[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HOLDING EPA ACCOUNTABLE FOR
POLLUTING WESTERN WATERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
September 9, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-36
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-755 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., ZOE LOFGREN, California
Wisconsin DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan PAUL TONKO, New York
STEVE KNIGHT, California MARK TAKANO, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
C O N T E N T S
September 9, 2015
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 6
Written Statement............................................ 7
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Witnesses:
The Honorable Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Environmental Protection
Agency
Oral Statement............................................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 13
Mr. Dennis Greaney, President, Environmental Restoration LLC
Oral Statement............................................... 28
Written Statement............................................ 30
The Honorable Donald Benn, Executive Director, Navajo National
Environmental Protection Agency
Oral Statement............................................... 36
Written Statement............................................ 38
The Honorable Dean Brookie, Mayor, Durango, Colorado
Oral Statement............................................... 56
Written Statement............................................ 59
Dr. Mark Williamson, Geochemist, Geochemical Solutions LLC
Oral Statement............................................... 80
Written Statement............................................ 82
Discussion....................................................... 86
Appendix I: Additional Material for the Record
Documents submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 116
Slide submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 236
HOLDING EPA ACCOUNTABLE FOR
POLLUTING WESTERN WATERS
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Committee at any time.
And welcome to today's hearing titled ``Holding EPA
Accountable for Polluting Western Waters.'' I'll recognize
myself for an opening statement and then the Ranking Member.
Over the last year, the Environmental Protection Agency has
proposed some of the most expensive and burdensome regulations
in its history. These rules will cost American families
billions of dollars, all for little impact on climate change.
These rules also will diminish the competitiveness of American
workers around the world.
The same government agency that has proposed these rules
recently caused an environmental disaster that has adversely
impacted three states in the Mountain West. On August 5th, near
Silverton, Colorado, the negligent actions of the EPA caused
over three million gallons of toxic water to cascade out of a
mine that had been closed for almost a hundred years. This
event turned the Animas River orange and polluted a 300-mile
stretch of water.
Today, we will examine how this disaster, which negatively
affected thousands of people, occurred and why the warning
signs that should have prevented 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.
The EPA should be held accountable. The same standards that
the EPA applies to private companies should also apply to the
EPA itself. Unfortunately, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has
declined to appear before this Committee and answer questions
about the role her Agency played in causing this preventable
spill. Perhaps she doesn't have any good answers. Given the
EPA's consistent failure to provide information to this
Committee and the American people, the EPA can be assured that
our oversight efforts will continue.
The public deserves to know why the EPA continues to spend
so much of their hard-earned dollars on costly and ineffective
regulations, especially when the agency has been unable to
achieve its core mission of protecting the environment. The
story of the mine disaster would be much different if this
spill had been caused by a private company. I suspect there
would be calls from this Administration and others for the
executives of the company to resign. There would be demands
that all documents be posted immediately online. Massive fines
would be imposed. And, no doubt, some individuals might be
prosecuted as happened in the 2014 West Virginia chemical spill
where 7,500 gallons of chemicals were dumped into the Elk
River. This is about one four hundredth of the amount of toxic
water dumped into the Animas River. Six former officials from
the company responsible for the leak were indicted for
violations of the Clean Water Act.
The EPA's negligence is especially inexcusable since there
were known procedures that could have prevented the river's
pollution. Unfortunately, we have seen a pattern of the EPA's
lack of transparency. This Committee asked for information from
the EPA almost a month ago and we have yet to receive all the
documents that were requested. According to news reports, it
took the EPA over 24 hours to inform the public about the
seriousness of the spill and their initial claim of one million
gallons of toxic waste was later revised when it was learned
that it was actually three million gallons. Then, after the
incident, all we heard from the EPA was that the toxic water in
the river was dissipating, and that the river was returning to
pre-spill levels. The EPA neither took responsibility nor were
they forthright with the American people. So it's not
surprising to learn that just this past spring the EPA received
a grade of D for its lack of openness and transparency,
according to the nonpartisan Center for Effective Government.
It is my hope that the EPA will finally come clean with the
American people about their involvement in this tragic
incident.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Chairman Lamar S. Smith
Over the last year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
proposed some of the most expensive and burdensome regulations in its
history.
These rules will cost American families billions of dollars, all
for little impact on climate change. These rules also will diminish the
competitiveness of American workers around the world.
The same government agency that has proposed these rules recently
caused an environmental disaster that has adversely impacted three
states in the Mountain West.
On August 5, near Silverton, Colorado, the negligent actions of the
EPA caused over three million gallons of toxic water to cascade out of
a mine that had been closed for nearly a hundred years. This event
turned the Animas River orange and polluted a 300 mile stretch of
water.
Today, we will examine how this disaster, which negatively affected
thousands of people, occurred and why the warning signs that should
have prevented 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.
The EPA should be held accountable. The same standards that the EPA
applies to private companies should apply to the EPA itself.
Unfortunately, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has declined to
appear before this Committee and answer questions about the role her
Agency played in causing this preventable spill. Perhaps she doesn't
have any good answers.
Given the EPA's consistent failure to provide information to this
Committee and the American people, the EPA can be assured that our
oversight efforts will continue.The public deserves to know why the EPA
continues to spend so much of their hard earned dollars on costly and
ineffective regulations, especially when the agency has been unable to
achieve its core mission of protecting the environment.
The story of the mine disaster would be much different if this
spill had been caused by a private company.
I suspect there would be calls from this administration and others
for the executives of the company to resign. There would be demands
that all documents be posted immediately online. Massive fines would be
imposed.
And, no doubt, some individuals might be prosecuted as happened in
the 2014 West Virginia chemical spill where 7,500 gallons of chemicals
were dumped into the Elk River (this is about one four hundredth of the
amount of toxic water dumped into the Animas River). Six former
officials from the company responsible for the leak were indicted for
violations of the Clean Water Act.
The EPA's negligence is especially inexcusable since there were
known procedures that could have prevented the river's pollution.
Unfortunately, we have seen a pattern of the EPA's lack of
transparency. This Committee asked for information from the EPA almost
a month ago and we have yet to receive all the documents that were
requested.
According to news reports, it took the EPA over 24 hours to inform
the public about the seriousness of the spill and their initial claim
of one million gallons of toxic waste was later revised when it was
learned that it was actually three million gallons.
Then, after the incident, all we heard from the EPA was that the
toxic water in the river was dissipating, and that the river was
returning to pre-spill levels. The EPA neither took responsibility nor
was forthright with the American people.
So it's not surprising to learn that just this past spring the EPA
received a grade of ``D'' for its lack of openness and transparency,
according to the non-partisan Center for Effective Government.
It is my hope that the EPA will finally come clean with the
American people about their involvement in this terrible incident.
Chairman Smith. That concludes my opening statement, and
the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Eddie
Bernice Johnson, is recognized for hers.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the fact we are holding this hearing today.
The August 5th release of three million gallons of
wastewater from the Gold King Mine in Silverton, Colorado, into
the Animas River was an unfortunate accident. I believe it is
important to understand what happened on August 5th and why,
and explore what lessons we can learn from this event. However,
we should also take this opportunity to highlight the
inherently dirty, dangerous, and environmentally damaging
process of metal mining.
