Transcripts For CSPAN Hearing On The Gold King Mine Wastewater Spill 20150913

Michelle obama. A signature feature of book tv, is our allday coverage of festivals from across the country. Near the end of september, we are in new york for the brooklyn book festival celebrates its 10th year. That, we arefter live from austin for the texas book festival. Near the end of the month, we will be covering two book festivals. On the east coast, the boston book festival. At the start of november we will be in Portland Oregon for wordstock. Followed by the National Book awards. Then we are live, for the 18th year in a row, from miami, florida. That is a look at the festivals this fall on book tv. Wednesday, an epa official, the colorado mayor and a chemist testified at a special hearing. They talked about the toxic river spill near the shuttered Gold King Mine site. Witnesses discussed the response to the bill, the responsibility and the longterm impact on farmers and businesses in the area. This is just over two hours. The committee on science, space and technology will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. Welcome to todays hearing entitled holding the epa accountable for polluting western waters. I will recognize myself and then the Ranking Member. Year, theast Environmental Protection agency has proposed some of the most expensive and burdensome regulations in its history. These rules will cost American Families billions of dollars all for little impact on climate change. They will also diminish the competitiveness of American Workers around the world. The same Government Agency that has proposed these rules, recently caused an environmental disaster that has adversely impacted three states in the mountain west. On august 5 near silverton, colorado, the negative actions of the epa caused 3 million gallons of toxic water to cascade out of mine that had been close for 100 years. This event turned the river orange and polluted a 300 mile stretch of water to water. 300mile stretch of water. Today, we will examine how this disaster, which negatively affected thousands of people occurred and why the warning signgns that should have prevend it from happening were negligently dismissed. Had the epa exercised the same care in making their decisions as an order, prudent person, this whole incident could have been avoided. The epa should be held accountable. The same standards that the epa applies to private companies should also apply to the epa itself. Unfortunately, epa administrator has declined to appear before this committee and answer questions about the role her agency played in causing this preventible spill. Perhaps she doesnt have any good answers. Given the epas consistent failure to provide information to this committee and the American People, the epa can be assured that our oversight efforts will continue. The public deserves to know why the epa continues to spend so much of their hardearned dollars on costly and infective regulations, especially when the agency has been unable to achieve its core mission of presenti protecting the environment. The story would have been much different if the spill had been caused by a private company. I expect there would be calls for the executive of the company to resign. There would be demands that documents be posted online. Massive fines would be imposed and no doubt some individuals would be prosecuted as happened in the 2014 West Virginia Chemical Spill where 7500 gallons of chemicals were dumped into the elk river. This is about 1 400th. The epas negligence is especially inexcusable, since there were known procedures that could have prevented the rivers pollution. Unfortunately, we have seen a pattern of the epas lack of transparency. This committee asked for information from the epa almost a month ago, and we have yet to receive all the documents that were requested. According to news reports, it took the epa over 24 hours to inform the public about the seriousness of the spill, and their initial claim of 1 milliongallons of toxic waste was later revised when it was learned there was actually 3 milliongallons. Then after the incident, all we heard from the epa was that the toxic river in the river was dissipating and that the river was returning to prespill levels. The epa neither took responsibility, nor were they forthright with the person people. So its not surprising to learn that just this past spring the epa received a grade of d for its lack of openness and transparency, according to the Nonpartisan Center for effective government. It is my hope that the epa will finally come clean with the American People about their involvement in this tragic incident. And that concludes my opening statement. And Ranking Member, the gentle woman from texas is recognized for hers. Thank you very much mr. Chairman. Appreciate the fact that we are holding this hearing today. The august 5th release of 3 milliongallons of wastewater from the Gold King Mine in silverton, colorado was an unfortunate accident. I believe it is important to understand what happened on august 5th and why. And explore what lessons we can learn from this event. However, we should also take this opportunity to highlight the inherently dirty, dangerous and environmentally damaging procepr process of metal mining. Before this accident occurred, gold king and a handful of other mines in the area were releasing more than 300 milliongallons of acid mine waste into the animus water should annually. Over the areas 120 year history, products containing toxic chemicals were released into this waterway. Unfortunately, residents of the San Juan County are well aware that august 5th was not the first time the animus river changed colors. In the 1970s, mine accidents poured millions of gallons of wastewater into the river. Sadly, acid mine drainage in this area is routine. And the occasional largescale release of wastewater due to accidents at mine sites is an alltoocommon occurrence. I would like to show a photo that ran in the Durango Herald newspaper in 2012 that shows toxic waste, following from the american terminal three years before. The recent accident of the Gold King Mine. The second picture was taken before the red and bonita mine, and the wastewaters draining into the cement creek. A tributary that feeds into the animus river. This photo was taken in 2013. This was one of the key reasons that epa was at the Gold King Mine site on august 5th. They were there attempting to investigate this longstanding problem of persistent acid mine drainage into the animus watershed, from the gold king and neighboring interconnected mines. Epa was also attempting to alleviate ha wwhat was seen as inevitable blowout at the Gold King Mines due to a build up of drainage water that may have been caused by the closure of the american tunnel, a mine drainage system at the nearby sunnyside mine. They were unsuccessful in trying to prevent a blowout from occurring. These next two photos show the discoloration of the animus river immediately after the august 5th accident. And the next two photos show that the animus river looked like august 12th and august 14th. Seven and nine days after the gold mine accident. Fortunately, the metal concentrations in the water that led to the discoloration of the animus river quickly returned to preincident levels. Im not discounting the significance of august 5th event of the Gold King Mine. But its potentially environmentally impact or its potential Environmental Impact, but its important to understand that the issue of mine drainage into the animus watershed did not begin last month. The epa was acting as an environmental firefighter when they went to the gold mine, Gold King Mine. They were attempting to damp down a raging environmental hazard that had endangered the animus watershed for decades. Unfortunately, when they opened an explore torrial hole, the build up of wastewater drainage was too much to effectively control. I hope that our witnesses, technically mayor dean brooking, the mayor of durango, colorado, located 50 miles downstream from the gold king and hundreds of other inactive mine sites can help address both of the events leading up to the august 5th blowout at the Gold King Mine. The legacy of metal Mining Operations on the animus watershed and useful next steps to consider in helping to prevent further environmental degradation in this truly beautiful region of our nation. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and yield back. Thank you ms. Johnson. Now ill proceed to introduce our witnesses. Our first witness is the honorable matthew stanislaus, from the office of solid waste and Emergency Response. Mr. Stanislaus was nominated and confirmed by the u. S. Senate in 2009. He received his law degree from Chicago Kent Law School in a Chemical Engineering degree from city college of new york. Our next witness is mr. Dennis greeney, president of Environmental Restoration, l. L. C. He received his bachelor of science from university of illinois, urbana, champaign. Our next witness is dr. Donald benn, the executive director of the Navajo Nations Environmental Protection agency. Dr. Benn received his phd. The next is the mayor of durango, colorado. He received his masters in architecture from the university of colorado at boulder. The next witness is a chemist with over 25 years of experience. He has been involved in geochemical studies and site evaluations across the United States, involving field, laboratory and computational components. Dr. Williamsons background includes extensive work with acid mine drainage, metals in aquatic environments, geoChemical Engineering and the fate of transport of chemicals in the environment. He has a masters degree from Northern Arizona university. And we welcome you all, look forward to your testimony, and mr. Stanislaus, would you start us off. Sure. Good morning, chairman smith, Ranking Member johnson and members of the committee. I am with the epas office of solid waste and Emergency Response. That is responsible for epas cleanup program. