of duplicate samples strongly points to a cover-up
[The panel concluded] systems failure [occurred] due to the following:
- initial detection of fish kill was made by the community instead of the company
- denials of the occurrence of the incident in relation to the fish kill
- underestimation of the volume of the spill
- the fact that NGGL believed that the incident was contained
- incorrect tracing of the direction of the flow of the spill
- though NGGL delayed in notifying the EPA, the EPA could have commenced investigations immediately on the receipt of the notification of the incident.
The panel recommends that NGGL should pay an amount of 7mill Ghana cedis [approximately US$ 4.9mill]. The panel recommends the allocation of the compensation as follows: 45% of the amount to meet the development needs of the communities, 40% to EPA, and then 15% to the inspectorate division of the Minerals Commission"
The following is from a report by the Environmental Protection Agency of Ghana on the spill:
"Review of the environmental permit conditions
The agency issued an environmental permit to the company in line with part 1 sections 1(1) and 3 of LI1652, June 1999, on 25th April 2005. The review of the permit conditions has revealed that NGGL did VIOLATE section 13.0(b) on CIP operations of the schedule which stipulates that "the company shall put in place appropriate measures to detect and contain any accidental spill of process effluent." The emphasis is on "detection" and "containment" which the company FAILED to COMPLY. The company also failed to "identify any unforeseen effects" as indicated in Schedule 19.0 on monitoring. It is believed that the NGGL could have predicted the potential risk associated with the simultaneous operations of the three facilities, i.e. event ponds, raw water dam, and the process water ponds. ...
Conclusions
The activities leading to the incidents were poorly managed and occurrence of the incident could have been avoided. Furthermore, the immediate management and investigations conducted and disclosure of information to the regulatory institutions and communities were inappropriate and NGGL could be said to have been negligent in all aspects. ...
The following conclusions can therefore be drawn: The company violated section 13.0(b) and 19.0 of the environmental permits issued on 25th April 2005. ...
The company's inability to inform the regulatory bodies and the downstream communities immediately after the incident was inappropriate, unacceptable, and is tantamount to a cover-up irrespective of the claim by the company that the incidient did not qualify to be reported as per its Internal Incident Classification Criteria. ...
The incident management, i.e. relay of information to relevant company officials e.g. environmental manager, was inappropriate. The EM was immediately not informed to give directions and this resulted in the company not following sampling protocols immediately after the incident. ...
The results of the sampling analysis cannot be used as a measure of the extent of damage since according to the EM the team did not follow the required protocol under Saturday the 13th October, 2009, when he (EM) joined the sampling team.
The following recommendations can be given for contribution:
- the company must be directed to pay a fine for violating certain provisions of the environmental permit, deliberately holding information on the spill from EPA, till 10th October 2009, 3 days after incident. The fine must be deterrent in nature to the company and other players of the industry.
- the company must provide permanent, potable and adequate water for communtiies affected by the spill.
- NGGL must submit to the agency its emergency response procedures and incident classification criteria for review
- comprehensive studies on soil and all sediment within the operational area must be conducted to trace the high sources of the metal concentration"
[Updated 21 January, 20101] | 