Before this accident occurred, Gold King and a handful of
other mines in the area were releasing more than 300 million
gallons of acid mine waste into the Animas Watershed annually.
Over the area's 120-year history of mining operations, more
than 17.2 billion pounds of mining and milling byproducts
containing toxic chemicals were released into this waterway.
Unfortunately, residents of San Juan County are well aware that
August 5th was not the first time the Animas River changed
color. In the 1970s, mine accidents poured millions of gallons
of wastewater into the river. Sadly, acid mine drainage in this
area is routine and the occasional large scale release of
wastewater due to accidents at mine sites is an all-too-common
occurrence.
I'd like to show a photo that ran in The Durango Herald
newspaper in 2012 that shows toxic wastewater flowing from the
American Tunnel three years before the recent accident at the
Gold King Mine. The second picture was taken before the Red and
Bonita Mine, and the wastewater is draining into the Cement
Creek, a tributary that feeds into the Animas River. This
photograph was taken in 2013.
This was one of the key reasons the EPA was at the Gold
King Mine site on August 5th. They were there attempting to
investigate this longstanding problem of persistent acid mine
drainage into the Animas Watershed from the Gold King and
neighboring interconnected mines. EPA was also attempting to
alleviate what was seen as an inevitable blowout at the Gold
King mine due to a buildup of drainage water that may have been
caused by the closure of the American Tunnel, a mine drainage
system, at the nearby Sunnyside Mine. Unfortunately, they were
obviously unsuccessful in trying to prevent a blowout from
occurring.
These next two photos show the discoloration of the Animas
River immediately after the August 5th accident, and the next
two photos show what the Animas River looked like August 12th
and August 14th, 7 and 9 days after the Gold Mine accident.
Fortunately, the metal concentrations in the water that led
to the discoloration of the Animas River quickly returned to
pre-incident levels. I am not discounting the significance of
the August 5th event at the Gold King Mine but its potentially
environment impact--or its potential environmental impact, but
it is important to understand that the issue of mine drainage
into the Animas Watershed did not begin last month.
The EPA was acting as an environmental firefighter when
they went to the Gold King Mine. They were attempting to damp
down a raging environmental hazard that had endangered the
Animas Watershed for decades. Unfortunately, when they opened
an exploratory hole, the buildup of wastewater drainage was too
much to effectively control.
I hope that our witnesses, particularly Mayor Dean Brookie,
the Mayor of Durango, Colorado, located 50 miles downstream
from the Gold King and hundreds of other inactive mine sites,
can help address both the events leading up to the August 5th
blowout at the Gold King mine, the legacy of metal mining
operations on the Animas Watershed, and useful next steps to
consider in helping to prevent further environmental
degradation in this truly beautiful region of our nation.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson of Texas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to
thank our distinguished panel of witnesses for their testimony on this
important and timely issue.
I want to echo the comments of Ranking Members Beyer and Grayson
regarding the need for a critical examination of our country's electric
grid. Today's grid is the foundation of our economy and much of our
infrastructure, and millions of American homes, businesses, and
livelihoods depend on its reliability.
Investing in new, diverse energy sources is an important part of
securing our clean energy future, but these investments are put at risk
if we don't immediately address vulnerabilities to the grid, as well as
form a plan in the event of a large-scale grid failure.
Given our current state of preparedness, a coordinated
cybersecurity or terrorist attack, or a major natural disturbance of
the type we'll be hearing more about today, could leave a large portion
of the United States dark for months and result in billions of dollars
in economic damages. But what may be even more concerning is that it
would not take such a disastrous phenomenon to render our energy
infrastructure useless. Aging infrastructure presents a much more
likely and just as problematic vulnerability as the more eye-catching
disasters that are often mentioned as being serious threats to the
grid. With no current means to quickly recover from a high magnitude
power outage, we are putting the future of our country in jeopardy if
we continue to ignore systemic vulnerabilities.
This issue should not be taken lightly. We have seen the massive
impacts that seemingly minor, preventable incidents can have on
communities, such as the Northeast Blackout of 2003 that crippled a
large regional area and brought their economies to a halt for days.
This led to the loss of power for 50 million people.
While this was one of the worst outages in our history, the grid is
still plagued with numerous vulnerabilities over 12 years later.
Intelligence professionals, scientists, and industry experts have all
been urging the federal government to strengthen the nation's power
supply for years now. And for those who worry about the cost of doing
so, the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission estimates that
protecting the grid would cost the average rate payer merely 20 cents
annually.
I am optimistic that this hearing will help to advance the progress
that partnerships between governments and utilities have made so far in
bolstering the grid against today's unique security challenges. I look
forward to a productive and interesting discussion. With that, I yield
back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mrs. Johnson, and I'll proceed
to introduce our witnesses. Our first witness is the Honorable
Mathy Stanislaus, the Assistant Administrator for the EPA's
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Mr. Stanislaus
was nominated and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for his current
position at the EPA in 2009. He received his law degree from
Chicago Kent Law School and a chemical engineering degree from
City College of New York.
Our next witness is Mr. Dennis Greaney, Managing Partner
and President of Environmental Restoration LLC. He received his
bachelor's of science in ecology from the University of
Illinois, Urbana Champaign campus, and did graduate work in
environmental toxicology at Illinois State University.
Our next witness is Dr. Donald Benn, the Executive Director
of the Navajo Nation's Environmental Protection Agency. Dr.
Benn received his Ph.D. in chemistry from New Mexico State
University.
Our next witness is the Hon. Dean Brookie, the Mayor of
Durango, Colorado. He received his bachelor's of environmental
design and master's of architecture from the University of
Colorado at Boulder.
Our last witness is Dr. Mark Williamson, an Environmental
Geochemist with over 25 years of experience. He has been
involved in geochemical studies and site evaluations across the
United States involving field, laboratory and computational
components. Dr. Williamson's background includes extensive work
with acid mine drainage, metals in aquatic environments,
geochemical engineering, and the fate and transport of
chemicals in the environment. He holds a Ph.D. from Virginia
Tech, a master's degree from Northern Arizona University, and a
bachelor's degree from Old Dominion University.
Now, we welcome you all and look forward to your testimony,
and Mr. Stanislaus, will you start us off?
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. MATHY STANISLAUS,
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Hon. Stanislaus. Good morning Chairman Smith, Ranking
Member Johnson, and Members of the Committee. I am Mathy
Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response that is responsible for the EPA cleanup and emergency
response program. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today
to discuss the Gold King Mine release and subsequent EPA
response.
Located within the watershed of the San Juan Mountains in
southwestern Colorado are some 400 former mines, which were the
focus of both large- and small-scale mining operations for over
100 years. The Gold King Mine is located in the upper Animas
Watershed, which consists of three main streams: the Animas
River, Cement Creek, and Mineral Creek. These mines have had a
history of water siege containing heavy metals and instability.