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the Gold King Mine release and subsequent epa response. Located within the watersheds of San Juan Mountains in Southwestern Colorado are some 400 former mines, which were the focus of large and smallscale Mining Operations for over 100 years. The Gold King Mine is located in the upper animus water should which consists of three mainstreams. The animus river, cement creek and mineral creek. In 1991, mining ceased at the last big mine in the region, sunnyside. Subsequently, based on a permit issued by the state of colorado, sunnyside installed three bulk heads that drained its mine while trying to treat the waters draining into upper cement creek through a Water Treatment facility. After sunny side installed the bulk heads, water seeped into natural fractures that allowed it to flow into the gold king and red and bonita mines. Initially these waters are run through a treatment system that sunnyside built but Gold King Mining Company ultimately stopped operating the system. In 2008, they continued the efforts by a reclamation plan within Gold King Mine. Based upon data from 2009 to 2014, flow data, the annual water discharge from Gold King Mine and three nearby mines reached approximately 300 at the request of local stakeholders, by 2014, epa joined the Colorado Division of reclamation mining and safety to address both the potential of water buildup and ongoing impacts caused by these large mine discharges into the upper animus watershed. Working with the state of colorado and the animus river Stakeholder Group, epa developed plans to reduce potential mine water pressure and reduce mine discharges into seem creek and downstream waters. In 2014, initial work was performed at the Gold King Mine to release some water buildup. On august 5th, 2015, epa was conducting an investigation of the Gold King Mine. Work was under way to allow rye opening to affect water conditions and determine appropriate mine mitigation mettures. While excavating above a mine opening, the lower portion of bedrock crumbled and pressurized water of approximatelymillion gallon fs water behind the collapsed material, discharging to cement creek, a tributary of the animus river. Within colorado, the day of the event and before the plume reached Drinking Water intake, the following day, other jurisdictions were notified, again, before the plume reached Drinking Water intake and other die versions. Agricultural intakes were able to be closed prior to down plume release reaching those intakes. However, broader notification should have occurred. I have issued a guidance memo to all ten regions to work with state, tribal and local partners to enhance our joint notification responsibility and processes. I understand the state of colorado is moving forward in the same vein. On august26, 2015, epa released its internal review report which included an assessment of the events and potential factors contributing to the gold mine incident. The work accounted for the water conditions due to blockages at the Gold King Mine and steps to lower the blockage and water buildup. The review team found that experienced professionals from the epa and the state of colorado concluded there was likely or low mine water pressure. However, given the release that was in fact high enough water pressure to cause a blowout, the summary report concludes that the water inside the mine working was likely the most significant factor related to the release. The report indicates that side conditions made difficult to determine the pressure within the mine. I do have a lot more to talk about. But ill take your questions and respond to those. Thank you, mr. Stanislaus, and mr. Greeney. Hank you, mr. Chairman. Make sure your mic is on, there. Okay. Let me start it again. Chairman smith, Ranking Member johnson and other distinguished members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify on recent incidents at the Gold King Mine. My name is dennis greeney. I haserved in my role since 199. My entire career goes back 30 years. We were one of the organizations involved in epas efforts at the silverton site. That said, professionals who have dedicated ouren tire careers to cleaning up the environment, the end result was heartbreaking to say the least. If i may, id like to give you a bit of background about our company. Environme Environmental Remediation company. It provides services to individual, state and federal agencies and were very passionate about our work and honored to provide services in some of the largest sandy, eire postal services, and finally, the 9 11 attacks on the world trade center. As a company, Environmental Restoration is committed to providing a safe environment for our workers. That is our number one priority. We can demonstrate that through our Modification Rate which is a. 72 compared to an Industry Standard of 1. As with many epa projects, we were one of several organizations with assigned roles at the Gold King Mine. For the gold king, Environmental Restoration was issued a task order, we were requested to open the portal, as well as rehabilitate the mine opening to allow safe passage into the mine and create safe access 75 feet into the tunnel. Within that task we had sub elements which included a Site Preparation phase, constructing roads and treatment ponds. The rehabilitation of the mine and tunnel. We were to anticipate water approximately 6 feet deep on the backside of the site entrance. The gallons estimated was 250,000 gallons, as we now know there was much more water than experts believed. I was not personally involved or on the site when it, when the release occurred. However, heres what i have learned. The release occurred during a preliminary trip to the mine. And prior to Environmental Restoration initiating our work of opening the mine, during this preliminary trip we were directed to remove rubble and debris that had caved in over the mine opening, an effort to expose the bedrock above the mine tunnel. The removal of the material was carried out with all due caution over a twoday period and under the guidance of the epa on site coordinator and abandoned mine representatives from the colorado inactive mine program. The gold king release followed the removal from above the mean entrance. It was a terrible misfortune for the animus. And it was gutwrenching to watch the after februaeffects o release. This in no way reflebs who we are as a company. Were very proud of our track record. Weve conducted 1,200 tasks for the epa as well as other agencies. Were very grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to help safe guard people and the environment, and we hope to continue in that capacity for a long time. Id like to thank you for your attention and time, and im open to answer questions to the best of my ability. Thank you, mr. Greeney, and dr. Benn . Chairman smith, Ranking Member and members of the committee, my name is dr. Benn. Im a chemist by trade and the executive director of the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection agency. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on a matter of great importance to the Navajo Nation. On august 5th, 2015, the United States epa and other parties caused a massive release of objection to eck contaminates from the Gold King Mine. The toxic sludge throwed into the river and through 215 miles of the navajo territory. We had a Good Relationship with epa with the u. S. Epa, however, recent events have shifted that relationship to one of lack of trust. Today i would like to cover only a few of the many critical areas of concern for the navajo people. These issues and others are covered more extensively in my written remarks. First, the u. S. Epa delayed information to the Navajo Nation. It was not released until august 6. They downplayed the magnitude of the risk of human and animal health. And later reports by u. S. Epa were incomplete. Initially, the Navajo Nation expressed concern for the u. S. Epa handing out and encouraging members of the Navajo Nation to fill out their form to expedite settlement of their claims. These incidents have led to a culture of distrust toward the epa both among our farmers and leadership. I also want to lay out some of the devastating impacts of the Navajo Nation. However, i want to stress that all the impacts are yet unknown. First, families have the Immediate Impact of the additional cost of water delivery and other expenses to, despite this effort, they saw their crops dying each day. Second, the loss of crops and the placement of those crops, their seed for their live stock and other, triggers longterm expenses for a nation that already has 42 unemployment rate. Third, longterm Health Effects are not known or fully understood. Fourth, the cultural and spiritual impacts are felt in our culture that expresses beauty and harmony. We need to act quickly and thoughtfully. We therefore ask for the following. Number one, we need resource to address the immediate emergency. This includes continued delivery of water and hay to impacted ranchers. They should establish a relief fund for individual ranchers and farmers, we also need true Emergency Response coordination with fema. We need resources to conduct our own soil monitoring. Conduct the duties. We will require an onsite lab. Number three, we need assistance to create redundant and auxiliary Water Supplies ande r reservoirs. We will request study for long term effects and to return the river to prespill site. We seek to share an independent assessment of the u. S. Epas and others roles in the spill and establishment of a different lead agency. No other environmental bad actor would be given leeway to investigate itself to determine what extent it would be held accountable. We believe another agency, such as fema, should take the lead on the response and an independent body should conduct the investigation. I welcome any questions from your committee. Thank you, dr. Benn, and mayor brooking . I am dean brooking, mayor of durango, colorado at the base of the San Juan Mountains, along the animus river. I have lived and wrerecreated ag those mountains since 1980. Our current economy is not dependant on mining but rather outdoor recreation, arts and other cultural amenities. The mine released wastewater into the river and put a spotlight on the centuryold problem that our kpcommunities have lacked the resources to address. 