Transcripts For CSPAN3 Politics And Public Policy Today 20150914

National hero, and when it comes to the reverbiations, the National Security issue and they, for the most part, want to see it in the economic sphere. Theyre really hoping, as rouhanis Campaign Promises indicated and hes continually said so, some of this sanction relief is going to be a breath of new breath of fresh air for the countrys economy and hes sticking with his Campaign Promises which, for the most part he has a the of promise is but very heavy handed when it came to Economic Relief it is unclear, for the most part, where he stands when it comes to domestic, political and social reforms. Promises have been made, some minor, achievements have taken place, but for the most part it is unclear if hes going to allow the deal to be used kind of reform the politics domestically as well. Lastly, the opposition, i mentioned, reformist factions in the Civil Society, they view it as an unprecedented achievement. Theyve shown a great amount of patience and support when it comes to sidelining their own demands while the negotiation process was going and theyve given a lot of power i believe to the administration. The administration, again i think briefly, was alluded to, needed credibility of the iranian people to sit at the negotiation table and negotiate on their behalf something arguably they were lacking in 2009 because the population was so divided. So they are hoping for the debate that took place, negotiation, to essentially act as a model when it comes to what they call potential National Dialogue. They are hoping that diplomacy, dialogue engagement is going to essentially overcome the environment of isolation, extremism and an taggism, even domestically. Interestingly enough, i was reviewing some of the reformist weeklies, they already have a set of preconditions in mind that if a debate, National Dialogue takes place, theyre asking for Mutual Respect, some level of recognition from the other sides point of views, negotiation should focus on present and future, not the past, negotiations should take place based on realities of the Current Power dynamics. And their expectations, i think more or less youre familiar with, demanding more press freedoms, more transparency accountability of the government. But yeah, thats where they stand. I think what happens interesting, as last point if i may, the dynamic between the administration and the reformists. I think one thing that makes rouhani unique, unlike ahmadinejad a conservative, he doesnt really belong to what we call a political current. Hes not a rormist. Hes not a conservative. So he needs the vote and the support of both sides within the society for upcoming elections, parliament being a big one, coming up, and his reelection again. So it would be really interesting to see how hes going to play that game. If he completely ignores demands of the reformists, hes going to lose their support, and if he does give too much, hes going to have a bun. Of mad conservatives on his hand that hes going to have to deal with. So that dynamic is also teresting to kind of observe and look at. Im going to leave it there. Im going to do one last question down the row, and then well open it up to questions. Weve been talking as if the deal is going to go through, so very briefly, what happens if Congress Says no . Speak for your own area of expertise what will happen to the inspections regime what will happen to sanctions, what will happen, how will iran respond, et cetera . Well i will start off by saying i do think the deal will go through. But for the sake of the argument, if the deal is not implemented, iran will be in a place where it can dramatically increase its Nuclear Activities quite quickly. It can nearly double its uranium enrichment capacity, so that time it would take for iran to obtain enough material for a Nuclear Weapon would drop dramatically down to a number of weeks. Iran could do that quite quickly. Also far less intrusive monitoring and verification than there is now with this interim deal in place. Iran would wry vert to a basic safeguard agreement it has with the International Atomic energy agency. That would give the agency some access to irans sites but it would not be as complete as would be implemented under the final deal. So Irans Nuclear program would certainly increase and iran could escalate that quickly. Let me clarify. If the u. S. Says no, the agreement doesnt stand anymore . Like the other partners i mean, if im sure, yes, well touch on this, but if the agreement if the u. S. Says no, because there will be no sanctio sanctions relief, i cant see why iran would be incentivized to follow through on commitments. Would be great if iran chose to abide by the Nuclear Restrictions regardless, but i doubt that is the choice iran would take. So under the Iran Nuclear Review act of 2015, were currently in a 60day review period where Congress Reviews the deal and the president is prohibited from extending any additional sanctions relief to iran. If Congress Passes a joint resolution disapproval and the president s threatened to veto that joint resolution, but if the veto is overridden under the piece of legislation, the president is prohibited from taking any action involving any measure of statutory sanctions relief under that agreement. So any congressionally mandated secondary sanctions that have been imposed that were to require a president ial waiver, National Security waiver, to negate the impact of, the president would be prohibited from extending that. There is will intricate legal argument why there might be no ability for the president to extend sanctions leaf but you can talk to me afterwards. But when the rubber hits the road, that means no removal or no sanctions relief on irans energy sector, its automotive sector, on its oil exports. The major significant sanctions targeting iran, major sectors of iran economy, will not go away. In practice, i would say that European Companies would probably continue to adhere to u. S. Secondary sanctions particularly over the last five years, i this is especially for mid to large European Companies but theres a pretty good culture of compliance that has been developed. But once you get outside of that, i dont its sort of on a case by case basis. Especially in d. C. We talk about, well, if there is no sanctions relief, then china will take this action or russia will take this action. But theres really sort of three parties so any sort of to sanctions. Theres governmenttogovernment or theres the u. S. And secondary sanctions, foreign governments theres the private sector each Company Makes their Business Decisions baseed on risk reward calculus. While the cutting off from the u. S. Financial system is a powerful disincentive for some companies dealing with iran, not with the United States, might be worthwhile. Theres a bank in china, sanctioned in 2011, but continues to operate and continues to do significant iranrelated trade for chinese companies. So ill defer to sort of to kelsie about what iran would do on the nuclear side. But i think, over time, with sanctions, you would see the impact of them continue to devolve particularly outside the eu. Im also very hopeful the deals going to go through. To answer the question, i think, as i laid it out, youre going to have different reactions by different internal players and iran. I think ultimately the biggest loser of the game is going to be rouhanis administration. He has banked a lot of his credibility as a president and administrations ability to manage the company on his Foreign Policy and Nuclear Issue specifically. So some actually go further than and essentially say that he might even completely ignore domestic issues and hope that the impact of sanction relief on the economy is going to be enough. That would make the voters happy to reelect him. Thats kind of up to debate. Im not sure about that. But for the most part, hes going to have a very hard time, i think, gaining the support he needs within the populous to continue to manage the country and for future reelections. I think i briefly touched on what the Supreme Leader is going to do, conservative factions. And i think its also going to be dark, dark times for the opposition, reformists and Civil Society if the deal does not go through. Theyve already kind of stuck by the by romanys administration. Theyve put their demands aside for the time being. Every time they speak up for the most part, in the media, limited access they have, theyre told the priority is nuclear deal now. If deal does not go through, i think theyre also going to be losing a significant amount of hope that they have now, that their demands are next in line if you will that are going to be addressed. Were optimistic bunch here. Im also pretty optimistic its going to go through. That said i cant echo what they said enough, they stole my talking points. Sorry. So i do also believe its going to be a huge blowback for the reformists, Civil Society generally and the idea that rejecting this deal will bring iran back to the table for a better deal is pure fantasy, its not going to happen, not anytime soon, north for the foreseeable future. It will prove the u. S. Is not trustworthy, they will say we gave up all of these things, and look, they went and rejected the deal. So this will play very nicely into the hands of the hardliners. I will say also that more generally, something thatss not emphasized enough, it would hurt the u. S. credibility to Enter International agreements in the future. Europeans are not seeing this very well. For them, the train has left the station. Theyre thinking of the next issues, human rights, a top priority, and you know businesses are ready to go back in. So for them its left the station. The fact were still sitting here, having this discussion, is looking ludicrous. The u. S. Will look not very well, lets put it this way, internationally if the deals rejected. Great. Lets open it up to questions. House rules, please have it be a question. It should have a question mark at end in the sound of your voice. No statements, please. Identified yourself and lets try to direct it to one speaker. Since we have two nonproliferation experts, we will alternate them if they come, okay. Wait for the boom. It doesnt elevate your voice, so you know. You have to project. Speak up. Questions for kelsie. Clarify regarding restrictions on Peaceful Nuclear explosions. A wildly held belief Nuclear Explosions are a loud peaceful activity under the nonproliferation treaty . Specifically wildly held arms control association, anyone. It certainly is an ambiguity in the treaty that has caused problems throughout the years since the treaty entered into force. And while it is not, i think, widely accepted that Peaceful Nuclear explosions advance peaceful civilian applications. The argument that the treaty permits that type of activity. So restrictions that iran agreed to related to weaponization, both rule out that mpt loophole on Peaceful Nuclear explosions but also undertaking activities for a nonnuclear purpose. And then applying research to a Nuclear Weapon later. So both are eliminated under the restrictions here in the deal. Right there in the glasses. Just make sure you project. My name is sarah, im a university of Michigan Law School graduate, a question for sam and reza. Imaging a situation where the deal goes through