In 1991, mining ceased at the last big mine in the region,
Sunnyside. Subsequently, based on a permit issued by the State
of Colorado, Sunnyside installed three bulkheads in the
American Tunnel that drained its mine while continuing to treat
the metal-laden waters draining into Upper Cement Creek through
a water treatment facility. After Sunnyside installed the
bulkheads in the American Tunnel, water seeped into natural
fractures that allowed it to flow into the Gold King and Red
and Bonita Mines.
Initially, these waters are run through a treatment system
that Sunnyside built but Gold King Mine Company ultimately
stopped operating the treatment system. In 2008, the State of
Colorado continued its effort by constructing a water discharge
diversion system and reclamation plant to address the potential
for increased water pressure within Gold King Mine. Based upon
data from 2009 to 2014, flow data, the average annual water
discharge from Gold King Mine and three nearby mines reach
approximately 330 million gallons per year.
At the request of local stakeholders for EPA involvement,
by 2014 EPA joined the Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining
and Safety to address both the potential for water buildup at
the Gold King Mine and ongoing adverse water quality impacts
caused by these large mine discharges into the Upper Animas
Watershed. Working with the State of Colorado and the Animas
River Stakeholders Group, EPA developed plans to reduce
potential mine water pressure and reduce mine discharges into
Cement Creek and downstream waters.
In 2014, initial work was performed at the Gold King Mine
to relieve some water buildup. On August 5th, 2015, EPA was
conducting an investigation of the Gold King Mine. Work was
underway to dewater the mine pool to allow reopening to assess
mine conditions to characterize ongoing mine discharges and
determine appropriate mine mitigation measures. While
excavating above a mine opening, the lower portion of bedrock
crumbled and pressurized water of approximately three million
gallons of water stored behind the collapsed material
discharged into Cement Creek, a tributary of the Animas River.
EPA and Colorado officials informed downstream
jurisdictions within Colorado the day of the event and before
the plume reached drinking water intakes and irrigation
diversions. The following day, other downstream jurisdictions
were notified again before the plume reached drinking water
intakes and irrigation diversions. The notification warned
downstream users so that drinking water intakes and
agricultural intakes were able to be closed prior to downstream
plume release reaching those intakes.
However, broader notification should have occurred. I've
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. I understand the
State of Colorado is moving forward in the same vein.
On August 26, 2015, EPA released its internal review
summary review, which includes an assessment of the events and
potential factors contributing to the Gold King Mine incident.
The internal review team found that the work went accounted for
the possibility of pressurized mine water conditions due to the
history of blockages of the Gold King Mine and the work plan
identified steps to gradually lower the blockage and water
buildup. The review team found that experienced professionals
from the EPA and the State of Colorado concluded there was
likely no or low mine water pressure. However, given the
release that was in fact high enough water pressure to cause a
blowout, the summary report concludes that an underestimation
of water pressure inside the mine working was likely the more
significant fact related to the release. The report indicates
the site conditions made it difficult to undertake drilling to
determine the pressure within the mine.
I do have a lot more to talk about, but I'll take your
questions and respond to those.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Stanislaus follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Stanislaus.
And Mr. Greaney.
TESTIMONY OF MR. DENNIS GREANEY,
PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION LLC
Mr. Greaney. Thank you, Chairman. Chairman Smith, Ranking
Member Johnson, and other----
Chairman Smith. Make sure your mic is on.
Mr. Greaney. Let me start it again. Chairman Smith, Ranking
Member Johnson, and other distinguished members of the
Committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify
on a recent incident at the Gold King Mine.
My name is Dennis Greaney. I serve as President and
Managing Partner of Environmental Restoration and have served
in that role since the company was founded in 1997. I've worked
in the field of hazardous waste remediation and emergency
response my entire career going back 30 years. We were one of
the organizations involved in EPA's efforts at the Silverton
site. We stand firmly behind our project management team and
labor force there.
That said, as professionals who have dedicated our entire
careers to cleaning up the environment, the end result was
heartbreaking, to say the least.
If I may, I'd like to give you a bit of background about
our company. Environmental Restoration is an environmental
remediation response company that provides services to
industry, commercial and state as well as federal agencies, and
we're very passionate about our work and we're very proud and
honored to have provided services to some of our nation's
largest responses including the Deepwater Horizon, the
aftermaths of Tropical Storm Lee, Hurricanes Sandy, Irene,
Katrina and Rita, the space shuttle Columbia disaster, the 2001
anthrax response, both at the Hart Senate Office Building as
well as the Postal Service's, and finally, the 9/11 attacks on
the World Trade Center.
As a company, Environmental Restoration is committed to
providing a safe work environment for our workers. That is our
number one priority. We can demonstrate that through our
experience modification rate, which is a .72 compared to an
industry standard of one. We're nearly 30 percent safer than
everyone else in our industry.
As with many EPA environmental removal projects, we were
one of several organizations with assigned roles at the Gold
King Mine. For the Gold King, Environmental Restoration was
issued a Task Order. Our Task Order requested us to open the
portal, which is the opening to the mine, as well as
rehabilitate the mine opening to allow safe passage into the
mine and then create safe access 75 feet into the mine tunnel.
Within that Task Order, we had some sub elements which included
a site preparation phase, which was construction of roads,
staging areas, water retention and treatment ponds, water
management for water that 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 Restoration indicated that
we were to anticipate water approximately six feet deep on the
back side of the blocked entrance within an approximately ten-
foot-tall mine. The gallons estimated behind that blockage was
250,000 gallons. As we now know, there was much more water
behind the blocked mine entrance than experts believed.
I was not personally involved or on the site when the
release occurred. However, there's what I've learned. The
release occurred during a preliminary trip to the mine and
prior to Environmental Restoration initiating our work of
opening the mine. During this preliminary trip, we were
directed to remove rubble and debris that had caved in over the
mine opening in an effort to expose the bedrock above the mine
tunnel. The removal of the material was carried out with all
due caution over a two-day period and under the guidance of the
EPA on-scene Coordinator and abandoned mine representatives
from the Colorado Inactive Mine program. The Gold King Mine
release occurred following the removal of rubble from above the
entrance.
The Gold King Mine incident is a terrible misfortune for
the Animas River and for all those who live along it and make
their living from it, and it was really gut-wrenching to watch
the after effects of the release. This in no way reflects who
we are as a company. We're very proud of our track record.
We've conducted 1,300 Task Orders for the U.S. EPA as well as
over 10,000 other projects for industry and commercial clients
as well as other federal agencies. We're very grateful to have
the opportunity to contribute to help safeguard people and the
environment, and we hope to continue in that capacity for a
long time.
I'd like to thank you for your attention and time, and I'm
open to answer questions to the best of my ability.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Greaney follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Greaney.
And Dr. Benn.
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. DONALD BENN,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
NAVAJO NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Hon. Benn. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member, and Members of
the Committee, my name is Dr. Benn. I'm a chemist by trade, and
I'm the Executive Director of the Navajo Nation Environmental
Protection Agency. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on
a matter that is of great importance to the Navajo Nation.