3 million gallons were released but this is not a onetime incident. About 3 million drain out each week. Prior to and subsequent to this event. That is the quiet but real catastrophe that has largely gone unnoticed by the public until now. Our rivers are what bind us together as communities. The veins of the animus river flow into other arteries of the werks including the san juan river, before reaching lake powell. From there, it joins the colorado that flows to the grand canyon, into lake mead. A watersource for los angeles, and san diego. It is tempting in times of crisis to poichts fingers and place blame. After 130 years, thousands of mines, millions of individual actors and literally billions of gallons of polluted water, attempts to blame single entities or individuals ignores the score of the problem to be addressed. We must do much more quickly and with greater resolve to comprehensively address the Water Quality threats to our region before they result in far greater harm to our communities as well as additional cost to government. The epa must be held accountable for this accident. Every indication we have received from them shows that they are taking this incident seriously. Theres no denying, they had their hands on the shovel, but the epa was at the Gold King Mine trying to help address these longstanding issues. In fact, the blowout could have happened naturally the day before or any day in the future. Without the epa, the federal government more broadly and the federal government more broadly, theres no option to defining the risk. Yes, we can and should hold responsible parties in the Mining Industry accountable as well. Local, state, notforprofits and businesses also have a role to play. Fundamentally, though, our Community Needs the scientific, technological and Financial Leadership of the epa to guide a collaborative process for addressing the broader problem. I see before us a watershed home to turn a new chapter in mining history. I hope that the committee will join us to achieve a comprehensive, sciencebased solution and help ensure that the epa and other federal agencies have the resources and year direction needed to ensure the gold king release is the last time we need to be reminded of this longterm problem before taking action. The city of durango welcomes the committees help to address risks and vulnerabilities posed by Water Pollution in the animus river, including supporting the request of the epa for over 50 million to build a new Water Treatment plant and to create a redundancy to our citys water supply. Responding to this event, a Bipartisan Coalition of senators and congress men has asked to look at a Water Treatment plant in silverton as well. I ask that you look at the 1872 mining law that takes us from the 19th century into the 21st century. And consider a royalty on Mining Companies, the same royalty as paid by other industries that would be used for cleanup. Lastly, the Good Samaritan legislation proposed during the last congress could be an additional tool used toward longterm solution for cleaning up abandoned mines at less cost to government. Im certain that we have the capacity to Work Together to develop an efficient, equitable and scientifically sound approach to ensure the leg say that we leave our children is not one of accusation and ra rancor, but action. Inaction will result in problems to all taxpayers. Please see my written comes for more about the Environmental Impact in the San Juan Mountains, cleanup, and the notification of cleanup activities by the epa. Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions. Thank you, mayor brooking, and dr. Williams. Good morning chairman smith, members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and contribute what i may. My name is mark williamson. Im a geochemist living in colorado. For the whole of my professional career and extending back into my graduate days, i have focussed on acid rock drainage, the type of solution discharged from the Gold King Mine, its management and associated issues of metals in aquatic and terrestrial environments. Im present to offer my education and experience to the committee in its examination of the circumstances surrounding the discharge of acid rock drainage, ard, from the Gold King Mine. Like many of my fell low coloradans, other professionals that work with ard, i was disturbed by the discharge from the Gold King Mine. Ard has a Significant Impact on water resources, negatively affecting thousands of miles of streams and rivers throughout the United States. To control but not necessarily eliminate the discharge of ard from disused mines, engineered plugging of mine openings to regulate the flow has been a simple, relatively effective management technique, but results in a refilling of mine workings with water. At the Gold King Mine, work plans from 2014 and 2015 that ive f n been able to see indic that such refilling wasnt anticipated and that a potential blowout condition was deemed to exist at the collapsed Gold King Mine portal, prompting the need for action. Despite the anticipation filling of the workings and the potential blowout condition, Field Operations at the Gold King Mine used excavation equipment to dig open the collapsed mine portal. It is not clear to me that any investigations were conducted to assess how much water was present behind the collapse or if there was any water at all. Given the uncertainty, the potential negative consequences and with the benefit of hindsight, a detailed assessment of the situation would have been advisable, but i am not aware of such documentation. Any number of lines of investigation are familiar to me that may have been pursued, including drilling a bore hole behind the collapsed feature, inspecting the area for seeps, bore holes that extend into the workings, reviewing and inspecting old ermine maps for potential openings or as documented in the work plans of 2015, inserting a pipe through the collapsed feature to check for the presence of water. Of these, a bore hole, and a pipe piercing the collapse can be used to pump out water to the extent it is present in a controlled matter to remove the water and its associated risk. It is not clear to me from materials made public that any such investigation or evaluations were conducted. Without further documentation, it cannot be determined if site operations arbitrarily abandoned the conceptual site model or if conditions behind the dam led to a paradigm shift. Given the lack of specific documentation, it appears that risk reducing evaluations may not have been conducted. The resulting discharge of ard from the Gold King Mine was comprised of an acidic metal bearing solution as well as a metalcun taking sludge. Both of these can and do result in negative effects on the quality of receiving streams. The solution phase can result in immediate acute impacts and the sludge acute impacts as well as more chronic conditions. Acute appears to have been temporal. The chronic, longterm effects are undocumented and unclear at this time. In closing, ill thank you again for the opportunity to be here and contribute and point out that managing ard is very difficult, especially in a historic mining district. Given the challenging conditions and the potential harm, care is warranted in pursuing remedial activities, owing to the lack of available information, it is not clear just how much care was exercised in the gold king situation. However, i am optimistic that we will learn the details of this unfortunate event so that such things can be successfully avoided in the future. Thank you. And thank you, dr. Williamson. Before we go to questions, id like to recognize the gentleman from new mexico, steve pierce, who obviously has an interest in the subject at hand, and we welcome him to the committee today. Mr. Stanislaus, let me direct my first question to you. On august 26, stan maiberg told reporters that there was no evidence to suggest that precautionary measures were needed. However, id like to show you two documents on the screens, first is a 2014 epa task order, and the second is your own contractors work plan from 2015. Both documents described the potentially dangerous conditions at the mine and specifically both state, and because the print is so small ill read it on this power point, conditions may exist that could result in a blowout of the blockages and cause large volumes of contaminated mine waters and sediment from inside the mine which contain heavy concentrated metals, end quote. Id like to go to the second power point slide and this reads, this is from the internal epa email that appears to address the potential dangeres to the mine. The mine should be assumed to be full of water. It is backed up to the top of the plug or higher. So my question, mr. Stanislaus is this. Why did the epa ignore these obvious warnings . Well, for multiple of years, jn colorado, locals had identified the fact of water buildup and the cave in situations. So that even underlines my question even more. So why were the warnings ignored . You were on notice for years. We saw the Ranking Member put slides up. Weve had other spills. Why were the warnings ignored . The warnings were not ignored. It began with the identification of this particular circumstance. The reason epa was there was to address the water buildup and the cave in situations. My question was, if they werent ignored, why did the incident occur . Sure. Why didnt you take the precautionary steps . Very specifically, to remove the rock build up from the cave ins and reduce that water. The work that was being done at Gold King Mine was an assessment to identify what the particular circumstance existed at the Gold King Mine. So at this point, did you think there was any danger at this mine . Clearly both epa and the state of colorado identified the risk of a blowout. This is built up because of a result of cave ins over the years and water build up. So that is the reason why we were up at that mine. So what we know at this moment is the internal review concluded that this is identified up front. The work Plan Incorporated these capital measures. The experts of epa and the state of colorado looked at the site conditions, looked at flows and concluded that there were low pressure situations. Okay, then what went wrong . If you knew there was a danger, and you made a conscious decision to proceed, something went terribly wrong. Why did you proceed if you knew the dangers were so great, or did you proceed in some form of negligent fashion because clearly you didnt expect and didnt want this spill to occur . Sure, again, none of us wanted the spill to occur. The reason why we were there, to avoid this employout. The reason we were there was to avoid that blowout, so what we were doing there was actually doing investigative work. And per the work dqoplan, we h the plan was to carefully reduce the build up on the cave mine in. Then to insert pipe i understand what you might have had planned. Again, something went terribly wrong. It seems to me you did not heed the dangers or did not act to prevent the spill from occurring in an adequate fashion or the spill would not have occurred. Do you feel that anyone was negligent at all . Again, at this moment, what we have is an internal review. Were awaiting the independent review being done by the department of interior as well as the Inspector General, we will await the completion of all of those to make that assessment. And to date, has anybody been