which we are optimistic about but im less optimistic youll see positive economic results faster in terms of sanctions relief. I think the compliance on the nuclear side jump in if im off on this that might be the easier aspect than economic sanctions part. When dealing with the u. S. Climate where it makes regulation really difficult for companies to know how to comply with a vastly changing landscape, when they go in, still have all of these things that are place, like, for example, administrative guidances arent binding. They say you can do that. Thats been a selling point in the administration about snapbacks how do you think if you have this delay of delivered promises on the economic sanctions relief aspect, that doesnt really result in much improvement domestically in the Economic Situation for iran. How will that impact the administrations ability to control the Security Apparatus and impact the reformist opportunity to engage in reforms . Sam, take the first part of that. I think you raid a really good point. Financial institutions in particular, but companies internationally internationally, have been scarred by the enforcement over the past five years. Weve seen some eyepopping numbers for bank fines. And you also hit it right on the head that ofac has been in the business of preventing Economic Activity for a very long time and it will require a significant culture change to get them to be encouraging business with iran or if not encouraging, at least providing clear guidance and engaging in significant back and forth and timely back and forth with companies that rk loare lookingo comply with sanctions. As i mentioned before, i think that the aml issues are going to be really big thing to watch, how thats dealt with. Well see. Were were were anticipating there will be significant guidance coming out with this deal weep have seen a bit of trend its not a trend yet, it will be a trend but a bit of change change in rolling out of the cuba the relaxing of cubarelated restrictions and guidance that accompanied that. I would expect there will be similar guidguidance, if not mo robust guidance, out of the nuclear deal and i think there will. I think treasury will make some to explain the remaining sanctions. Time will tell. Its yet to be seen. Weve seen a lot of interest in the Iranian Market but whether that translates into significant economic benefit, i think remains to be seen. I think thats a very difficult question to answer because, actually, before the panel started, i was commenting to leagues here sometimes it gets really tricky because of the fact that iran is an isolated country, traveling there directly is not always the easiest thing to accomplish. So you get into this game of trying to decipher what one propaganda versus another means and how serious is the irgc or the Supreme Leader or conservatives when they say if they dont see sanctions relief immediately, theyre going to restart their Nuclear Activities or various steps within it. I actually want to piggy back on last point that sam was making. I think partially what hopefully both sides are hoping for is that this practice, this exercise we just had is going to allow us to continue to communicate for clearly in the future. So despite some of the harsh rhetoric that the iranian conservatives have and military apparatus, i dont necessarily believe that right away theyre going to, you know jump in trucks and head towards the Nuclear Facilities to restart whatever they may restart to kind of make a point, if you will. So i think if there is clear communication, i think if it is what iranians keep saying, if they sense that theres Mutual Respect and understanding and it is not a political ploy or a political game that is being played and it is honestly the technicalities of legal and financial law, that that is in place, we i personally am hopeful that theyre going to show a level of flexibility. But just my word, i guess, versus another. Just one quick point, also, on the snapback. I dont if if god forbid that would happen, whatever degree and the deals sort of off, companies, i would very much expect, to have some allowance for snapback built into contracts for clauses. To a certain extent, as weve seen with some of the big bank fines, they were sort of caught off guard by what their compliance responsibilities were, that will not occur Going Forward. Were living in a sanctions world and companies are well aware that they have that they must comply with sanctions and they will account for any potential risks Going Forward that they will need to start complying again with a much broader array of iran sanctions. Can that be a hashtag . Someone start it. Feel free to use that. The woman in the third row. Yeah. Yep. Just wait for the boom mike. And project, please. Keep reminding everybody. Laura wells. Im wondering what this deal, assuming it goes through, how impact irans standing with the rest of the arab world and will the rest of the arab world try to flex its muscle and to reassert its power influence over the region. Who wants to take that one . I could take a stab. Take the mike. It depends what part of the air rash world youre talking about. There are very different views among the arab countries there are countries that have been pro this engagement that helped make it happen, like owe man, there are countries that have not necessarily been pro active in making it happen but said this is good, this is good for us, qatar is one of them. And theres saudi arabia, that we know, has been vocal, if not more than israel, that against the deal. Generally speaking, it seems like most countries in the region are sort of taking it as fait accompli and going with it. How its going to affect dynamics, i dont see any major change in terms of iran saudi relations. The proxy war will continue to happen between the two countries and iraq and syria and yemen, escalate further, and countries will have in the region will have to align themselves and continue to do. I dont think its going to have the major the drastic change that a lot of people are saying its going to have. Ill add there are voices inside i rairan that want to stt breaking down the cold war with saudi arabia, though they have to play out in the factions that reza and aryan are discussing as well. Thank you for that. Yeah. Very good point. This in is one thing this deal does do is that it empowers a team that does believe in constructive engagements, hashtag, again, according to rouhani. Since theyre on twitter. Start tagging. So this is this is a team that has essentially said look, once we are empowered by the nuclear deal, our next step is going to be regional dialogue, regional engagement, and hes been trying to hard to make that happen. Until recently, it wasnt necessarily reciprocated. Saudi arabia and iran have the same dynamics like iran and the u. S. In the past few months iran was ready to engage and saudi arabia not necessarily but now it seems like its changing, baby steps, little baby steps, but it seems like its happening, to some extent. Quick point, i think, one encouraging thing because of the past eight years, didnt really see that much of. I was encouraged about it. The middle east tour, as soon as, you know deal more or less agreed on at negotiation table, as soon as he could he was traveling to regional countries in order to present irans side of view and viewpoint and try to reassure that its not going to ultimate ultimately iran is not going to be a menace, if you will, because of the fact its going to be allowed some kind of Nuclear Program. So i its a quick i think i was very interesting to kind of see irans diplomacy and Foreign Policy machinery doing what its supposed to do. That was interesting. Do you want up here . Second one well do yeah. Diane perlman, george mason, psychologist for social responsibility. We have a statement on our website. Check it out. So two questions. One, of course, like an intense belief in this mindset that iran wants to get a Nuclear Weapon and they cant wait and then 15 years theyre going get one as soon as they can and theyre going to cheat. But also some reporting like our reporter that the intelligence said they want a Nuclear Weapon, was leaked from mek and theres a fatwa against it and they dont want one. The other question, people who believe in 15 years, they cant g wait to get a weapon the second they can. Theyre not imagining, the 60 of youth under 35 who are educated entrepreneurs, want to be part of the world that the society can change and evolve and they may not be our enemy, in 15 years that things could be different. Do you want to take that first part of the question . The fatwa . Yeah, about the fatwa. There is an argument, i often hear that its a fact that iran wanted a Nuclear Weapon but now some people are poking holes in that. Could you clarify . Also as it relates to the fa what. Irans track record is not a clear track record. Its not a track record that indicates a country thats been in compliance with International Obligations which is why we are where we are. If iran was doing everything, we wouldnt be sitting here where we are currently. Whether or not iran wants a bomb or hedging, meaning it has a Nuclear Energy program and trying to have a weapon option, i think, is i sengslily the theory most of vus subscribed top i do. I think thats what iran was going for. It started a Nuclear Program for Energy Purposes under the shaw before the revolution but wanted a Nuclear Weapon option, that much we know from people involved in the Nuclear Program under the shah. The Islamic Republic seems to continue that policy and resume ed its program, to have some Energy Option and also some weapon option. I certainly believe that. Now in terms of the fatwa, the fatwas tricky because, first of all, its not quite clear its not as clear as iranians say it is. We know that the iran communicated to iaea that the production possession and use of Nuclear Weapons were prohibited by the fatwa in 2005. Following that, every time the Supreme Leader made comments and his own statement on his own websites, there is nothing but production and possession, its only about the use. The wording of the fatwa, the cope scope of the fatwa is not clear. There is a lot at play. You have to take everything the Supreme Leader says with a grain of salt. So you know, there is irans rhetoric, its track record, history, dont necessarily add up and thats part of the program. Reza, can you respond to the point theres a youthful population if youre on that, has an influence in the way iran behaves. Weve seen that with the elections of rouhani and possibly parliamentary elections. Talk about the societys pressure on the government and what role they play. Of course. I think thats one of the key players, if you will, society that oftentimes we omit, we dont speak about it that much. And again, my earlier remarks, i think sometimes iran, because its an autocracy, im not doubting that it gets painted darker than it is. The reality is, as you mentioned, its a very young population, most of them are pro western. I think celebrations was following nuclear, was an indication of the fact that the population is welcoming this agreement. I even put together some numbers when it comes to rouhanis election, 50. 8 of the people voted for rouhani. 