On August 5th, 2015, United States EPA and other parties
caused a massive release of toxic contaminants from the Gold
King Mine. The toxic sludge flowed into San Juan River and
through 215 miles of the Navajo Nation's territory. The Navajo
EPA had a close relationship and a good working relationship
with EPA--with U.S. EPA. However, recent events have shifted
that relationship to one of lack of trust.
Today I would like to cover only a few of the many critical
areas of concern for the Navajo people. These issues and others
are covered more extensively in my written remarks.
First, the U.S. EPA delayed notification of the spill to
the Navajo Nation. The nation was not informed of the release
until August 6th. The U.S. EPA also demonstrated a complete
lack of transparency. The initial U.S. EPA warning served to
downplay the magnitude of the risk of human and animal health,
and later reports by U.S. EPA were incomplete. 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 culture of distrust by the Navajo
Nation towards the U.S. EPA both among our farmers and our
leadership.
I also want to lay out some of the devastating impacts to
the Navajo Nation. However, I want to stress that all the
impacts are yet unknown. First, families have the immediate
impact of the additional costs of water delivery and other
expenses to yet--despite this effort they saw their crops dying
each day. Second, the loss of crops and replacement of those
crops, their seeds and feed for their livestock and other
expenses triggers a cycle of long-term economic losses for a
nation that has already--already has 42 percent unemployment
rate. Third, long-term health effects of the spill are unknown
and not fully understood. Fourth, the Navajo Nation's culture
and spiritual impacts are felt mostly pointedly in the
disruption of our cultural principle of hozho that encompasses
beauty, order and disharmony.
In light of the devastating impacts from the spill, both
known and unknown yet, we need to act quickly and thoughtfully.
We therefore ask for the following. Number one, we need
resources to address the immediate emergency. This includes
continued delivery of water and the delivery of hay to impacted
ranchers. The EPA should also establish a relief fund for
individual farmers--ranchers and farmers. We also need true
emergency response coordination with FEMA.
Number two: We need resources to conduct our own water
sediment and soil monitoring and the authority for Navajo EPA
to do the necessary work. We propose to conduct these duties
under the Navajo Nation as opposed to relying on the U.S. EPA.
We will require an onsite lab and additional staffing to manage
the sampling and lab performance.
Number three: We need assistance to create redundant and
auxiliary water supplies and reservoirs to guard against future
contaminations.
Number four: We will require funding assistance and
resources to monitor, study and address the long-term health
and environmental effects of the spill and return the river to
its pre-spill state.
Number five: Due to U.S. EPA's conflict of interest, we
seek to fare an independent assessment of the U.S. EPA's and
others' roles in the spill and the establishment of a different
lead agency. No other environmental bad actor will be given
leeway to investigate itself and determine to what extent it
will be held accountable. We believe another agency ,such as,
FEMA should take the lead on the response and an independent
body should conduct the investigation.
Again, thank you for your time and attention to this
important issue. I welcome any questions from our Committee.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Benn follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Benn.
And Mayor Brookie.
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. DEAN BROOKIE,
MAYOR, DURANGO, COLORADO
Hon. Brookie. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member
Johnson, and honorable Members of the Committee for the
opportunity to testify today. I am Dean Brookie, Mayor of
Durango, Colorado, a city of 18,000 residents at the base of
the San Juan Mountains along the Animas River.
I have lived, worked and recreated in these 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 mining, rather, our mining history, outdoor recreation, the
arts, other natural and cultural amenities.
The August 5th mine waste release into the Animas River put
a technicolor spotlight on the massive and complex century-old
problem that our communities have lacked the resources to
address. The fact is that three million gallons of acid mine
water were released out of the Gold King Mine that day.
However, this is not just a one-time incident. About three
million gallons of mine water drain out of the Gold King each
week prior to and subsequent to this event. That is the quiet
but real catastrophe that has largely gone unnoticed by the
public until now.
Our rivers are what bind us together as communities. The
veins of the Animas River flow into other aquatic arteries of
the West including the San Juan River, which flows through the
Ute Mountain and the Navajo reservations before reaching Lake
Powell. From there it joins the Colorado that flows to the
Grand Canyon into Lake Meade, a water source for Phoenix, Las
Vegas, Los Angeles and San Diego.
It is tempting in times of crisis to point fingers and
place blame. After 130 years, thousands of mines, millions of
individual actors, and literally billions of gallons of
polluted water, attempts to blame single agencies or
individuals ignore the scale and complexity of the problem that
needs to be addressed.
We must continue to work together at the local, state and
federal level and do much more quickly and with greater resolve
to comprehensively address the water quality threats to our
region before they result in far greater harm to our
communities as well as additional costs to government.
The EPA must be held accountable for this accident. Every
indication we have received from them shows that they are
taking this incident seriously. There is no denying they hands
on the shovel, but the EPA was at the Gold King Mine trying to
help address these longstanding environmental issues. In fact,
the blowout could have happened naturally the day before or any
day in the future.
Without the EPA, the federal government more broadly--and
the federal government more broadly, there is simply no option
for addressing the risk to human health and environment caused
by the region's mining legacy. Yes, we can and should hold
responsible parties in the 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 a
collaborative process for addressing the broader problem. I see
before us a watershed moment: to turn a new chapter in mining
history and protect our watersheds from Silverton to San Diego.
I hope that the Committee will join us to achieve a
comprehensive, science-based solution and will help to ensure
that the EPA and other federal agencies have the resources and
the clear direction needed to ensure the Gold King release is
the last time we need to be reminded of this long-term problem
before taking action.
The City of Durango welcomes the Committee's help to
address risks and vulnerabilities posed by water pollution in
the Animas River including supporting the request of the EPA
for over $50 million to build a new water treatment plant at
Lake Nighthorse and create an important redundancy to our
city's water supply. Responding to this event, a bipartisan
coalition of four U.S. Senators and two Congressmen has asked
the Administration to look at funding of a water treatment
plant in Silverton as well.
I encourage Congress to look at reforming the 1872 mining
law that takes us from the 19th century into the 21st century
and consider a royalty on mining companies, the same royalties
currently paid by all other extractive industries that would be
used for cleanup.
Lastly, the Good Samaritan legislation proposed by
Congressmen Tipton, Bennett and Udall during the last Congress
could be an additional tool used towards long-term solutions
for cleaning up abandoned mines at less cost to government.
With support from the EPA and Congress, I'm certain that we
have the capacity to work together to develop an efficient,
equitable and scientifically sound approach to ensure the
legacy that we leave our children is not one of accusation and
rancor, but one of collaborative deliberation and action.
Inaction will only allow this contamination to continue and
result in continued impacts to our rivers, community and all
taxpayers.
Please see my written testimony for more detailed
information of the historical context about the environmental
impact of mining in the San Juan Mountains, cleanup, and the
timelines of notification and follow-up activities by the EPA.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Brookie follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mayor Brookie.
And Dr. Williamson.
TESTIMONY OF DR. MARK WILLIAMSON,
GEOCHEMIST, GEOCHEMICAL SOLUTIONS LLC
Dr. Williamson. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Members of
the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today
and contribute what I may.