held accountable or not . Well, weve held ourselves accountable. And most immediately, weve worked with the state and local communities to address the response. Weve been working in a unified way, collecting data, communicating that data to local stakeholders so they can make decisions. Thats all well and good, but still a tragic spill occurred. It looks like to many of us that no ones been held accountable. There had to be negligence or the spill wouldnt have kurd. And yet the epa doesnt seem to acknowledge any negligence. It doesnt seem to take any responsibility. And thats simply a disappointment i have to tell you. I have time for one more question, let me address it to dr. Greeny and mr. Williamson. Do you think this toxic spill was inevitable . If you could answer it yes or no, that would be good. Do you think a toxic spill was inevitable . I guess im not really qualified is that no . From an assessment standpoint to really answer that question. Certainly, there was buildup that would have gone somewhere at some point, but i dont, i do not know if it would have resulted in a blow okay. And dr. Williamson . I would ultimately like to rely on more detailed evaluations, however, i once say that its necessarily inevitable. It was, in fact, holding back quite a lot of water at this point, and there are other locations within the district that im aware of that act as opportunities for releasing pressure, so its, it remains to be seen. It would have to be forecast with a little more certainty, i think. Okay. Thank you all. And the gentle woman from texas, ms. Johnsons recognized for her questions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Stanislaus, how did epa come to be involved with the efforts to address mine wastewater leakage at this Gold King Mine . It actually began when the american tunnel got plugged. When it got plugged and this of colorado with the sunny side corporation. That plug in resulted in the water increasing up to the red and bonita mine and the Gold King Mine. Subsequently, water seeps went into cement creek and animus river. The stakeholders then asked the epa, along with the state of colorado to get involved to address that risk of water flow into the animus river as well as the cave in at the Gold King Mine. Now ive heard that the installation of the last bulk head of the american tunnel in 2002 may have been a supouuperig cause. Can you talk about what its relationship might be to august 5th blowout at the Gold King Mine . Yeah. Epa was not directly involved in that decision. What we do know from the internal review that was conducted was that a permit was issued by the state of colorado to sunny side mine that plugged the mine, you know, and as dr. Williamson noted, that once you plug a mine you will have water plug a mine you will have wakpa water backup to the red and bonita mine, which is the mine right on top of that and then the Gold King Mine which then subsequently lid to the water releases to cement creek and the animus river. Thank you. Mayor brookings, thank you for your testimony. And your characterization of the spotlight that has been placed on the problems facing your constituents and others for decades if not longer. While i understand that the mining played an Important Role in16z,÷ Economic Development of western United States, the impacts of abandoned mines are difficult to ignore. You know in your written testimony that mine blowouts like the one on august 5th are not uncommon, putting this most recent release in context, could you describe some of the past challenges your region has had to deal with as a result of mining activities . Certainly. We have since the 1880s downstream grappled with pollution in the animus river as a result of acid mine drainage, because in 1980, the mines dumped this directly into the river. It was, and by the 1890s, the animus river that ran through durango ran gray and turbid, it was quoting the herald from the 1890s, nearly every day due to millings dumped into the river. Back in 1890, our town was covered with gray, turbid river. It was not the clear river we have today. In 1902, durango shifted its Potable Watersource to another river that comes from another watershed that has less mining activity. So as far as ago as 1902 we changed our primary watersource. We still use in summertime, the animus river for the, it goes to our treatment facility, but its primarily used only in the summertime for irrigation of a nufrm the fie number of the fields and lawns and so forth. Our water requirement increases by fourfold in the summertime. North of durango, farmers threatened to sue the Mining Companies, took legal action against the mine because the tailings were clogging their ditches. Similarly to what the Navajo Nation is experiencing today. The mine blowouts like the 1975, a huge tailing pond busted, sending 50,000 tons of tailings into the animus, turning it the color of aluminum paint. This was prior to my arrival in durango, and people were still talking about this release. If you can imagine, you pick a color. This was gray, it didnt show up on t vch as bright as orange tech any color orange, but we had the same thing happen in 1975. 1978, there was a huge burst of tens of millions of gallons of water and sludge came down our river. This time it was black, all the way to farmington. So pick your color, these are 24 different types of minerals that have impacted our river, our watershed, throwing all the way through durango, into new mexico, into arizona and ultimately into the colorado river. The Gold King Mine was draining anywhere from 200 to 500 gallons per minute prior to the blowout. So if you can envision this motain as a giant geologic whack a mole. You plug one and you build up the pressure of water. These are tunnels and vertical columns. They fill up with water naturally. And when these people are exploring the opportunity to release that somehow, and contain it, there was an accident. And so that is estimated at 60 feet of water that created that 3 million gallon release. It happened to be orange that day because of the orange oxide. Thats probably the leasthealthcritical element. The color did Bring National attention to this issue. Weve had black. Weve had gray. Weve had all kinds of colors. Last year in the spring there was a release of more than, a greater release than was experienced in the gold king, but its happened during the spring runoff in 2014, came down our very same river. We didnt even know it. Navajos didnt know it. Nobody knew it, because it happened to be in the normal turbid brown color of spring runoff and it came through our town. Thats what happens. And thats what we have to deal with. Mayor, thank you for that response. We let you go a little bit overtime, but that was interesting. Let me recognize mr. Loudermilk for his questions. As i was listening to the statements and answers to questions here today, i kind of heard a common theme as ive read the reports of this event is that its not important for us to find out whos to blame right now but other than to clean up the spill. Its understandable. But, it seems to be when the government is at fault, theyre not very anxious to figure out whos at fault, but if its somebody else were more than willing to point the blame, even while the disaster and cleanup is going on. Let me bring attention to 2010, the deep water horizon spill in the gulf of mexico. Disastrous. It cost many people their jobs. Many businesses went under because of this. Even while we were attempting to clean it up, the government didnt hesitate to go ahead and point fingers as to who was to blame. In fact, the former epa administrator, lisa jackson, and Janet Napolitano sent a scathing letter to bp, saying they must be more transparent with what happened. Dr. Benn, has, in your opinion, the epa been transparent with whats gone on so far . Thank you for that question. Well, as far as the farmers and the ranchers are concerned, they hadnt really been as transparent. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Stanislaus, i appreciate you saying eventually were going to get to what the issue is. But why are we only being transparent when this Committee Goes forward and demands answers. Why is not the epa coming more aggressively right now and coming out with what was the cause, and what are we going to do to fix the situation. When are we going to see the transparency that this government demands a private industry or individuals when theyre clearly at fault . Well, thank you, congressman. We believe weve been as transparent as we possibly co. Our initial focus was absolutely to collect the data and provide data in the hands of local communities of the states and tribes to make decisions. Subsequent to that, we posted about 2500 pages of documents, documents regarding the work plan, documents regarding the request proposal, documents regarding Community Meetings held with stakeholders, and we will continue to do so. With respect to holding ourselves accountable, you know, we first began with immediately and as aggressively as possible to conduct a response in a unified way of making sure that the state and local government and tribes are part of the unified kmants command. Weve done internal review. I was very interested what Lessons Learned relate to other sites around the country. And what Lessons Learned in terms of what transpired there. But thats only part of the puzzle. Have you been more transparent than bp was . Have i been more transparent i think weve been very transparent, but having been involved in the bp spill as well, we in fact pushed transparency there. I believe we executed the same level of transparency here. Ultimately, whos going to be held responsible for this . That is exactly where we are in the process of examining. Weve dna internal review. We have two other independent reviews, and we will see the culmination of that regarding what were the preparation and facts going into that event, how were they executed, and were going to look at all of that. Do you agree you should be held to the same standards that you hold everyone else to . You agree to that . Absolutely. After the deep horizon spill, president obama appeared on the today show and said the president bp, had he been working for him he would have already been fired because of his role in the spill. Do you think we should hold the same standards . Gina mccarthy, should we have called for her to be fired . If definitely the epa is responsible for this spill . Well, i think we all want a factor in the process. So weve done one step of the investigation. We await the independent review, and i think all the