72 turnout, 52 . The second closest individual was tehrans mayor at 16 . That, i think, really shows the populations kind of aligning with the fact that they no longer want to be isolated. They dont they want to be a world player. They want to travel freely. They want to be able to send money to their relatives abroad. They want to be able to study abroad. If they are abroad, they want to be able to freely go back to their country without worrying about visa issues. So these are kind of at the street level there are issues that the population is dealing with. And they are certainly hoping for the situation to change following the deal. And i think, more or less, i agree with you. 15 years, i am shocked that it just gets dismissed. Oh, its only 15 years. That is a long time. If you think about it. If you review some of the statements made, and my colleagues is correct me, the best estimates was two to five years if iran is attacked that the program is going to be held back. If in negotiated settlement is going to buy you 15 years, more or less i agree with you a lot can happen in 15 years. Well do a pan until 15 years . You can call us out on everything we said. Ultimately, i think, the iranian people play a key role when it comes to politics and the pressures that people can put on various, i think, governments has been demonstrated in the past, 2009 was an indication. Theres the end of khatamis reformist era rule, but that was an indication, some protests. And the willingness of the politicians to actually use the support that they gain from the people, i think, is an indication of how much they care about what the people think. Recently, as in eight, nine months ago, i believe, there was a conversation politician in iran, former member, he indicated that it wasnt because of the people who came out and supported the elections. The regime had met its kind of met a stumbling block. It was a dead end, more or less. The government did not know where to go because there was a political kind of quagmire that they were in. Seriously were risking, i dont know, becoming syria, north korea. They were going that way following 2009, if the people would have stayed away from the arena political participation. By that i mean coming out, voting, and show what they want, either through social media, through elections, through street protests. So i hopefully answered the question. But thats i think what the dynamic is. Im going to take three questions now at a time in the interest of time. We only have 15 more minutes. Gentleman with the laptop, woman right there, after that, and the third one over there. Its all in the same row. The person over there. Im dave curtis with Portland Communications. Speak up. Yeah. Im with Portland Communications im wondering, can some of you spoke to this a little bit but talk more about irans relationship in terms of specifically the gulf countries, qatar, kuwait, not just saudi arabia, you know, you mentioned that oman played an Important Role in getting negotiations started. Does the iran deal for most of the gulf country, is this a good thing . Can it mean greater cooperation, economically, whatever it is in the region . Is that how most gulf countries see it . Maybe some of you can speak to that however you can. Straight across the row. Im from the university of georgia. Can you hear me . Yep. Currently were seeing relatively auspicious conditions for negotiations under the rouhani and obama regime but many have spoken how pendulus the attitudes are especially towards each other. I know mr. Cutler spoke about the secondary sanctions and the permanence after eight years but wondering how confident you were on the International Compliance tactics in maintaining this favorable proposed balance. Third one over there, a yeah, that person. Shawn cleaver, also from the university of georgia. Miss davenport, you described inspections regime as one of the most invasive inspection regimes that weve seen on the international stage. Can you briefly comment on the recent coverage by the Associated Press on the side deal regarding the nuclear site and the allowance by iaea of iranian fishes to inspect that site . Ill take the first question on the gulf as prerogative, you know. Since i said at the beginning were going to narrow the discussion, im briefly going to say the first couldnt interest in the region to congratulate iran, uaeae. Theyve played this interestingly. Part of the coalition that sent delegation after delegation to the u. S. To say theyre very scared and extremely worried about the Nuclear Program. But they have incredible economic interests. Iran sends so much money so the uae threw reparrations, through businesses, doing transactions through dubai, in particular. Kuwait similarly has done a double play where they said theyre worried and of course they have legitimate concerns, these are small concerns and have security concerns and theyre very, very legitimate and the u. S. Is taking them into account but they also have to live alongside iran theres a small amount of water between them. Take everything they say with a grain of salt. Look at actions and rhetoric. Theyre getting a lot out of the u. S. In terms of security assurances and u. S. Is making sure theyre comfortable with what is going to happen in the future. Economically its going to continue to grow. I think uae, in particular, will play a very Important Role for businesses because they have a lot of experience work in iran. A lot of companies will go through dubai because they have expertise and a lot of iranian expats. Ill add one more thing and continue to the question. So one thing with the ill add, i agree with everything she said, with saudi arabia, i dont think there is a good solution to the problem, as far as saudi arabias concerned. For saudi arabia, this is not about the Nuclear Issue as it is about all iran integrating. They would rather see iran that is nuclear, something they say behind closed doors, not doing very well rather than iran wealthy and integrated into the International Community but doesnt have Nuclear Weapons. Second issue for the saudis is abandonment by the u. S. Theyre afraid were going back 35 years and u. S. And iran will wake and in hand into the sunrise, sunset, whoever, and be abandoned in the process. These issues make it challenging to effectively address saudi arabias security concerns. On to the a. P. Story im glad you brought up one, few points, the a. P. Has unfortunately not had a good track repocord of accurate reporting. Some of us may remember what happened a few months ago. This is the latest. In the next few weeks as things become more sensitive well see more stories coming out and theyll be picked up by media everywhere. Folks just doing poor judgism, folks designing piece s s to there a rum of reasons why stories are coming out but theyre going to be picked up, which doesnt mean theyre accurate. Now d. J. Said this was misrepresenting, the work of the iaea, he has a lot at stake here, institutions, agencys reputation here is at risk. We dont know all of the details of this. Were likely not going to to know all details soon. The ia. E by definition enters agreements and has protocols with its Member States that other countries dont know about. That is what allows it do to the work it does. If the agencys seen taking information and giving it to somebody as was requested by congress not long ago everybody it wont able to do the work its doing. Its no the going to be seen as independent and as nonbiased. Iran is not going to be inspecting it elf. What we do know we dont have the full details here its a military site which means that it has National Security concerns for iran and it means that the iaea, because of the previous activities that happened there wants to know whats going on. What may be the middle ground they might be reaching is that the iaea is going to reap kids going to give to iran. Iranians will collect samples which does not mean its going to inspect them. Its going to collect samples given to the iaea for inspection. Iran and the iaea will have to work out details. Again, collecting samples swin spec are not the same thing. Theres a difference between essentially me eating something, im hundred dp hungry, my example is food, it looks great. You can me how it tastes. Take my knife and fork, cut a piece, im giving you a sample but youre trying it for yourself or me saying it kafts great. Trust me when i tell you that. It over simple flying. Also sampling is not just pouring some dirt in a bag, right . Like thats extremely complex. Yes. Theres a lot that comes in to play. Theres a whole protocol that iaea has developed, cameras involved, sealed, theres a whole thing behind the process. Ill let kelsie continue. Ill talk really loud. So there are a few points to make about the parching case. For those who dont know what the debate is about, its a military facility where iran is believed to have conducted certain type of Nuclear Explosive activities, shaping metal. But all of this is believed to have happened in the past its part of the International Atomic agencys investigation into what has been known as pmds. Or past possible military dementions to Irans Nuclear program. It was irans noncompliance ws allege as building of secret Nuclear Facilities that led to irans file being referred to the squurt council and negotiations. This is a separate issue from the deal negotiated between iran and p5 1. Access to resolve past issues has nothing to do with the monetarying and verification put in place under the deal to ensure irans not pursuing activities and if iran chooses to pursue activities in the future, they will be immediately detects. I certainly agree with arianne that the document that the iaea produces, you know, does not say who is going to be doing the sampling sort of at parchene but iaea will maintain authenticity over the samples. Thats one of the most important elements. Whether iran takes samples with iaea watch organize the iaea takes the samples is immaterial. Chain of custody thats maintained and iaea will be doing tests. When iaea takes environmental samples its a technically complex process to ensure what areas are sampled, samples are robbery ta properly taken and t. Others are sent into the yahoos network for confirmation, this includes labs in the United States and labs in europe. Again, theres redundancy to ensure the sampling process is done correctly. Access to parchene is not the only thing they will do when evaluating the site. They have accumulated an incredible body of evidence of what has taken place including papers published by iranian scientists related to these explosive activities. Iaea has talked with some of the russians involved with the construction of some facilities. So its important that the iaea has access to parchen. Its important that they conduct the investigation with technical val l validity. Again, this has to do with the past whereas the nuclear deal that will be put in place, you know, guards against this evane actuality in the future. Just because i didnt want to overlook the second question asked quickly, our last question, to sam, what happens if there is a breach . Were operating in a very optimistic space. But if iran does quote unquote cheat, what does that mean in terms of sanctions . So, i think theres what has gotten a lot of attention is the sort of u. N. Snapback mechanism, which is really only part of what an ultimate snapback scenario can look like. Under the u. N. Snapback