My name is Mark Williamson. I am a geochemist living in
Loveland, Colorado, and I earned my Ph.D. from Virginia Tech in
the Department of Geological Sciences. For the whole of my
professional career and extending back into my graduate days, I
have focused on the geochemistry of the acid rock drainage, the
type of solution discharged from the Gold King Mine, its
management, and the associated issues of metals in aquatic and
terrestrial environments. Consistent with the language in my
invitation to this hearing, I'm present to offer my education
and experience to the Committee in this examination of the
circumstances surrounding the discharge of acid rock drainage
(ARD) from the Gold King Mine.
Like many of my fellow Coloradoans, other professionals
that work with ARD, and citizens concerned with the 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 the United States.
To control, but not necessarily eliminate the discharge of
ARD from disused mines, the engineered plugging of mine
openings to regulate the flow of ARD has been a simple,
relatively effective management technique, but results in a
refilling of the mine workings with water. At the Gold King
Mine, work plans from 2014 and 2015 that I've been able to see
indicate that such refilling was anticipated and that a
potential blowout condition was deemed to exist at the
collapsed Gold King Mine portal, prompting the need for action.
Despite the anticipated filling of the workings and the
potential blowout condition, field operations at the Gold King
Mine used excavation equipment to dig open the collapsed mine
portal. It is not clear to me that any investigations were
conducted to assess how much water was present behind the
collapse, or if there was any water at all.
Given the uncertainty, the potential negative consequences,
and with the benefit of hindsight, a detailed assessment of the
situation would have been advisable but I am not aware of such
documentation. Any number of lines of investigation are
familiar to me that may have be pursued, including drilling a
borehole behind the collapse feature, inspecting the mine area
for developing seeps and springs, searching for exploration
boreholes that extend into the workings, reviewing and
inspecting older mine maps for potential other openings, or, as
seems documented in work plans of 2015, inserting a pipe
through the collapse feature to pierce it and check for the
presence of water. Of these, a borehole behind the collapse and
a pipe piercing the collapse can be used to pump out water, to
the extent it is present, in a controlled manner to remove the
water and its associated risk. It is not clear to me from
materials made public that any such investigation or
evaluations were conducted. Without further documentation, it
cannot be determined if site operations arbitrarily abandoned a
conceptual site model or if actual conditions behind the dam
led to a paradigm shift. Given the ultimate outcome at the site
and the lack of specific documentation, it appears that
appropriate risk-reducing evaluations may not have been
conducted.
The resulting discharge of ARD from the Gold King Mine was
comprised of an acidic metal-bearing solution as well as a
metal-containing sludge. Both of these can and do result in
negative effects on the quality of receiving streams. The
solution phase can result in immediate acute impacts and the
sludge acute impacts as well as more long term chronic
conditions. Acute effects appear to have been temporal, largely
avoided with the passing of the plume. The chronic, long-term
effects are undocumented and unclear at this time.
In closing, I'll thank you again for the opportunity to be
here and contribute, and point out that managing ARD is very
difficult, especially in a historic mining district. Given the
challenging conditions, and the potential harm, care is
warranted in pursuing remedial activities. Owing to the lack of
available documentation, is not clear just how just much care
was exercised in the Gold King situation. However, I am
optimistic that we will learn the details of this unfortunate
event so that such things can be successfully avoided in the
future.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Williamson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Williamson.
Before we go to questions, I'd like to recognize the
gentleman from New Mexico, Steve Pearce, who obviously has an
interest in the subject at hand, and we welcome him to the
Committee today.
Mr. Stanislaus, let me direct my first question to you. On
August 26th, EPA Deputy Administrator Stan Meiburg told reports
on a conference call that there was ``no evidence to suggest
that precautionary measures were needed.'' However, I'd like to
show you two documents on the screen. The first is a 2014 EPA
Task Order, and the second is your own contractor's work plan
from 2015. Both documents describe the potentially dangerous
conditions at the mine, and specifically both state, and
because the print is small, I'll 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, which contain concentrated
heavy metals.''
I'd like to go to a second PowerPoint slide, and this is
from the internal EPA email that appears to address the
potential dangers at the mine. ``The mine should be assumed to
be full of water that is backed up to the top of the plug or
higher.''
So my question, Mr. Stanislaus, is this: Why did the EPA
ignore these obvious warnings?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, from multiple of years, both the
State of Colorado, local stakeholders had identified the fact
of water buildup and the cave-in situations.
Chairman Smith. So that even underlies my question even
more. So why were the warnings ignored? You had--you were on
notice for years.
Hon. Stanislaus. Yeah, so----
Chairman Smith. And we saw the Ranking Member put slides
up. We've had other spills. Why were the warnings ignored?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, the warnings were not ignored. So it
began with the identification of this particular segment. The
reason why EPA was asked to be there was actually to address
the water buildup and the cave-in situations. We specifically--
and I'd like to read it for you----
Chairman Smith. But my question is, okay, if they weren't
ignored, why did the incident occur?
Hon. Stanislaus. Sure.
Chairman Smith. Why didn't you take the precautionary steps
that would have prevented the spill?
Hon. Stanislaus. Sure. So the work plan envisioned very
specifically to carefully remove the rock buildup from the
cave-ins and reduce that water. The work that was being done at
Gold King Mine was an assessment to identify what the
particular circumstance existed at the Gold King Mine. So at
this point----
Chairman Smith. And you didn't think there was any danger
at this mine?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, clearly both EPA and the State of
Colorado identified the risk of a blowout. This has built up
because of a result of cave-ins over the years and water
buildup. So that is the reason why we were up at that mine. So
what we know at this moment is the internal review concluded
that this was identified up front, the work plan incorporated
these careful measures. The experts of EPA and the State of
Colorado looked at the site conditions, looked at sieves,
looked at flows, and concluded that there was a low-pressure
situation.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Then what went wrong? If you knew
there was a danger and you made the conscious decision to
proceed, something went terribly wrong. Why did you proceed if
you knew the dangers were so great or did you proceed in some
form of negligent fashion because clearly you didn't expect and
didn't want this spill to occur?
Hon. Stanislaus. Sure. Again, none of us wanted the spill
to occur. You know, the reason why we were there, to avoid this
blowout. The reason why we were there was to avoid that
blowout. So what we were doing there was actually doing
investigative work, and per the work plan, the plan was to
carefully reduce the buildup from the cave mine in, then to
insert piping to reduce the----
Chairman Smith. I understand what you might have had
planned. Again, something went terribly wrong. It seems to me
you did not heed the dangers or you certainly did not act to
prevent the spill from occurring in an adequate fashion or the
spill would not have occurred.
Do you feel that anyone was negligent at all?
Hon. Stanislaus. Again, at this moment, what we have is an
internal review. We're awaiting the independent review being
done by the Department of Interior as well as Office of
Inspector General. We will await the completion of all of those
to make that assessment.
Chairman Smith. And to date, has anybody been held
accountable, or not?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, we've held ourselves accountable and
most immediately we worked with the state and local communities
to address the response. We've been working in a unified way,
collecting data, communicating that data to local stakeholders
so they can make decision.