members, all the public, ive also called for independent reviews. Were going to see the culmination of that in a roughly, a department of interiors doing a study in 60 days, i dont recall exactly when the Inspector General will be completing. Im responsible for the cleanup around the country as it goes to state and local governments. I more than anyone else want to make sure that we are doing the right thing. All im asking for is that hypocrisy of this government, that it holds itself to the same standard that it holds its people to. I dont remember president obama waiting for an independent review, giving the comments you just said. The gentle woman from oregon is recognized. Theres absolutely no question that what happened in colorado is tragic, and i want to thank the witnesses for being here to help us learn more about how it happened, if and when it could have been preevented and talk about the Lessons Learned. We also have to keep in mind that there are inherent environmental dangers from metal Mining Operations and that there are thousands of inactive mines around the country that are consistently leaking toxic wastewater full of heavy metals into creeks, streams and rivers, so we need the Environmental Protection agency to review Mining Operations to make sure they do not endanger crucial watersheds, and i also want to talk about the need to be proactive here and mention hubble mine in alaska, pebble mine would like lay have ha negative impact on the local watershed and salmon fisheries. Congressman mcdermott and i led a group of our colleagues to protect bristol bay. Fisheries in that region provide millions of dollars and jobs to the economy. But also oregon and the entire northwest. And the potential damage from a massive mine accident is a serious threat, and i hope that the Lessons Learned in colorado are considered in that ongoing process. But back to colorado. Mr. Stanislaus, you said in your testimony that based on 2009 to 2014 flow data, the average annual discharge reached approximately 330 milliongallons per year. And the epa and the state of colorado and partners have been taking action to address that issue. So can you talk about the ongoing, those ongoing discharges and the work that was being done there. The and and in your response, please discuss whether Additional Resources would have made a difference, and also would a superfund designation or listing of the Gold King Mine affected the resources and the approach available for cleanup and remediation. And i do want to save time for one more question. Sure. So most recently, the animus Stakeholder Group and the state of colorado asked for assistance for technical expertise. Thats what led us to the mind, the red and bonita and Gold King Mine. There was a group who identified congresswoman, the multiple sources into the river that degrade the water call with, in fact, 10 miles above the animus river is degraded and fish health is severely compromised. So just last week at the request of local communities, i traveled to silverton to talk about whether a listing of gold king as a superfund would affect that issue. And i mentioned that to be eligible for superfund sources, they have to be listed on the national list. I want to ask you to follow up on that, mayor. I represent a district in oregon and really understand the importance of preserving natural resources, and thats especially important to our tourism industry, which i know you share those concerns as well. So can you talk about how this recent release, which, of course, we all watched on television, some of you up close first hand, how has it been treated in the media . Can you talk about what the coverage has done to your local economy and also the superfund designation. I know thats a discussion thats ongoing in your community. Surely. I might add that ms. Gina mccarthy was in durango, took full responsibility for epas role in this event, she was at a plastic table and a metal folding chair closer than the chairman and myself sitting together and she took full responsibility. I did get a phone call the thursday after the event from shawn mcgrath, the epa director asking from the citys perspective if we need any assistance at all from this event. By the way, we were notified within an hour and a half at city hall of the release. The event happened at about 10 58. And we were notified at 1 39 in the afternoon. And that allowed us to shut down our pump stations, protect our Potable Water supply. Can i ask you who notified you . The Colorado Department of health, Public Health and environment cdphe is the appropriate protocol from epa to notify the state health department. They notify downstream parties, which we were notified within an hour and a half. Can you briefly address the effect on tourism . As you might imagine, i found myself in a barrage of cameras, everybody from al jazeera to fox news channel, holding press conferences, et cetera, infinitely showing the orange plume. I can tell you that orange plume no longer exists in dur ang guy. It lasted for a day and a half until it moved downstream to the Navajo Nation. But we immediately mayor brooking, weve again run out of time and appreciate your response. We now go to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. Abraham. Mr. Chairman, first, let me express my, i guess, gall at the director not being here. I find it somewhat unconscionable that ms. Mccarthy chose not to be present at this hearing. Saying that, you said in your testimony that your experts at the epa underestimated the water pressure. Now im nothydrologist, but i can certainly estimate water pressure pretty easily with equipment. Ive done it on my farm many times. If they underestimated this, have they underestimated water pressure at other mines . Im talking to you mr. Stanislaus. So just to be clear, i mean, i am here because my responsibility i understand youre the cleanup line. Youre fourth in the lineup as far as batters are concerned, and really, you shouldnt even be here, because it shouldnt have happened in the first place. You wouldnt even have a role in this. So my question to you is your experts at epa, you have said in your testimony, underestimated the water pressure. Have they done this in other places . So, the pressure was not estimated. You know, the review report concluded is that when they got onto the site. They identified the potential for blowout conditions. Let me interrupt, excuse me, sir. Would you and mr. Stanislaus, if you knew there was a potential of employout, was there a mitigation plan in place for this potential disaster . The blowout potential as was identified following the issuance of the task order and some initial site work, again, represented there was 6 foot of water behind that bulk head, im sorry, not bulk head, the collapsed tunnel. The intent, then, of the work plan was essentially to come in, using that top 4 foot of open space between the water level and did you have a mitigation plan in place for this potential blowout . Because you knew it was a potential thing to happen . We all have mitigation plans in life for certain instances that can happen. And did you have one in your company . We had a management plan, to, again, use the probe, much as dr. Williamson had suggested, to insert into the well or into the mine and start pumping water. So that was your of mitigation plan. If it started to blow, you all were just going to start pumping water out. I guess were, im not sure, youre using mitigation. Im using management plan. Youre looking for a contingency plan . Yes. Lets agree on that word. If it happened, what is your immediate first step, and did that happen . Again, the blowout occurred during the initial we had not started our site work. We were not prepared to enter the that answered the question. You werent there, okay. And mayor brooking, you said that the epa, the good news that day was that the epa was actually there when it happened and i would use the analogy in medicine that a surgeon working on a lung slices the heart open and we are happy that surgeon just happened to be there because he sliced the heart open. That is beyond pale that were at this point where we have to have this hearing because nobody, like the chairman said, there is probably a lack of transparency, and i think a lack of forthrightfulness here. Mr. Stanislaus, has epa actuated the money cost to this spill . At this moment, weve expended about 8 million of direct response cause. How about mr. Benn, as far as the navajos, what hes asking for. Have you factored that cost into your figures . Well, we have begun to pay response cost by those who have asked local governments. Were going to do that separately. Wea were going to be working through that process and completing the process within six months. Thank you mr. Maybe habraham gentleman from colorado is recognized for his questions. Okay. Thank you. Id like to welcome my fellow coloradans to washington, d. C. , gentlemen, thank you for your testimony, all of you, thank you for your testimony today. Part of this is i feel like, you know, were in the early stages of litigation, and i, the chairman, i think, maybe a frustrated litigator wanting to figure out who was negligent, who wasnt negligent, whos responsible for this, what happened. Appreciate the fact that the epa got to the department of health in colorado quickly, who got to durango, quickly. To share this. There apparently was some brake do break down in communication getting to the Navajo Nation. A court is going to figure out exactly what happened, when it happened, should it have happened, dr. Williamson, but id like to ask some other questions, because i think dr. Be benn, you suggested some things that the epa should consider in the short term and in the long term, one was help you with some monitoring devices to keep an eye on things. Help the farmers and ranchers who may have been impacted. Am i right about that . Yes, sir. Which i think range at least any hundreds of thousands. Dr. Williamson . In response to your first point, the terrain is mountainous, for sure. It is a mining district that is fairly dispersed and widespread. There are multiple operations in the area. An exact number i cannot tell you. Exactly one to the mining started in this area . 