mechanism, one of parts could bring allegations that theres some breach of the jcpoa, after which there be a 15day review by the joint commission, which is made up of the parties, and then concurrently there will be a 15day review, either from the ministers of foreign affairs, Advisory Board comprised of the member doing the accusing and the accusee as well as one independent member. After that, the parties the accusing party can, if it determines that material breach occurred it can cease performing its commitments under the deal and or refer it to the u. N. Security council after which if theres been no there will be a vote or there needs to be a vote on continued sanctions relief implementation and if after 30 days theres no vote on continued sanctions, relief implementation, the prior u. N. Security Council Resolutions will snapback. Thats sort of a doomsday scenario. You know, doomsday scenarios not the right word. If all of that occurs, that means that in all likelihood iran is in significant noncompliance with the deal, which i am my Nuclear Experts can give me a better idea how likely that is but in my view thats not very likely. What youre more likely to see smaller breaches. The u. S. Has the ability and the undersecretary for terrorism finance, financial and finance under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, adam zubin, has made clear that the u. S. Retains the ability to more slowly rachet up specific sanctions to deal with specific breaches of the deal to sort of address to address breaches by prodding iran to get back into compliance through sort of actions that dont constitute false snap back. In the event of a snap back sanctions can be implemented overnight. This doesnt require an act of congress. We have the full array of statutory congressional sanctions and all it will take to put those into effect will be revoking the wavers that have been implemented. I should also say that in a full snap back scenario youre far likely to see a snap back plus. The u. S. Is going to rachet up sanctions even more than they currently have in response to sort of full noncompliance scenario. But the president has full authority under the International Emergency economic powers act to basically do whatever he wants. Or she. Or she. And in that scenario it really is as far as the u. S. Will go and to what extent it sort of deploys this shock and awe campaign. Each company has a risk reward calculus but in the event of a full snap back, i mean, theres a lot of difference of things that need to be considered, but it can be it can be done from a legal perspective relatively quickly. I think part of your question had to deal with compliance with remaining sanctions Going Forward. I think to a certain extent it will depend on what sort of enforcement posture the u. S. Takes after the deal, to what extent it does make clear through designations or through sort of private meetings with companies and Financial Institutions in particular on how robustly it expects compliance on the irgc. The president has obviously committed to enforcing continued sanctions, but honestly i dont think it really matters what this president says because by the time were were sort of dealing with post deal enforcement actions, were talking about whoever the next president is. So obviously that could be very different depending on who wins the elections in 2016. Well, thank you so much. Join me in thanking our speakers and thank you. [ applause ] taking a look at congress this week. The senate is back tomorrow and they will take another procedural vote on the disapproval vote for the iran nuclear agreement. They gavel in at 1 00 p. M. Eastern and the vote is scheduled for 6 00 p. M. Eastern. Later during the week they are expected to debate a bill to bana borings after 20 weeks. The house returns on wednesday. Members will take up a number of bills including one from the tsa to enhance security atairports. On thursday the house will attempt to ban all federal funding for planned parenthood unless that organization agrees to stop performing or funding abortions. Follow the house live on cspan and the senate live on cspan 2. Meanwhile, our road to the white house coverage continues. Earlier today we brought you senator Bernie Sanders speaking at Liberty University in lynchberg, virginia. Well show you that tonight at 8 00 p. M. Eastern. And later republican president ial candidate Carly Fiorina all of that starting at 8 00 eastern tonight on cspan. Now a hearing about that toxic river spill caused by the epa and one of its contractors. The House Science Committee hosted the hearing. Epa official, colorado mayor and a geo chemist talked about the epas response to the bill, its culpability and the longterm impacts the environmental disaster would have on farmers, residents and businesses along the affected watershed. This is just over two hours. Call to order. Scienc without objection the chair is expected to call recesses of the committee at any time. Welcome to todays hearing entitled holding epa accountable for polluting western waters. Ill recognize myself for the Opening Statement and then the Ranking Member. Th Ranking Member. W over the last year, the Environmental Protection agency has proposed some of the most expensive and burdensome regulations in its history. Li these rules will cost American Families billions of dollars, p all for little impact on climate change. Es these rules also will diminish the competitiveness of americane workers around the world. The same Government Agency thate has proposed these rules me go recently caused an environmentap disaster that has adversely an impacted three states in the sar mountain west. On august 5th, near silverton, colorado, the negligent actions of the epa caused over 3 milliof gallons of toxic water to a cascade out of a mine that had been closed for almost 100 years. F this event turned the animus river orange and polluted a 300mile stretch of water. Today, we will examine how this disaster, which negatively day, affected thousands of people occurred and why the warning signs that should have preventec it from happening were negligently dismissed. Had the epa exercised the same care in making their decisions as an ordinary prudent person, this whole incident could have been avoided. Countand a 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 administraton Gino Mccarthy has declined to appear before this committee ans answer questions about the rolee her agency played in causing this preventable spill. Perhaps she doesnt have any good answers. Given the epas consistent failure to provide information h to this committee and the failur American People, the epa can be assured that our oversight can efforts will continue. Ght the public deserves to know whyn the epa continues to spend so ue much of their hardearned d dollars on costly and infectived regulations, especially when the agency has been unable to achieve its core mission of protecting the environment. The story would have been much different if the spill had beens caused by a private company i expect there would be calls from this administration andnt others for the executives of the company to resign. There would be demands that the documents be posted online. Comy massive fines would be imposed, and no doubt some individuals o might be prosecuted as happenedd in the 2014 West Virginia woul Chemical Spill where 7,500 gallons of chemicals were dumped into the elk river. This is about 1 400th of the int amount dumped into the animus river. Six former officials responsible for the leak were indicted for violations of the clean water act. The epas negligence is especially inexcusable, since there were known procedures that could have prevented the riveri pollution. Nerocedure unfortunately, we have seen a t pattern of the epas lack of rir transparency. A this committee asked for information from the epa almostp a month ago, and we have yet tot receive all the documents that were requested. Aall the according to news reports, it took the epa over 24 hours to inform the public about the seriousness of the spill, and e their initial claim of 1 million gallons of toxic waste was later revised when it was learned lli there was actually 3 million gallons. It then after the incident, all we heard from the epa was that the toxic water in the river was to dissipating and that the river was returning to prespill levels. The epa neither took responsibility, nor were they forthright with the person ,rtht people. So its not surprising to learn. That just this past spring the s epa received a grade of d forg its lack of openness and transparency, according to the Nonpartisan Center for effective government. An it is my hope that the epa will finally come clean with the American People about their involvement in this tragic incident. Ir and that concludes my Opening Statement. And Ranking Member, the gentle woman from texas is recognized for hers. Thank you very much mr. Xas s chairman. Appreciate the fact that we are holding this hearing today. Chain the august 5th release of 3 million gallons of wastewater 5 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. On and explore what lessons we canh learn from this event. However, we should also take this opportunity to highlight the inherently dirty, dangerous and environmentally damaging ngs process of metal mining. Before this accident occurred, gold king and a handful of oth s mines in the area were releasing more than 300 million gallons of acid mine waste into the animus watershed annually. Lly. Over the areas 120year history, mining and milling byproducts 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 ie wastewater into the river. Sadly, acid mine drainage in this area is routine. And the occasional largescale release of wastewater due to an 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 hl toxic waste, following from the american terminal three years r before the recent accident of the Gold King Mine. Ld the second picture was taken before the red and bonita mine, and the wastewaters draining into the cement creek. A tributary that feeds into thes animus river. This photo was taken in 2013. This was one of the key reasons that epa was at the gold king th mine site on august 5th. Site they were there attempting to investigate this longstanding g problem of persistent acid mine drainage into the animus watershed, from the gold king s and neighboring interconnected mines. Epa was also attempting to alleviate what was seen as an inevitable blowout at the gold s king mines due to a build up of drainage water that may have been caused by the closure of ar the american tunnel, a mine suro drainage system at the nearby sunnyside mine. L, a m unfortunately, they were in syst obviously 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. Nd aug seven and nine days after the gold mine accident. Fortunately, the metal concentrations in the water tha led to the discoloration of the animus river quickly returned tn 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 o last month. The epa was acting as an st environmental firefighter when they went to the gold mine, Gold King Mine. G they were attempting to damp down a raging environmental hazard that had endangered the t animus watershed for decades. Unfortunately, when they opened an exploratorial hole, the build up of wastewater drainage was too much to effectively controlf i