Chairman Smith. That's all well and good, but still a
tragic spill occurred. It looks to many of us that no one's
been held accountable. There has to be negligence or the spill
wouldn't have occurred. And yet the EPA doesn't seem to
acknowledge any negligence, it doesn't seem to take any
responsibility, and that's simply a disappointment, I have to
tell you.
I have time for one more question. Let me directly it very
quickly to Mr. Greaney and Dr. Williamson. Do you think that
this toxic spill was inevitable? If you can answer yes or no,
that would be good. Do you think the toxic spill was
inevitable?
Mr. Greaney. I guess I'm not really qualified from an
assessment standpoint on that mine to really answer that
question. Certainly there was buildup that would have gone
somewhere at some point, but I do not know if it would've
resulted in a blowout.
Chairman Smith. Do you think--okay. And Dr. Williamson?
Dr. Williamson. I would ultimately like to rely on more
detailed evaluations. However, I wouldn't say that it's
necessarily inevitable. It was in fact holding back quite a lot
of water at this point, and there are other locations within
the district that I'm aware of that act as opportunities for
releasing pressure. So it remains to be seen. It would have to
be forecast with a little more certainty, I think.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you all.
And the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized
for her questions.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stanislaus, how did EPA come to be involved with the
efforts to address mine wastewater leakage at this Gold King
Mine?
Hon. Stanislaus. It actually began when the American Tunnel
got plugged. When it got plugged, and this is a primarily issue
by the State of Colorado with the Sunnyside Corporation, that
plug-in resulted in the water increasing up to the Red and
Bonita Mine and then the Gold King Mine. Subsequently, water
seeps went into Cement Creek and Animas River. The stakeholders
then asked EPA along with the State of Colorado to get involved
to address that risk of water flow into the Animas River as
well as the cave-ins at the Gold King Mine.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Now, I've heard that the installation
of the last bulkhead at the American Tunnel in 2002 may have
been a superseding cause to 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 might be to
August 5th blowout at the Gold King Mine?
Hon. Stanislaus. Yeah. EPA was not directly involved in
that decision. What we do know from the internal review that
was conducted was that a permit was issued by the State of
Colorado to Sunnyside Mine that plugged the mine, you know, and
as Dr. Williamson noted, that once you plug a mine, you will
have water backup, and what we do know is that water backed up
to the Red and Bonita Mine, which is a mine right on top of
that, and then migrated out to the Gold King Mine, which then
subsequently led to the water releases to Cement Creek and to
the Animas River.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you.
Mayor Brookie, thank you for your testimony and your
characterization of the technicolor spotlight that has been
placed on the problems your constituents and others for
decades, if not longer. While I understand that the mining
played an important role in economic development of the western
United States, the impacts of abandoned mines are difficult to
ignore. You note in your written testimony that mine blowouts
like the one on August 5th are not uncommon putting this most
recent release in context. Could you describe some of the past
challenges your region has had to deal with as a result of
mining activities?
Hon. Brookie. Certainly. We have--since the 1880s
downstream users have grappled with related pollution in the
Animas River as a result of acid mine drainage because in 1880
the mines just dumped this directly into the river, and by the
1890s the Animas River that ran through Durango ran gray and
turbid--it was a quote in the Durango Herald from 1890--nearly
every day thanks to mill tailings being dumped into the river
near Silverton. This is approximately 55 miles away. Back in
1890, our town was covered with gray, turbid Animas River. It
was not the clear river that we have today.
In 1902, Durango shifted its primary water source, potable
water source--this is from the Animas River--to the Florida
River, a tributary adjacent. It comes from another watershed
that has less mining activity. So as far ago as 1902, we
changed our water source, our primary watersource. We still use
in the summertime the Animas River for the treatment facility
and it meets water quality standards after being treated, but
it's primarily--only used in the summertime for irrigation of a
number of the fields and lawns and so forth. Our water
increases by fourfold in the summertime.
In the 1930s, the farmers along the beautiful Animas River
Valley north of Durango threatened to sue the mining companies
to curtail their tailings, took legal action the mine because
the tailings were clogging their ditches similar to what the
Navajo Nation is experiencing today. The mine blowouts like
the--in 1975, a huge tailing pond busted, sending 50,000 tons
of tailings into the Animas River, turning it the cover of
aluminum paint. This was just prior to my arrival in Durango,
and people are still talking about this release, and if you can
imagine, you pick a color. This was gray. It didn't show up on
TV as bright as orange technicolor orange but we had the same
thing happen in 1975.
In 1978, there was a huge burst of tens of millions of
gallons of water and sludge came down our river. At this time
it was black all the way to Black River all the way to
Farmington. So pick your color. These are 24 different types of
minerals that have impacted our river, our watershed, flowing
all the way through Durango into New Mexico, into Arizona and
into ultimately the Colorado River.
The Gold King Mine was draining anywhere from 200 to 500
gallons per minute prior to the blowout, and so there was--if
you can envision this mountain as--you have a giant geologic
Whack-a-Mole. You plug one mine, as has been discussed here
today, and you build up the pressure of water. These are
tunnels and vertical columns. They fill up with water
naturally, and when these people are exploring the opportunity
to release that and contain it, there was an accident. And so
that is estimated 60 feet of water that created that three-
million-dollar--three-million-gallon release that impacted us.
It happened to be orange that day because of the orange oxide.
That's probably the least health-critical element that was
released. The color did, however, bring national attention to
this issue.
We've had black, we've had gray, we've had all kinds of
colors. Last year in the spring, there was a release of more
than--a greater release than was experienced in the Gold King
but it happened during the spring runoff in 2014, came down our
very same river. We didn't even know it. Navajos didn't know
it. Nobody knew it because it happened to be in the normal,
turbid, brown color spring runoff, and it came through our
town. That's what happens and that's what we have to deal with.
Chairman Smith. Mayor, thank you for that response. We let
you go a little bit over time, but that was interesting.
Let me recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Loudermilk, for his questions.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I was listening to the statements and answers to the
questions here today, I kind of heard a common theme as I've
read the reports of this event is, it's not important for us to
find out who's to blame right now but other than to clean up
the spill. It's understandable. But it seems to be when the
government is at fault, they're not very anxious to figure out
who's at fault, but if it's somebody else, we're more than
willing to point the blame, even while the disaster and the
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. It cost many people their jobs. Many
businesses went under because of this. Even while we were
attempting to clean it up, the government didn't hesitate to go
ahead and point fingers as to who was to blame. In fact, the
former EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, and the Secretary of
Homeland Security, then Janet Napolitano, send a scathing
letter to BP saying they must be more transparent with what
happened.
Dr. Benn, has in your opinion the EPA been transparent with
what's going on so far?
Hon. Benn. Thank you for that question.