130 years ago, give or take. Brookie, do you know how many mines are in that district about during a . Above durango . In my written testimony there are hundreds of mines around that particular basin as well as in cement creek. Creek and in mineral the animas river primary tributary. They feed into the animas river as they go through during a durango. In all, there are over 5000 mine shafts. Could we go to that other picture that was up there for a moment to wear this Gold King Mine is in the terrain right one. . The other there we go. , there hadg for this been a release, a slow leakage if you will of a couple hundred gallons per minute as opposed to 3 million gallons in a short period. Over time, there is a lot of liquid released. Mayor brookie, i think you said there were 3 million gallons. Purposes, 3tive million gallons released in august 6 timeframe versus 300 , we have a lot of work to be done with a lot of mines in the state of colorado. If the epa or some federal agency does not help with this, who does yo . Mr. Stanislas. Dressed to superfund mines around the country. That is a small subset of mines around the country. Clearly, at least in colorado, there are 23,000 mines. Hundreds of thousands of mines around the country. That responsibility is split between other federal agencies and states. Mr. Greaney . Thank you, your time has expired. Mr. Chairman, can i get the . Irst slide, please you this is the other website where we have been releasing other information about the gold kingsville. They showed a blowout as it happens. According to the website, i want to to look on the far righthand side. Profanity contained in the audio of videos of scared license plates for privacy purposes. Videos int edit the any other way. Is the statement i just read from the epa website actor . Accurate . It is accurate. Do you have any reason to believe it is not accurate . I do not. Lets have video. Corrects the next video is the same footage the eva posted on its website. The last few seconds of the audio has been removed to prevent the viewers on the ground saying what do we do now . Lets have a second video. Gregs you said you had reason to believe that the epa website the evidenceered . Is there. The before video anyone you does it on the website. The epa provided that is good enough. After seeing both videos, do you think the video is misleading to the American Public . I cant tell. What do you mean you cant one was clearly edited by the epa. How can you not tell . I would need to compare. You just got a comparison. Ll the circumstances the epa had an on scene coordinator. Is the epa on singh cornet or the one in a video who says what do we do nownow . Not releaseid videos for over a month. How long did eva know about before itage disclosed a videos to congress and the American People . Do you have any idea . My understanding with the video was provided as soon as possible. Mr. Stanislas, this is another video after the toxic water was moving rapidly. Video number three. If the epa had known the answer to the question in the previous , is ithat do we do now possible the epas response would have been better in preventing the water from escaping the mine so quickly . Could they have stopped the rest we just saw . All i know at the moment is what is contained in the internal review. What the review concluded was that the risk of a blowout was identified by both the state of colorado that was discussed with the animus stakeholders i appreciate that. Hold onto the statement. Given that the risk was epa had everye reason to believe that a blowout was possible. Properly prepared to respond to an environmental event of this magnitude . It is an easy answer because we have 3 million gallons of toxic. Ater that ran into the river were they adequately prepared . Yes or no . Risk, theyof that put in place specific plans they didnt separate the plants. , as part work planning of the investigation phase, they concluded that the emergency of the planponent did not include a worstcase scenario of a blowout. That is something i committed to Going Forward to make sure that happens. According to news reports, the epa failed to notify local officials, including the Navajo Nation for 24 hours after the spell. Spill. They did not have a plan to deal event. E environmental clearly, what do we do now is not a question they had answer to. I have much more to to talk about my time is expired for a mr. Byers is recognized for his question. Thank you, mr. Chairman. , ithe spirit of fairness want to say the the jordan of title of the the pejorative title of the hearing, i think it is unquestionable that the epa was very far from the first mover of the heavy water wastewater. It is untenable that the epa is solely responsible for this spell. Sense to say the epa was only at the site because of the problem of contaminated wastewater release. Blaming them for the larger problem of wastewater release is blaming firefighters for a force fire. Gallons were released august 5, as we heard, millions of gallons are released every week. I would like to think that the larger impact to the Navajo Nation is all of the lax releases that mayor brookie talked about. Kennedy,count of the there are 23 pages up on the internet. I have yet to hear any resistance from mr. Stanislas about not being willing to come forward with any transparency that is being requested. Yet we have a suggestion that the epa is withholding. We want to hold people responsible, but it seems to me that they are doing our best to come forward. Three years ago, we highlighted the history of the minds and our region. I would like to ask that the video be shown now. I am peter butler with the animus stakeholders group. We are in upper cement creek. This line only put out maybe 17 gallons per minute of mine drainage which was not heavily metal laden. Now we have a drainage of around 300 gallons per minute loaded with metals. You can see it coming down the dump file in front of us. Back in 1996, a bulkhead was put in the tunnel. Later in 2002, 2 more bulkheads were put in tunnels near the surface. It was part of a agreement between Mining Companies and the colorado regulators. At the time, that raise the water table. It is believed that because of the water table, that is why we have all of this drainage coming out of the mines. This is untreated drainage. It flows into the cement creek and goes into the animus. We can track and see the increase in metal loading from the site and others all the way down to eggers bridge. How many miles . 50 miles downstream. Next to you think it has had any effect on the aquatic life . It hasggest blow clearly impacted the animus river down the animus c anyon. We have done a fish and bug analysis in the canyon and clearly there has been a major decline in the number of species and amount of species of both invertebrates and trout. The american tunnel used to drain about 1600 gallons per minute. They had access to the largest mine in the sultan area. Silverton. In company stopped ning 1991. They were treating at 1600 gallons per minute doing a good job of it. Degree. The consents decree. Ent t they put up a number of other projects to try to offset any springs that might pop out because the bulk heading of the title. Tunnel. Back in 2002, they had fulfilled the agreements of the consent decree. After that, in 2003 and 2004, we saw more drainage coming out of these mines in upper cement creek. Before mainlines we have seen drainage increases or is always some residual out of the american tunnel. Then there is also increased drainage out of the red bonita. Mogul mine. The drainage varies. It is still around 900 gallons per minute untreated. That is the largest amount of acid mine drainage in the state of colorado. Anywhere else without much drainage has a treatment plant. We are undergoing efforts to figure out a cooperative andtion to try to mitigate reduce the amount of metals coming out of these drainages. This area potentially to be a superfund site. The epa thinks it has a criteria. There is not a lot of support. Or a superfund site we are doing a collaborative process rather than a regulatory process at this time. Thank you for letting me go a few seconds over. We dont have time for questions, that is the problem. I would like to point out that video was done in 2013, two years before the crisis. A had printed dangers of mine spillage. Thank you for pointing that out. Virginia man from im sorry, gentlemen from for his is recognized question. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Greaney, i have with me a plans,f the work the title, Environmental Restoration, llc. Who prepared this document . The manager assigned to the project. How many levels of approval to this go through . The response manager, the epa, the osc, the on scene coordinator, he is accepted. Someone from your company signed off on it, someone from the epa signed off. The response are our company and the osc. Were professional services employed by engineers, hydrologists in preparation of this work plan . That would be any data we work off of the data that is provided to us within the quarter as well as any information provided by the on some chlorinator at the time of the task quarter. We are not an engineering firm. Data is provided to us by the agency. This is clearly engineering work, who was qualified to prepare this plan . The engineering component would be the actual Structural Design to the entrance of the mine as well as the completion of the tunnel work. That was subcontracted to a special subcontractor who was basically already on contract and ready to initiate the work. A professional engineer ontractor prepared know, we prepared a plan. Then there was a subcontractor to us who came in subsequent to that plan to do the Engineering Design and installation of the portal restoration work after that plan was similar. Ere their Engineering Design documents . I dont really specifics of that. Were you involved in this project . Not directly. Would it not be normal practice for someone doing the work to have the plans and specifications . Box it is more of a timing issue, i believe. That plan would have been turned or so, it varies depending on what the federal osc wants. It is a preliminary approach. The way our contracts work is we are giving a set of technical directions, then we define an operational approach to meet that. It mentions that we will hi re a competent contractor to do that work. It has not been approved yet. It doesnt say anything about hiring somebody for professional services. It does Say Something about subcontractors. For document was provided transparency purposes on the epa website. It lists three attachments that were not included in the document which i think would be pertinent to the document. The first one is the cost estimate. What would the total cost of this project be . I dont have been information. I could get that for you. Lacks the schedule was not included. Do you know the timeframe of the schedule . I believe the schedule, safety