hope that our witnesses, to particularly 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 boti of the events leading up to thes august 5th blowout at the Gold King Mine. Bl the legacy of metal Mining Operations on the animus watershed and useful next steps to consider in helping to prevent further environmental in degradation in this truly beautiful region of our nation. O thank you, mr. Chairman, and n l yield back. Thank you, ms. Johnson. Now ill proceed to introduce our witnesses. Our first witness is the honorable matthew stanislaus, the assistant administrator from the office of solid waste and Emergency Response. Mr. Stanislaus was nominated anf confirmed by the u. S. Senate ina 2009. He received his law degree from Chicago Kent Law School in a Chemical Engineering degree from city college of new york. Oogreef our next witness is mr. Dennis greeny, managing partner and president of Environmental Restoration, llc. He received his bachelor of science in ecology from university of illinois, urbana, campus. Our next witness is dr. Donald benn, the executive director ofd the Navajo Nations Environmental Protection agency. Dr. Benn received his ph. D. In n chemistry from new mexico state university. Our next witness is the mayor of durango, colorado. He received his masters in Environmental Design and masteru in architecture from the university of colorado at boulder. The next witness is a chemist with over 25 years of experience. Ch he has been involved in geochemical studies and site th evaluations across the United States, involving field, laboratory and computational on components. Stputati dr. Williamsons background includes extensive work with on acid mine drainage, metals in aquatic environments, met geoChemical Engineering and the fate and transport of chemicals in the environment. He has a ph. D. From Virginia Tech, a masters from northern rr arizona university. And w and a bachelors degree from old dominion university. Fot and we welcome you all, look forward to your testimony, and mr. Stanislaus, would you start us off. Sure. Good morning, chairman smith, n Ranking Member johnson and members of the committee. I am assistant manager for the epas office of solid waste and Emergency Response that is responsible for epas cleanup ps program. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the gol king mine release and subsequeno epa response. Located within the watersheds of San Juan Mountains in locate Southwestern Colorado are some 400 former mines, which were the focus of large and smallscale Mining Operations for over 100 s years. The Gold King Mine is located ia the upper animus watershed whicd consists of three mainstreams. Es the animus river, cement creek and mineral creek. These mines have had a history containing heavy mines and water instability. In 1991, mining ceased at the c. Last big mine in the region, sunny side. Sed o subsequently, based on a permit issued by the state of colorados sunny side installed three bulk heads that drained its mine while continuing to treat the waters draining into upper b cement creek through a water ed Treatment Facility. W 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. A initially these waters are run through a treatment system thatg sunny side built but Gold King Mining Company ultimately stopped operating the system. In 2008, they continued the opa efforts by concerting a reclamation plan within gold. King mine. Based upon data from 2009 to 2014, flow data, the average ata annual water discharge from gol king mine and three nearby mines reached approximately 300 330 million gallons per year. At the request of local stakeholders, by 2014, epa e joined the Colorado Division of reclamation mining and safety to address both the potential of water buildup and ongoing adverse Water Quality impacts caused by these large mine discharges into the upper animue watershed. Working with the state of tate colorado and the animus river nd Stakeholder Group, epa develope plans to reduce potential mine d water pressure and reduce mine discharges into cement creek ane downstream waters. In 2014, initial work was performed at the Gold King Mines to release some water buildup. On august 5th, 2015, epa was on conducting an investigation of e the Gold King Mine. Under w work was underway to dewater the mine pools to allow reopening to affect water conditions and determine appropriate mine mitigation measures. Whil while excavating above a mine opening, the lower portion of c bedrock crumbled and pressurized water of approximately 3 million gallons of water stored behind the collapsed material, discharging into cement creek, a tributary of the animus river. A epa and colorado officials informed the jurisdictions within colorado the day of the e event and before the plume reached Drinking Water intake lw and irrigation diversions. Ing the following day, other jurisdictions were notified, again, before the plume reached Drinking Water intake and other irrigation diversions. They warned downstream users so Drinking Water intakes and wat 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 incident notification responsibility and processes. Se i understand the state of colorado is moving forward in co the same vein. The sa on august26, 2015, epa released its internal review report whict included an assessment of the events and potential factors contributing to the gold mine n incident. The internal review team found the work accounted for the water conditions due to the history of blockages at the Gold King Mine and steps to lower the blockage and water buildup. And the review team found that blog experienced professionals from the epa and the state of experin colorado concluded there was se likely or low mine water pressure. Low mi however, given the release there was in fact high enough water pressure to cause a blowout, tho summary report concludes that underestimation of water pressure inside the mine working was likely the most significantt factor related to the release. E the report indicates that side conditions made difficult to determine the pressure within the mine. I do have a lot more to talk o about, but ill take your ave questions and respond to those. Thank you, mr. Stanislaus, and mr. Greeney. Thank you, mr. Chairman. You, make sure your mic is on, there. Okay. Let me start it again. Chairman smith, Ranking Member t johnson and other distinguished members of the committee, thank you for giving me the me opportunity to testify on recent incidents at the Gold King Minen my name is dennis greeney. I serve as president and managing partner of Environmental Restoration and have served in that role since the company was founded in 1997. Ive worked in Hazardous Waste remediation and emergency r response my entire career going back 30 years. Or we were one of the organizationn involved in epas efforts at the silverton site. We stand firmly behind our project management team. That said, professionals who have dedicated our entire careers to cleaning up the oure 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. Environment restoration is an Environmental Remediation Response Company that provides n services tovi industry, commercl and state as well as federal s agencies, and were very e and passionate about our work and ed were very proud and honored tor provide the services to some ofi our nations largest responses i including thece deepwater horiz, the aftermaths of Tropical Storm lee, hurricanes sandy, irene, katrina and rita, the Space Shuttle columbia disaster, the 2001 anthrax response at the Senate Office building and po Postal Services and finally thee 9 11 attacks in the world trade center. As a company, environmental menl restoration is committed to providing a safe environment fo our workers. That is our number one priority. We can demonstrate that through our Modification Rate which is r a. 72 compared to an industry s standard of 1. Or nearly 30 safer than everyone else in our industry. N as with many epa removal projects, we were one of several organizations with assigned roles at the Gold King Mine. He for the gold king, environmentae 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 e into the tunnel. Within that task we had sub elements which included a Site Preparation phase, constructingd roads and staging areas, and water retention and treatment points. Water management for c water th was assumed to be back behind some of the blockage within the mine and, again, the rehabilitation of the mine tunnel and opening up of the 75 foot of the mine tunnel. Data provided to environmental e restoration indicated that we were to anticipate water approximately 6 feet deep on thk back site of the blocked entrance. Within an proximate tenfoot tall mine. The gallons estimated was 250,000 gallons. Thee. As we now know there was much more water behind the blocked mine entrance than experts s muh previously believed. T i was not personally involved o on the site when the release occurred. However, heres what i have learned. The release occurred during a e preliminary trip to the mine. And prior to Environmental Restoration initiating our work of opening the mine. Restorat during this preliminary trip wet were directed to remove rubble e and debris that had caved in over the mine opening in an effort to expose the bedrockt above the mine tunnel. To the removal of the material wasa carried out with all due cautioa over a twoday period and unders the guidance of the epa on scene coordinator and abandoned mine a representatives from the colorado inactive mine program. O the gold king release followed the removal from above the entrance. It was a terrible misfortune for the animus river and all those r who live along it and make their living from it. E and it was gutwrenching to imu. Watch the after effects of the release. This in no way reflects who we are as a company. Fects were very proud of our track record. E weve conducted 1,300 task orders for the epa as well as over 10,000 other projects for industry and commercial clients as well as other federal agencies. Were very grateful to have the. Opportunity to contribute to help safeguard people and the environment, and we hope to d pe continue in that capacity for a long time. Ro id like to thank you for your attention and time, and im open to answer questions to the beste of my ability. Thank you, mr. Greeney, and dr. Benn . Nd chairman smith, Ranking Member and members of the committee, my name is dr. Benn. E 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 greato importance to the Navajo Nation. On august 5th, 2015, the unitedv states epa and other parties caused a massive release of toxic contaminations from the Gold King Mine. Ction the toxic sludge flowed into the San Juan River and through 215 miles of the navajo territory. The navajo epa had a close mile relationship and good working s relationship with epa with the u. S. Epa. However, recent events have shifted that relationship to on of lack of trust. Today i would like to cover only a few of the many critical areas of concern for the navajo. Easle these issues and others are covered more extensively in my written remarks. E is first, the u. S. Epa delayed notification of the spill to the Navajo Nation. The nation was not informed of a the release until august 6th. The u. S. Ep epa demonstrated a complete lack of transparency. Complete lack of transparency. Complete lack of transparency. O. They worked to