Well, as far as the farmers and the ranchers are concerned,
they hadn't really been as transparent.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Stanislaus, I appreciate you saying in summarizing,
eventually we're going to get to what the issue is. But why are
we only being transparent when this Committee goes forward and
demand answers? Why is not the EPA coming more aggressively
right now and coming out with what was the cause and what are
we going to do to fix the situation? When are we going to see
the transparency that this government demands of private
industry or individuals when they're clearly at fault?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, thank you, Congressman. We believe
we've been as transparent as we possibly could. Our initial
focus was absolutely to collect the data and provide data in
the hands of local communities, of the states and tribes to
make decisions. Subsequent to that, we posted about 2,500 pages
of documents, documents regarding the work plan, documents
regarding the request proposal, documents regarding community
meetings held with stakeholders, and we will continue to do so.
You know, with respect to holding ourselves accountable,
you know, we first began with immediately and as aggressively
as is possible to conduct a response in a unified way, making
sure that the state and local government and tribes are part of
the unified command. Clearly, we are only part of the way
through. We've done internal review, because I was very
interested what lessons learned relate to other sites around
the country and what lessons learned in terms of what
transpired there. But that's only part of the puzzle.
Mr. Loudermilk. Have you been more transparent than BP was?
Hon. Stanislaus. Have I been more transparent? I think
we've been very transparent. I've not done the comparison. But
having been involved in the BP spill as well, I believe we in
fact pushed transparency there, and I believe we executed the
same level of transparency here.
Mr. Loudermilk. Ultimately, who's going to be held
responsible for this?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, that is exactly where we are in the
process of examining. You know, we've done an internal review.
We have two other independent reviews, and we will see the
culmination of that regarding what were the preparation and
facts going into that event, how was that executed, and we're
going to look at all of that.
Mr. Loudermilk. So do you agree that you should be held to
the same standards that you hold everyone else to?
Hon. Stanislaus. Absolutely.
Mr. Loudermilk. Do you agree to that?
Hon. Stanislaus. Absolutely.
Mr. Loudermilk. After the Deepwater Horizon spill,
President Obama appeared on the Today show in 2010 and stated
had Mr. Hayward, 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?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well----
Mr. Loudermilk. Should Gina McCarthy already--should we
have called for her to be fired if definitely the EPA is
responsible for this spill?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, I think we all want a fact-driven
process. So we've done one step of the investigation. We await
the independent review, and I think all the Members, all the
public have also called for independent reviews. We're going to
see the culmination of that. You know, roughly--I mean, the
Department of Interior is doing a study in 60 days. I don't
recall exactly when the Officer of Inspector General will be
completing. Because we want a fact-driven process because I'm
responsible for the cleanup of contaminated sites around the
country at the request of states and local government. I more
than anyone want to know--want to make sure that we're doing
the right thing. So we're going to await that information.
Mr. Loudermilk. I appreciate that, and we're running out of
time. All I'm asking for is that hypocrisy of this government
hold the stop and that the government hold itself to the same
standards that it holds the American people to, and that's what
I think we must demand as we go forward.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Loudermilk.
By the way, I don't remember President Obama waiting for an
independent review, given the comments you just said.
The gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized
for her questions.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
There's absolutely no question that what happened in
Colorado is tragic, and I want to thank the witnesses for being
here to help us learn more about why it happened, if and how it
could have been prevented, critique the response of the EPA and
how that was handled, and also talk about the lessons learned.
We also have to keep in mind that there are inherent
environmental damages or dangers from metal mining operations
and there are thousands of inactive mines around the country
that are consistently leaking toxic wastewater full of heavy
metals into streams, creeks and rivers. So we need the
Environmental Protection Agency to review mining development to
make sure that mining operations do not endanger crucial
watersheds, and I want to also talk about the need to be
proactive here and mention Pebble Mine in Alaska. EPA watershed
assessment found that Pebble Mine would likely have an
irreversible negative impact on the local watershed and salmon
fisheries. Congressman McDermott and I led a group of our
Oregon and Washington colleagues asking the EPA to protect
Bristol Bay. Fisheries in that region provide thousands of jobs
and millions of dollars annually to the economies not only of
Alaska but also Oregon, Washington and the entire Northwest and
the potential damage from a massive mine operation is a serious
threat, and I hope that the lessons learned in Colorado are
considered in that ongoing process.
But back to Colorado. Mr. Stanislaus, you said in your
testimony that based on 2009 to 2014 flow data, the average
annual water discharge from Gold King Mine and the three nearby
mines reached approximately 330 million gallons per year, and
the EPA and the State of Colorado and partners have been taking
action to address that issue. So can you please talk about the
ongoing--those ongoing discharges and the work that was being
done there, and in your response, please address whether
additional resources would have made a difference, and also
would a Superfund designation or listing of the Gold King Mine
have affected the resources and the approach available for
cleanup and remediation? And I do want to save time for one
more question.
Hon. Stanislaus. Sure. So most recently, the Animas
Stakeholders Group and the State of Colorado asked for EPA's
assistance both from funding and technical expertise. That's
what brought us to the mine, the Red and Bonita, and the Gold
King Mine. But there was a preexisting effort by the Animas
Stakeholders Group, who identified, Congresswoman, the multiple
sources into the river that degrades the water quality. In
fact, about 10 miles above the Animas River is degraded and
fish health is severely compromised.
So just last week at the request of local communities, I
actually traveled to Silverton to have a community meeting
about whether a listing of Superfund would address this issue.
We're in the middle of that conversation. And I presented that.
To be eligible for Superfund resources, they have to be listed
on the National Priorities List, and we're going to engage the
local community regarding that.
Ms. Bonamici. And Mayor Brookie, I want to ask you to
follow up on that. I represent a district in Oregon and really
understand the importance of preserving natural resources, and
that's especially important to our tourism industry, which I
know you share those concerns as well. So can you talk about
how this recent release, which of course we all watched on
television, some of you up close firsthand, how has it been
treated in the media? Can you talk about what the coverage has
done to your local economy and also address the Superfund
designation because I know that's a discussion that's been
ongoing in your community.
Hon. Brookie. Surely. Well, I might add that Ms. Gina
McCarthy was in Durango, took full responsibility for EPA's
role in this event. She was--there was a plastic table and a
metal folding chair closer than the Chairman and myself sitting
together, and she took full responsibility. I did get a phone
call the Thursday after the event from Sean McGrath, who's the
Division EPA Director, asking from the city's perspective if we
need any assistance at all from this event, and that was--and
by the way, we were notified within an hour and a half at City
Hall of the release. The event happened at about 10:58, and we
were notified at 1:39 in the afternoon, and that allowed us to
shut down our pump stations out of the Animas River, protect
our potable water supply.
Ms. Bonamici. And can I just ask you who notified you?
Hon. Brookie. Well, the Colorado Department of Health--
Public Health and Environment, CDPHE, which is the appropriate
protocol for EPA to notify the state health department. They
notify downstream parties, which we were notified within an
hour and a half.
Ms. Bonamici. And then could you briefly address the effect
on tourism that you've seen?
Hon. Brookie. Sure. Well, as you might imagine, I found
myself with a barrage of cameras, everybody from al Jazeera to
Fox News channel holding press conferences, et cetera, and
infinitely showing the orangish plume coming through our town.
It's still on the screen. It's good to see it again. I can tell
you that orange plume no longer exists in Durango. It lasted
for about a day and a half before it moved on to our friends
downstream, Navajo Nation.