plan, and costs are the three attachments. My understanding is we didnt turn those over. Costs were redacted for confidentiality reasons. I think that is pertinent to the issues. My question is whether adequate cost and adequate time to allow to do this job properly. Yes. Why would that be redacted . That was that was part of our contract, that was rejected. Also included in the document was the held and safety plan. Was there a health and safety plan . Yes there is. As my understanding is, it was released. I dont understand why you dont have access to it. We are not sure about how much design and engineering was done in this project. If the people who approve the work plan were qualified to approve that. A lack ofbviously planning that went into this because of the spill that occurred. Mr. Stanislas, is this common practice . Is what common practice . To prepare these plans without professional services. Clearly there is a request proposal which identifies the specific circumstances of risk. It goes into a work plan, then a construction plan, and execution plan. What the review team found was the expertise of the state of colorado, the epa, and the contractor had the right expertise. The plan to execute that in the review report goes through out the plan youost states have laws cant do this type of work without a professional in charge of the work. Does epa exempt following state laws on professional services for these types of projects . All of the appropriate professionals for this job, our review team found the expertise for doing a job like this was in place and on this project team. Both the epa and the state of colorado. Emenhe gentl s time has expired. I want to get back to proportionality. 3 million gallons in one and a visible in the water for miles adjacent to this mine. 300 million gallons, i understand, of waste that is invisible individual. In the visual. Curious that this committee is focusing on this and spending hours trying to ,igure out in the wrong venue it should be a court of law to figure out library. The title of this hearing is jumping to a conclusion. It is misleading. We should be talking about this. In the spirit of that, i would like to yield my time to the gentleman of colorado to continue his question. Takano. K you, mr. T to use theirit argument the next time i am in private company. Millions of gallons of toxic water. Thank you for yielding, and the gentleman from colorado will be recognized. Thank you, mr. Chair. Byer,ssman congressman takano have hit on the key point here. As dr. Williamson said, we have thousands of mines in colorado, many abandoned, many properly closed with all sorts of issues. At some point, we have to address them. We have had lakes collapse into hugeshafts causing releases dummy animas river and into the san juan and the Navajo Nation. This go back to basics. Started working on this with the Stakeholder Group and professionals in 2014, did it not . Yes. Individualsd with to try to figure out what to do 300many guys to minimize million downs that was being released into a river that runs right to the house of part of toronto durango and into the heart of the Navajo Nation. Theo doing, you did appropriate work the professionals that was appropriate. Withf those contractors you, mr. Greaney, and your company, true . Correct. Listening to your testimony, you have done 1300 similar kinds of tasks for the epa. I think your testimony was 10,000 for other agencies in the private sector. The kind of work you do can be dangerous, is that true . That is correct. It can be complex. How would you describe all of the tunnels you are dealing with in this silverton complex when you are working on the Gold King Mine . Obviously, very complex. The chairman started off his statement saying what a prudent onen undertake this . Prudent person, probably not. When 300 million gallons a year are coming into a beautiful river into a city that prides itself on being outdoors and , should theious United States and the state of colorado, even though it may not be prudent, undertake to fix Something Like that . Mr. Greaney, what would you say . We address many task orders on behalf of the epa. All of them have a basis for each one. Dr. Williamson, and your experience, does the epa, does the provision of mine Land Reclamation in colorado, do other agencies undertake to mitigate against a constant release like this 300 and gallons . Yes sir. Try toexperience, they offset the sustained discharges. At some point, my guess is you have been called as an Expert Witness in a trial. You have advised in the past. Hopefully, all of the things you have worked on have gone well. This is complex and dangerous kinds of work. Is it not . I would agree that it is, yes. I would like to thank mr. Kano for giving me time. There is no bad guy. We are trying to fix something other is been a hundred years in the making. When he help with Treatment Plants, silverton, the nomination. This the Navajo Nation. This is a response ability we have as a nation. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would like to address these stanislaus. I would like to ask you what lessons undp have learned from this incident and this experience . You and the epa. As part ofidentified this process the local communities and event like this which potentially has broad potential impact. The review team also identified there are a number of things we could do operationally on forward. Looking at investigating the private sector and remote identifyools to where from a safety perspective drill hard to place a jok pad. Emergency response planning. Those are some of those. Some of those are contained within the internal review document. We receive documents from thousands of sites that we engage in around the country. In terms of overall costs of this, someone had mentioned maybe 8 million 8 million is what has been spent so far. Is that accurate . That is correct. Do you anticipate additional cost beyond that . Certainly some additional cost. Ongoing monitoring, continued to work with stakeholders and other kinds of elements that accommodate the stakeholders. Where do you get the funds for that . Is that from other programs that are a lesser priority that you shift within the epa budget . Where would you get that funding . All of the federal budget is fairly regimented. Of ave a fixed amount resources for the superfund. We try to prioritize. Respond to emergencies and prioritize that as we go forward. We have a tight budget. It would come out of the thatfund budget projects lesser priorities we go to the bottom of that list and you move that to this . We make ourselves available to Emergency Responders on a regular basis. We use that pot of money to respond. Heard epa has obviously taken responsibility for this. As the epa acknowledged mistakes that were made for instance, there is always this comparison. How would you treat a private actor if they were in this situation . Wheree in the situation you are investigating, conducting the operations, but also responsible for any penalties. Would you treat a private actor differently . Is there a conflict of interest . We would treat them identically. For example, when an incident happens, what we demand of the responsible party is they immediately go forward, expend resources, collect data, analyze the data, provide Water Supplies. Commandce the unified response structure. That is identical. We would demand transparency. I believe we are identically in transparency. Very forward leaning on transference he. In terms of longterm, we are still in the midst of investigating. I asked for internal review and an administrator asked for internal review to quickly identify what happened here. Also two other independent investigations. We should have the department of roughlys investigation 60 days from the time it started. I am guessing that is about 40 days or so. We are going to see all of what is identified there. I have a responsibility for the cleanup of contaminants around the country. We work with the communities to protect Public Health and safety from the legacy of these sites. This a lesson learned, if there is a way of holding ourselves or people accountable, we will look at that. s time hasrman expired. Gentlemans time assertiveness. Thank you, chair. Concernsy thoughts, my. This was a tragedy. To me, it seems like it is inherently dangerous work when you are dealing with mines. Dangers for the epa, for the contractors, it is awful when Something Like this happens. I dont agree with the name of the hearing, mr. Chairman, but i agree with the right to have a governmentolving a agency. In my experience, these types of incidents will take some time to. Horoughly be investigated hopefully, we get to the bottom of it. I think this is a part of the process. , i have a few questions first. Is it contemplated that there orld be a breach of contract litigation against the contractors involved . Is that possible Going Forward . Again, we are going to evaluate the reports that are coming down. We are going to have to evaluate or on a specific facts. We have one independent review. It speaks for itself. They lacked proper planning. The work plan more could be done in the future. That is where we are. That is not a comment one way or another on your word, but i want to highlight that there is a right of action available against a private actor. That is something that is possible. It is our right, mr. Stanislaus . That is right. With that in mind, i would like to yield the rest of my time, i think it is important, for the member who is most closely affected by this and continues to have questioned if he wishes. Mr. Chair, the gentleman from colorado, i would like to yields to him if possible. You mentioned the Good Samaritan bill. I generally support. In this instance, it would not have helped. We were working on a mine and there was a major release. In connection with the 8 million the epa has spent so far , what has been done for the town of durango with that 8 million . Couldhaps mr. Stanislaus answer that. We will next week be submitting an invoice to the epa for direct costs associated with Emergency Response. A number of other direct costs to the city. Whitewater rafters, hotels, any of the private businesses that would have a claim for last of ink loss of income or loss of business. Stanislaus, explaining mitigation that took place a mealy after the release explain the mitigation that took place after the release . Releaseiately after the , we shored up the situation, we diverted the water so that it could be treated. We have treatment farms. We believe we are capturing 90 of the metals that