down play the magnitude of the risk of human and animal health. And later reports by u. S. Epa were incomplete. Initncern additionally, the Navajo Nation expressed concern for the u. S. Epa handing out and encouraging members of the Navajo Nation to fill out their standard form 95 to expedite settlement of their claims. These incidents have led to a a. Culture of distrust toward the u. S. Epa both among our farmers and leadership. A both a i also want to lay out some of d the devastating impacts of the Navajo Nation. However, i want to stress that d all the impacts are yet unknown. First, families had the Immediate Impact of the ies additional cost of water delivery and other expenses. Despite this effort, they saw their crops dying each day. Second, the loss of crops and the placement of those crops, their seed and feed for their livestock and other expenses, triggers longterm economic losses for a nation that has tre already has 42 unemployment raters. Rm third, longterm Health Effects of the spill arent known and not fully understood. Fourth, the cultural and spiritual impacts are felt in the disruption of our cultural principle that encompasses beauty, order and harmony. In light of the devastating impacts from the spill, both known and unknown yet, we need to act quickly and thoughtfullyl we therefore ask for the following. Fo number one, we need resource toe address the immediate emergency. This includes continued delivery of water and hay to impacted ranchers. Genc deliv the epa should establish a relief fund for individual ranchers and farmers. They we also need true Emergency Response coordination with fema. Two, we need resources to conduct our own water sediment and soil monitoring. And authority for navajo epa to do the necessary work. We propose to conduct these duties under Navajo Nation as g. Opposed to relying on u. S. Epa. We will require an onsite lab. And additional staffing to staff the lab. We ne number three, we need assistance to create redundant and auxiliary Water Supplies and reservoirs to guard against future contaminations. Four, we will require funding assistance and resources to monitor, study and reduce the longterm impact of the spill and to return the river to its prespill state. Retur five, due to u. S. Epas conflict of interest, we seek to an to independent assessment of the u. S. Epa and others roles in f the spill and establishment of s different lead agency. The no other environmental bad actof would be given leeway to investigate itself to determine what extent it would be held ar accountable. We believe another agency, such as fema, should take the lead on the response, and an independenl body should conduct the investigation. Agead again, thank you for your time and attention to this importantn issue. I welcome any questions from your committee. Thank you, dr. Benn, and mayor brooking . Thank you, chairman smith, and honorable members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today. Im dean brookie, mayor of durango, colorado at the base or the San Juan Mountains, along the animus river. At i have lived and recreated among those mountains since 1980. Since its founding our community has depended on the virtues of the Natural Environment as its lifeblood our Mining Heritage is important, but our current economy is not dependent on sed mining but rather outdoor recreation, arts and other cultural amenities. The august 5th mine release into the river put a massive spotlight on the century old n problem that our communities have lacked the resources to address. Tur the fact is that 3 million ess. Gallons of acid mine water weren released b you thiss is not a onetime incident. About 3 million gallons drain out each week, prior to and subsequent to this event. That is the quiet but real illi catastrophe that has largely evn gone unnoticed by the public until now. Our rivers are what bind us pul together as communities. The veins of the animus river s flow into other arteries of the west, including the san juan we river and the navajo regions before reaching lake powell. From there, it joins the join colorado that flows to the grano canyon, into lake mead. A water source for los angeles, phoenix, los angeles and san diego. In it is tempting in times of crisis to point fingers and place blame. Imes poich after 130 years, thousands of mines, millions of individual actors and literally billions of gallons of polluted water, and attempts to blame single agencies or individuals ignore the scale and complexity of the problem that needs to be addressed. We must continue to work ingle together at the federal, state h and local level to do much moree and quickly with greater resolve to comprehensively address the Water Quality threats to our region before they result in fas greater harm to our communitiest as well as additional cost to government. Mmunitie the epa must be held accountable for this accident. Gove every indication we have for th received from them shows that yi they are taking this incident if seriously. Rong this theres no denying, they had their hands on the shovel, but t the epa was at the gold king ov, mine trying to help address these longstanding environmental issues. In fact, the blowout could havee happened naturally the day e before or any day in the futurey without the epa, the federal tu. Government more broadly and the federal government more broadly, theres no option for addressing the risk to health for the mining legacy. Yes, we can and should hold responsible parties in the risk. Mining industry accountable as well. Local, state, tribal governments not for profits and businesses also have a role to play. Fundamentally, though, our Community Needs the scientific, technological and Financial Leadership of the epa to guide c collaborative process for ip ofh 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 p join us to achieve a comprehensive, sciencebased solution and help ensure that the epa and other federal elp en agencies have the resources andd clear direction needed to ensurl the gold king release is the te last time we need to be reminded of this longterm problem before taking action. O the city of durango welcomes the committees help to address risks and vulnerabilities posede by Water Pollution in the animus river, including supporting then request of the epa for over 50u million to build a new Water Treatment plant and to create ao redundancy to our citys water supply. Responding to this event, a Bipartisan Coalition of senators and congress men has asked to look at funding of a water plat treatment plan in silverton as well. I encourage congress to look at reforming the 1872 mining law i that takes us from the 19th tae century into the 21st century. Eh and consider a royalty on Mining Companies, the same royalty pain by other industries that would e be used for cleanup. Lastly, the Good Samaritan legislation proposed during the, last congress could be an additional tool used toward lasc longterm solution for cleaning up abandoned mines at less cost to government. Im certain that we have the capacity to Work Together to th develop an efficient, equitablet and scientifically sound ou approach tor ensure the legacy that we leave our children is not one of accusation and rancor but action. Inaction will result in problems to our rivers and communities g and all taxpayers. Please see my written comes for more detailed testimony about the Environmental Impact in the San Juan Mountains, cleanup, ani the notification of cleanup a. Activities by the epa. Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions. Thank you, mayor brookie, and dr. Williams. C good morning, chairman smitho members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and contribute what i may. My name is mark williamson. Te im a geochemist living in my loveland, colorado. I erntd my ph. D. From Virginia Tech in the department of geological sciences. Colora for the whole of my professional career and extending back into my graduate days, i have focuse on acid rock drainage, the type of solution discharged from then Gold King Mine, its management r and associated issues of metals in aquatic and terrestrial nd environments. Consistent with the language ine my invitation to the hearing, i am present to offer my education and experience to the committee in its examination of the urroun circumstancesdi surrounding thea discharge of acid disrock drainage, ard, from the Gold King Mine. Ke like many of my fellow coloradoans. Others who work with siard and e quality of our Water Resources, 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 ta the United States. Ghout to control but not necessarily eliminate the discharge of ard a from disused mines, engineered plugging of mine openings to regulate the flow has been a simple, relatively effective management technique but the results but results in a refilling of mine workings with water. At the Gold King Mine work plant from 2014 and 15 that ive been able to see indicate that such refilling wasnt anticipated an that a potential blowout tha condition was deemed tot exist t the collapsed Gold King Mine portal prompting the need for action. Despite the anticipated filling the of the workings and potential wt blowout condition, field perat operations atio the gold king me used excavation equipment to dil open the collapsed mine portal. R it is not clear to me that any investigations were conducted tm assess how much water was present behind the collapse or if there was any water at all. Given the uncertainty, the certi potential negativent consequenc and with the benefit of hindsight, a detailed assessment of the situation would have been advisable but i am not aware ofa such documentation. Any number of lines of invest investigation are familiar to mn that may have been pursued including drilling of war hole behind the collapsed feature, ee inspecting the mine area for ng springs and seeps, searching foe exploration, bother holes, reviewing and inspecting older d mine maps for potential other pr openings or it seems documentede in the work plans of 2015 inserting a pipe through the collapse feature to i pierce it and check for the presence of water. Of these, a bore hole behind the anna pipe piercing collapse cand be used to pump out water to the extent it is prent, in a a controlled manner to remove t water and its associated risk. It is not clear to me from clea materials made public that any e such investigation or evaluations were conducted. Without further documentation, t itat cannot be determined if si operations arbitrarily abandoneh a conceptual site model or if actual conditions behind the da led to a paradigm 14i69. Given the outcome of the site and lack of specific documentation it appears that appropriate risk reducing operations may not have been in conducted. The resulting discharge of ard from the Gold King Mine was comprised of an acidic metal bearing solution as well as a metal containing sludge. Both of these can and do resulto in negative effects on the qualt qualityy of receiving streams. S the solution phase can result in immediate acute impacts and the sludge acute impacts as well asd more chronic conditions. Acute effects appear to have temporal, largely avoided with the passing of the plume. Al. The chronic longterm effects m are undocumented and unclear at this time. In closing, ill thank you agai, for the opportunity to be here o and contribute and point out that managing