are described in the video in untreated water. We have more to do in terms of a longterm solution. That is why i facilitate having a discussion. Let me ask this question. In the video the congress men showed us, there was a discussion of the silverton mining disdistrict. Should these mines be put on the superfund list. How would this affect your ability to pay for Treatment Plants in the area of the nolo nation Navajo Nation . It makes that site eligible for a permanent longterm solution. Fundamental things that are done is a permanent Water Treatment situate system to handle the water and reduce contaminants before it enters into the rivers. I think my friend from now 20. I yield back. I think my friend from california. Stanislaus, during the spill, president obama came out and visited the region. Ordid not visit the site meet the people affected by the spill. Thethe epa request that president not visit the spill site . All i can tell you is that epa shifted into Emergency Response. Emergency response personnel, local stakeholders to visit the area. Local stakeholders to make sure Emergency Response is wellmanaged. Earlier,eone mentioned it is ironic she is not here today, either. Does it surprise you that president obama visited the area but did not visit with the folks who were affected as the navajo were . All i can tell you from where i sit is that we want to make sure that Emergency Response is in place. We did that. Weve got the state involved. All of the local communities visited. We gauged how the response was going and how we could be of assistance. Let me ask you this. Some technicalities. What was the relationship between the epa and the Environmental Restoration llc in this site . They are a contractor working on a proposal put in place. Theepa oversees the work by contractors. Does the epa specify what exact work will be conducted at each step of the work . It is a sequential process. We issue a request proposal detailing particular circumstances. We ask the contractor to respond. There are additional application documents. Fermentation implementation. Does the epa heavy final authority on this site . Food. To the ever absolutely. Did the Environmental Restoration, did they ever raise a red flag . What i am aware of his we raise the issue at the Gold King Mine. That is the reason we were there , to deal with the particular circumstance. The circumstance was there was a haven at the Gold King Mine area. A cave in. The contractor was addressing the situation while also addressing the mind many set, nita mine. O was a because of the spill . Was that because of the spill . Worked with the Mining Operator to deal with the cave and situation. Years. Ving going on for we addressed some of the cave in. We got involved around 2014 to deal specifically with the red bonita and the Gold King Mine. Who were the folks operating the machine that day . Were they epa employees . Environmental restoration employees . They were subcontractors as mr. Talked about. I dont have individuals names in front of me. Want to know who they work for. Did they work for the epa . Absolute. Epa employees . No, contractors. , yousituation like this bring a particular expertise to ing contractors in min operations. It is an unfortunate thing to happen. It brings to mind in North Carolina we had a rancher who accidentally spilled cow maneuer into a river and was fined 15,000. That is a lot of money for some folks. Tookvery disturbed that it 24 hours to inform the folks downriver of the spill even occurring. Int you think that is my opening statement, there was immediate notification and a contingency for immediate notification. Notifications did occur before any of the impacts of the spill reach them. Ask i imagine if you wanted to if you live downstream, you would want to know rapidly. Absolutely. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Stanislaus, there is an article in the Associated Press which thegust 20 in article says the epa is now downplaying downplaying the danger of the Colorado Mine spell. Concerns linger that contamination levels are pretty serious. Yet, the epa says contamination levels were returning to prespill levels and no longer threaten the rivers. Do you agree that that is the epa position . The epa put in place an aggressive data program working with everyone in unified command. That include states, tribes, and local governments. We went to our Laboratory Process and compared that to preexisting levels and made a judgment. Once we achieve preexisting levels, we communicated that to unified command. Then local governments made the decision to reopen the river. The article said they made repeated requests to the epa information on prespill contamination. So that they could compare that to the current contamination levels. Thehe time of the article, epa had failed to respond to that request. Had the epa provided that information . Ar on the website we have tables and graphs and data that compares the data taken on various days to prespill conditions and other parameters. Was it on your website around august 15 two august 20 time frame . I dont have the article in front of me. I dont know the time from they were talking about. Could collectwe and process the data, we posted it on our website. There is a Laboratory Process with metals that takes time to analyze. As soon as we had that data available, we posted it and immediately communicated with local and tribal officials. Are you satisfied with the levels of contamination of arsenic, lead, other contaminants currently in the river. Is that consistent with what you require for private companies in terms of wastewater discharge . Whetherwe addressed was the river had been restored to its prespill conditions. The animas river, Stakeholder Group, and others in colorado have long recognized there is a whole load of contaminants going into the river. That is why last week at the to discussexaminers a potential superfund listing. You approved it for Recreational Use again based on your analysis of the contaminants and he river. Yet, other help agencies say not to drink the water and not to come in contact with the soil. That seems to me to be inconsistent with a water source useg ready for recreational. Here is the problem i have with this. The epa plays an Important Role. I have been a vocal critic of the epa. My problem is that there appears to be a double standard. It has been mentioned several times. If this had been a private company, i do not think the epa would share the same optimism. I do not think the epa would have handled them the same way the epa has handled itself in johnsons video and the obvious alterations of the video. Problematic that the epa is not doing the due thisence of investigating the way they would if it was a private company. Ar. Bevan mentioned they rancher in texas. A guy in wyoming build a pond in wyoming and they are finding him 30,000 a day. I see a real problem with the way the epa handle this. Everything is fine, look the other way, nothing is going on here. You would not do the same thing if it was a private company. You would destroy the company. All i can say is that with our current transparency, all that was taken to deal with the spill. Involved in thousands those across the country. I take that seriously. Because of Public Health and the environmental dimension of the problem. I want to make sure that the work is done. We ultimately all want to address the conditions that resulted in us having to provide assistance. I am committed to learning lessons from this site as well as others. That is what we all want. That is what we want for durango, the Navajo Nation, every municipality that is under an enormous burden imposed by the epa. It opposed appears to me that there is a double standard. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Dr. Ben. Thatpa triggered a spill has done damage to the Navajo Nation. They then took the lead in the aftermath of the spill. Now they are investigating themselves. This seems like a clear conflict of interest. Does this concern you . Yes. It is a clear conflict of interest. We have approached officials are trying to figure out if we can actually have someone appointed other than the epa to do the investigation. Willto you believe the epa hold itself accountable . From thewe saw a video representative from ohio. He had a video that indicated that the epa my not be forthright with how they are presenting themselves in this matter. Is this a concern that maybe damages might not all be prevalent because they are investigating themselves . About how be clear they communicated information from the beginning, it was not that theyours later let us know what happened. The same time, when they did let them thatt was really told us about what happened. It was actually the state of new mexico that approached us and told us about all of this information. It appears that cynthia kaufman, colorados attorney general called for an independent review of this matter . Are you aware that . No. That is indicated in her test my. You said that the epa to our guide was with you, is that correct . Yes. You further indicated that your visit to be mine site that it was the first time and epa official had visited that location. Is that your recollection . Yes. We were one of the first ones of their up there. Not too many other jurisdictions had access to it. Tted our way up there. The epa had told us the water was clear. We wanted to make sure. When we got up there, obviously, it wasnt. That is my next question. You noticed yellow water was at thexiting the mine time of your visit. Can you tell us more about what you saw in regards to the water exiting the mine . It was still mustered orange mustard orange. We saw their treatment with. Odium hydroxide we saw that on the day that we were up there. This is all coming with the mine at the time . Yes or. Yes sir. A this is a question for my friend dave pierce. He says that 40 of the Service Water is in this watershed. The Navajo Nation is at ground zero as well. Stanislaus, is the problem going to be cleaned up in new mexico, is a going to be cleaned up . We have worked with the state of new mexico and other state in he nomination the Navajo Nation. We have shown that it has been restored to prespill conditions. There is a longterm solution. Lots of discussion among Stakeholder Groups about discussion of potential superfunds. As i identified in my opening fromment, there is a load a lot of minds, 330 million gallons per year. The animus stakeholders identified that concern as well as the state of colorado is a need for a longterm solution. Can might friend, dave appears, from w