ard is very difficult, especially in an historic mining district. Given the challenging conditions and the potential harm, care is warranted in pursuing remedial l activities. Owing to the lack of available information it is not clear just how much care was exercised in h the gold king situation, situato however, i am optimistic that wo will learn the details of this unfortunate event so that such i things can be successfully so h avoided in the future. Thank you. Thank thyou, dr. Williamson. Before we go to questions, id e like tsto recognize the gentlem from new mexico, steve pierce, o who obviously has an interest in the subject at hand and we ect a welcome him to the committee today. Mr. Stanislaus, let me direct my first question to you. On august 26th epa deputy told , us on a Conference Call that there was, quote, no evidence t suggest that precautionary ecaui measures were onneeded. Were however, id like to show you i two documents on the screens. The first is a 2014 epa task order and the second is your own contractors work plan from 2015. Both documents describe the potentially dangerous conditios at the mine and specifically c both state, and because the print is so small ill read it, on this powerpoint, 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 co which contain concentrated heavn metals, end quote. Id like to go to the second g powerpoint slide, and this wer o reads this is from the f internal epa email that appears to address the potential dangerous mine. The mine should be assumed to bt full of water. Mine s it is backed up to the top of the plug or higher. So my question, mr. Stanislaus s is this. Why did the epa ignore these obvious warnings . Gs . Well, from multiple of yearsh both state of colorado, local stakeholders had identified thes fact of water build jun and thev cavein situations. So thats your that even underlies my question even moree so. Why were the warnings ignored . E you were on notice for years. You saw the Ranking Member put slides up. Re on weve had other spills. Put why were the warnings ignored . We the warnings were not war ignored. So it began with the identification of this particular area. Ion the region the epa was asked toa be there wasnc to address the water buildup and the cavein ta situations. Id like to read it for you. Okay. Ke but my question is, okay, if they werent ignored, why did the incident occur . Sure. Di why didnt why didnt you take the precautionary steps cc . That would have prevented the spill . Sure. So the work plan envisioned very specifically to carefully remove the rock buildup from the he c caveins 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 and you didnt think there t this mine . Er a well, clearly both epa and the state of colorado identifief the risk of a blowout. Blo this is build up because of a bs result of e caveins over the vr years and water buildup. So that is the reason why we a were up at that mine. So what we know at this moment is the internal review concluded that this was identified up front. The work Plan Incorporated thest carefulhe measures. The the experts of epa and the state of colorado looked at the site conditions, looked at seep, looked at flows and concluded that there were a low pressure situation. Okay. Then whaprtessi went wrong . If you knew there was a danger and you mades the conscious mad decision to proceed, something went terribly wrong. Why did you proceed if you knewi the dangers were so great or did you proceed in some form of me negligent fashion . Of because clearly you didnt expect and didnt want this spill to occur. Sure. Occu again, none of us wanted the spill to occur. The reason why we were there, ty avoid this blowout. The reason why we were there wau to avoid that blowout. D that so what we were doing there wa actually doing investigative g v work and per the work plan we had the plan was to carefully a reduce the buildup on the cave mine in, then to insert piping to reduce i understand what you might have had planned. Mi again, something wentgh terribl wrong. It seems to me you did not heede the dangers or you certainly dio not act to prevent the spill a from occurring in an adequate fashion or the spill would not e have occurred. Do you feel that anyone was negligent at all . Again, at this moment what w have is an internal review. Were were awaiting the independent n review being done by the rtment department of o interior as wel as the office of inspector gen general. We will await the presentation of all of those to make that assessment. To date has anybody been held been accountable or not . Ntable well, weve held ourselves accountable. Almost immediately we worked with the state and local communities to address the response. Weve been workingonse in a unid way collecting data, communicating that data to locao stakeholders so they can make sh decisions. Right. E thats all well and good but ad still a tragic spill occurred. It looks like to many of us tht no ones been held accountable. There had to be negligence or the spill wouldnt have occurre and yet the epa doesnt seem to acknowledge any negligence, it doesnt seem to take any eem responsibility and thats simply a disappointment i have to tell you. We have time for one more e to t question. Direct it to mr. Greeney and dr. Williamson. Do you think this toxic spill was inevitable . If you could answer yes or no, s that would be good. Ine do you think the toxic spill was inevitable . Ors i guess im not really qualified from an assessment no . Standpoint on that mine to really answer that question. Certainly there was buildup that would have gone somewhere at some point, but i dont i doo not know if it would have resulted in a blowout. Bl owokay. Dr. Williamson . I would ultimately like to rely on more detailed s, howev evaluations, however, i wouldnt say that its necessarily it inevidenceable. It was, in fact, w holding back quite a lot of water at this s point and there are other o locations within the district that im aware of that act as opportunities for releasing it pressure. So it remains to be seen. It would have to be forecast he with a little more certainty, i think. Okay. Thank you all. And the gentle woman, ms. Johnson, is 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 kings mineo itld actually began when then american tunnel got plugged. When it got plugged, this is a permit issued by the state of colorado for the sunny side co corporation. That plugat resulted in the watr increasing up to the red and bonita mine and then the gold gd king mine. Subsequently water seeps went a into cement creek and animus river. Co the stakeholders got involved to address that risk of water flow into the animus rivers as well as the caveins at the Gold King Mine. Ive heard that the last latn installation of the bulkhead at the american tunnel in 2002 may have been a superseding cause te the blowout on august 5th. Can you please describe the history of the closure and the plugging of the american tunnel and what its relationship mightg be to august 5th blow jouout at Gold King Mine . Yes. Epa was not directly involved in that decision. K theie whatw we do know from the nducte internald review that was conducted was a permit was issued by the state of colorado to sunny side mine that plugged the mine. As dr. Williamson noted, that h once you plug a mine, you will have water backup. And what we do know is the wated backup to the red and bonita in, mine, is a mine on top that havf and migrated up to the gold kinw mine which then subsequently ler to the water releases to cement creek and the animus river. Thank you. Mayor brooking, thank you for your testimony and your characterization of the spotlight that has been placed on the problem facing your yo constituents and others for s fr decades if not longer. While i understand that the ning mining played an Important Roleo in Economic Development of the western United States, the impacts of abandoned mines are difficult to ignore. Testimon you note in your written testimony that mine blowouts on, like the one on august 5th is not uncommon. Ld putting this reernt one in r context, can you describe the recent challenges the region hai had to deal with as a result of mining activities . Certainly. We have since the 1880s downstream users grappled with related pollution in the animus river as a result of acid mine drainage because in 1980 the mines dumbed thped this directl the river. By the 1890s the animus river oh through the durango ran gray and turbid. Om the from 1890 nearly every day milk tailings were dumped. This is 55 miles away back in 1890 our town was covered which gray turbid animus river. It was not the clear river we ar have today. Ha in 1902 durango shifted its primary water source, Potable Water source, from the animus river to florida river. It comes from another watershed that has less mining activity. As far back as 1902 we changed our water source, our primary water source. Anged we stillou use in the summertimu the animus river that goes through our Treatment Facility and it meets Water Quality standards after being treated, but its primarily only used in the summertime for irrigation or a number of the fields and lawns and so forth. Our water requirement increases by four fold in thefi summertim. In the 1930 is the farmers alon the beautiful animus valley north of durango threatened to sue the Mining Companies for their talgs. L action took action against the Legal Company because the tailings were clogging their ditches. The mine blowouts, 1975 a huge tailing pond busted sending ta 50,000 tons of tailings into the animus turning it the color of m aluminum paint. This is prior to my arrival in durango and people are still talking about this release. If you can imagine, you pick a color. This was gray, it didnt show uw on the on tv as bright as orange technicolor 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 d river. Ow at this time it was black all s the way to farmington. So pick your color. Ur these are 24 different types ofe minerals that have impacted oure river, our watershed flowing al the way through durango into new mexico into arizona and into ultimately the colorado river. Ie the Gold King Mine was draining0 200 to 500 gallons a minute prior to the blowout. S if you can imagine this mountain as a giant geologic wha whackamole. These are tunnels and vertical columns. They fills. Up with water na naturally. Hese when these people are exploringn theg opportunity to release thw and contain it, there was an accident. And so that is estimated at 60 t feet of water that created that 3 million 3 million gallon release that impacted us. Ha it happened to be orange that day because of the orange oxide. That was the least healthful ond that was released. The color brought national had l attention. Weve had black, weve had gray, weve had all kinds of colors. E last year in the spring there was a release of more than a greater release than was experienced in the gold king bue it happened during the spring runoff in 2014. It came down our very same river. Weou didnt even know it. Navajos didnt know it. t nobody knew it because it happened to be in the normal turbid brown color spring runofh that occurred and it came thats through our town. And thats what happens and thats l what we have to deal with. Or , mayor, thank you for that response. Little bit over time. That was interesting. Let me me, recognize the gentl from georgia, mr. Loudermill for his questions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. As i was listening to the statements and answers to the o questions here today i kind of heard a common theme as ive ade read the reports of this event is its not important for us tod find out whos to blame right now but other than to clean up the spill. Thats understandable, but it bu 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 poine the blame, even during whileh the disaster and cleanup is going on. Let me bring attention to 2010, the deepwater horizon spill in the gulf of mexico. Disastrous. It was disastrous to the people of that region. O. It cost many people their jobs, many businesses went under because of this. Even while we were attempting tois. Clean it un, the government , didnt hesitate to go ahead andt point fingers as to who was to blame. And, the government didnt hesitate to go ahead and point fingers as to who was to blame. P, the government didnt hesitate to go ahead and point fingers as to who was to blame. In fact lisa lso jackson and ja napolitano sent a scathing letter to bp saying they must be more transparent with what happened. Dr. Benn, has, in your opinion,n the epa been transparent with whats gone on so far . Thank you for that question. As far as the farmers and the ranchers are concerned, they ra havent really been as transparent. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Stanislaus, appreciate you a saying, summarizing, eventuallyo well get to where the issue is. Why are we only being g transparent when this committeei goes forward and demands answers . Why is not thean epa coming mor aggressively right now and coming out with what was the ws cause and what are we going to e do to fix the situation . To when are we going to see the rew transparency that this he government demands of private pt industry or individuals when iva theyre clearly at fault . Well, thank you, congressmans we believe weve been as b transparent as we possibly anspr could. Our initial focus was absolutely to collect the data and provide data in the hands of local communities of the states and tt tribes to make decisions. Deci subsequent to that we posted about 2500 pages of documents, documents regarding the work plan, documents regarding the request proposal, documents regarding Community Meetings rd held of stakeholders. We will continue to do so. And now with respect to holding ourselves accountable, you know we first began with immediately and as aggressively as possiblee to conduct a response in a unified way making sure that the state and local government and n tribes are part of the unified command. Clearly we are only part of thef way through. Weve done internal review we because i was very interested i what Lessons Learned relate to o other sites around theth countr and what Lessons Learned in terms of what transpired there. Thats only part of the puzzle. A have you been more transparent than bp was . M have i been more transparentv i havent done the comparison but i think we have. Not having done the bp, i think we pushed transparency there. I believe we executed the same level of transparency here. An sp ultimately whos going to w held responsible for this . G well, that is exactly where h we are in the process of examining. S weve done an internal review. A we have two other internal reviews and we will see the se culmination of thate regarding what was the preparation and facts going into that event, ho was that executed and were wert going to look at all of that. Do you agree that you should be held to the same standards that you hold everyone else to . Absolutely. Do you agree to that . Absolutely. . After the deep horizon spillt president obama appeared onhe t today show in 2010 and statedb mr. Heyward had mr. Heyward, the president and ceo of bp had 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 to gene in mccarthy, should we have alread, called for her to be fired . If definitely the epa is responsible for this spill . Hink well, i think we all want factors in process. Cess. Weve done one step of the e investigation. Weve await the independent revid i think all the members, all thi public have also called for independent reviews. Ews. Were doing see the culmination of that. Roughly we have the hly, a department of interior doing a study in 60 days. I dont recall exactly when the office of Inspector General will be complete because we want the factors and process. Be im responsible for the cleanu of contaminated sites around the country. I more than anyone else want to make sure that were doing the right thing so we are going to await that information. I appreciate that. Were running out of time. All im asking for is that hypocrisy of this government hold stop and that the government hold itself to the same standards that it holds the American People to and thats what i think we must demand as we go forward. Mr. Chairman, wet go forward. I yield back. I dont remember president ho obama waiting for an independenb 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 p to thank the witnesses for beino here to help us learn more aboui how it happened, if and when it could have been prevented and talk about the Lessons Learned. We also have to keep in mind o that there are inherent here environmental dangers from metal Mining Operations and that there are thousands of inactive minesh 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 ent 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 ha mine would likely have an cal irreversible impact on the loca watershed and salmon fisheries. A congressman mcdermott and i ledd a group of our colleagues to protect bristol bay. Prot fisheries in that region providh 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 coloradoa are considered in that ongoing process. Co but back to colorado. Mr. Stanislaus, you said in your testimony that based on 2009 to 2014 flow data, the average 2014 annual discharge reached approximately 330 milliongallons per year. 30 and the epa and the state of colorado and partners have been taking action to address that issue. Ongo so can you talk about the ongoing, those ongoing discharges and the work that was being done there. And in your response, please discuss whether Additional Resources would have made a difference, and also would a , l superfund designation or listind of the Gold King Mine affected the resources and the approach available for cleanup and li 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 assistanca for technical expertise. Thats what led us to the mind, the red and bonita and gold kins mine. Gold there was a group who identified congresswoman, the multiple ulte sources into the river that ca degrade the water call with, ini fact, 10 miles above the animus river is degraded and fish theq health is severely compromised. So just last week at the request of local communities, i travelei to silverton to talk about whether a listing of gold king o as a superfund would affect thav issue. And i mentioned that to be eligible for superfund sources, they have to be listed on the national list. Ted 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 s recent release, which, of re course, we all watched on television, some of you up closw first hand, how has it been treated in the media . Co can you talk about what the coverage has done to your local economy and also the superfund n designation. I know thats a discussion thats ongoing in your community. Surely. I might add that ms. Gina mccarthy was in durango, took. Tmccart full responsibility for epas d role in this event, she was at a plastic table and a metal folding chair closer than the chairman and myself sitting a together and she took full i responsibility. I did get a phone call the dire thursday after the event from shawn mcgrath, the epa director asking from the citys perspective if we need any it assistance at all from this ent. Event. Half a by the way, we were notified he 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 . Sup the Colorado Department of n health, Public Health and environment cdphe is the appropriate protocol from epa td 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 fo, news channel, holding press conferences, et cetera, g infinitely showing the orange plume. I can tell you that orange plume no longer exists in durango. Org it lasted for a day and a half u until it moved downstream to the Navajo Nation. But we immediately mayor brooking, weve again run out of time and appreciate n your response. Out we now go to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. Abraham. Louisi mr. Chairman, first, let me express my, i guess, gall at th. 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 watet pressure. Chose now im not a hydrologist, but t can certainly estimate water pressure pretty easily with equipment. Ive done it on my farm many times. Im if they underestimated this, t. Have they underestimated water m pressure at other mines . Im talking to you mr. Stanislaus. So just to be clear, i mean, i am here because my i responsibility erstan i understand youre the d cleanup line. Rned, 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 sh a place. You wouldnt even have a role in this. So my question to you is your v experts at epa, you have said in your testimony, underestimated the water pressure. Es . Pres 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. M would you and mr. Stanislaus, ip you knew there was a potential t of blowout, was there a mitigation plan in place for this potential disaster . The blowout potential as wasw identified following the issuance of the task order and o some initial site work, again, represented there was 6 foot of water behind that bulk head, im sorry, not bulk head, the collapsed tunnel. Sorr the intent, then, of the work plan was essentially to come inn using that top 4 foot of open 4 space between the water level t and did you have a mitigation plan in place for this potentian blowout . Ntial because you knew it was a potential thing to happen . Life we all have mitigation plans in life for certain instances that can happenn. In you and did you have one in your company . We had a management plan, tos again, use the probe, much as dr. Williamson had suggested, tn insert into the well or into th mine and start pumping water. So that was your of mitigation plan. To if it started to blow, you all were just going to start pumping water out. T i guess were, im not sure, youre using mitigation. Im using management plan. N. Ookg youre looking for a contingency plan . Yes. Lets agree on that word. If it happened, what is your hap 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 r the that t that answered the question. S you werent there, okay. And mayor brooking, you said that the epa, the good news thae day was that the epa was y 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. Neg un that is beyond pale that were at this point where we have to d have this hearing because nobody, like the chairman said,h 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 a the navajos, what hes asking 8 for. Have you factored that cost inte your figures . Well, we have begun to pay response cost by those who havew asked local governments. El were going to do that separately. Were going to be working through that process and completing the process within six months. Be thank you mr. Abraham, the gentleman from colorado is