But we are--we immediately closed the river----
Chairman Smith. Mayor Brookie, we've again run out of time.
Ms. Bonamici. My time is expired.
Chairman Smith. And I appreciate your response.
Hon. Brookie. Sure.
Chairman Smith. We'll go now to the gentleman from
Louisiana, Mr. Abraham.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, first let me express my I guess awe at the
Secretary of the EPA actually not being here. We all know in
this room that if it had been an individual business, that
business would have been vilified way before this. So I find it
somewhat unconscionable that Ms. McCarthy chose not to be
present at this hearing.
Saying that, Mr. Stanislaus, you said in your testimony
that your experts at the EPA underestimate the water pressure.
Now, I'm not a hydrologist but I can certainly estimate water
pressure pretty easily with certain equipment. I've done it on
my farm many, many times. I guess my question is, if they
underestimated this, have they underestimated water pressure at
other mines? I'm talking to you, Mr. Stanislaus.
Hon. Stanislaus. So just to be clear, I mean, I am here
because my responsibility is emergency response.
Mr. Abraham. Yes, sir, I understand you're the cleanup man.
You're fourth in the lineup as far as batters are concerned,
and really you shouldn't even be here because it shouldn't have
happened in the first place. You wouldn't even have a role in
this. So my question to you is, your experts at EPA you have
said in your testimony underestimated the water pressure.
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, no----
Mr. Abraham. Have they done this in other places?
Hon. Stanislaus. So the pressure was not estimated. You
know, the review report concluded that when they got on the
site, they identified the potential for blowout conditions
and----
Mr. Abraham. And let me interrupt. Excuse me, sir, with due
respect.
Mr. Greaney, with you and Mr. Stanislaus, sir, if you all
knew that there was an issue here of potential blowout, was
there a mitigation plan in place for this potential disaster?
Mr. Greaney. The blowout potential as was identified
following the issuance of the Task Order and some initial site
work again represented there was six foot of water behind that
bulkhead--I'm sorry, not a bulkhead, the collapsed tunnel. The
intent then of the work plan was essentially to come in using
that top four foot of open space between the water level and
the----
Mr. Abraham. But did you have a mitigation plan in place
for this potential blowout because you knew it was a potential
thing to happen? I mean, we all have mitigation plans in life
for certain instances that can happen, and this is what the
definition of a mitigation plan actually is. Did you have one
in your company?
Mr. Greaney. We had a management plan to again use the--a
probe, much as Dr. Williamson had suggested, to insert into the
well or into the mine and start pumping water.
Mr. Abraham. So that was your mitigation plan? If it
started to blow, you all were just going to pump water out?
Mr. Greaney. I guess I'm not sure what--you're using
mitigation, I'm using management plan. You're looking for a
contingency plan?
Mr. Abraham. Yes. Let's agree on that word. If it happened,
what was your immediate first step, and did that happen?
Mr. Greaney. Again, the blowout occurred during the
initial--we had not started our site work. We were not prepared
to enter the----
Mr. Abraham. That answers the question. You weren't there.
Okay.
And Mayor Brookie, you said that the EPA, the good news
that day was that the EPA was actually there when it happened,
and you know, I would use the analogy in medicine that a
surgeon working on a lung slices the heart open, and we're glad
that surgeon just happened to be there because he sliced the
heart open. So, you know, again, it just is beyond pale, you
know, that we're at this point where we have to have this
hearing because nobody--like the Chairman said, there's totally
a lack of transparency, and I think a lack of forthrightfulness
here.
Mr. Stanislaus, has EPA estimated the actual money cost to
the environmental impact on this spill?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, at this moment we've expended about
$8 million of direct response costs----
Mr. Abraham. How about referring to Mr. Benn as far as the
Navajos, what he's asking for? Have you factored that cost into
your figures?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, we have begun to pay response costs
by those who have asked. Local governments are going to
continue to provide those response costs. Separately, we've
established a claims process under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
We're going to be working through that process and completing
that process within six months.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Abraham.
The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter, is recognized
for his questions.
Mr. Perlmutter. I'd like to welcome my fellow Coloradoans
to Washington, DC. Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony. All
of you, thank you for your testimony today.
Part of this I feel like, you know, we're in the early
stages of litigation, and the Chairman I think maybe a
frustrated litigator wanting to figure out who was negligent,
who wasn't negligent, who's responsible for this, what
happened. I appreciate the fact that the EPA got to the
Department of Health in Colorado quickly, who got to Durango
quickly to share this. There apparently was some breakdown in
communication getting to the Navajo Nation.
So in all of this, a court is going to figure out exactly
what happened, why it happened, when it happened, should it
have happened, Dr. Williamson, so--but I'd like to ask some
other questions because I think, Dr. Benn, you suggested some
things that the EPA should consider in the short term and in
the long term. Those--if I recall correctly, one was, you know,
help you with some monitoring devices to keep an eye on things,
help the farmers and the ranchers who may have been impacted.
Am I right about that?
Hon. Benn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Perlmutter. Are those conversations ongoing with the
EPA at this point, or are you guys in litigation, or where are
you?
Hon. Benn. Right now we're still in discussion.
Mr. Perlmutter. You're in discussions. Okay. So there is
some conversation going on between the Navajo Nation and the
United States of America through its EPA?
Hon. Benn. There's only discussion among us as a Nation
right now.
Mr. Perlmutter. Oh, within your--within your own Nation.
You're not talking to the EPA?
Hon. Benn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. I asked that badly. So you're--is the
Nation speaking to the EPA about potential ways that the EPA
and the United States could help the Nation?
Hon. Benn. As I explained to the U.S. EPA at one point that
this whole situation can't be tackled all at once, that there's
three parts. There's the spill, the reaction to the spill, and
the coordination, the collaboration with EPA. We're actually in
that stage right now. I think that they are working with us but
to a certain degree.
Mr. Perlmutter. If I could, I'd like to have a couple of--
the first slide showing exactly where this Gold King Mine is.
Can we put that up on the board? No, the other one. Sorry. That
one. Yes. Thank you.
So Mayor Brookie, Dr. Williamson, can you describe the area
where this Gold King Mine is and approximately how many mines
are in the Silverton complex, which I think, you know, range at
least in the hundreds, if not into the thousands? Dr.
Williamson?
Dr. Williamson. In response to your first point, the
terrain is mountainous for sure, southwestern Colorado. It's a
mining district. It's fairly dispersed and widespread and there
are multiple historic operations in the area. An exact number,
I couldn't really tell you.
Mr. Perlmutter. And approximately when did the mining start
in this area?
Dr. Williamson. Perhaps 130 years ago, give or take.
Mr. Perlmutter. And Mayor Brookie, do you know how many
mines are up in that district, up in the complex above Durango?
Hon. Brookie. In my written testimony, I have a little
diagram of the mines. There's hundreds of mines in and around
that particular basin as well as in that--that's just Cement
Creek. Then there is also, as has been mentioned before,
Mineral Creek on the other side of the mountain as the Animas
River primary tributary. They all feed into the Animas River as
they come through Durango. But in that basin, there's
virtually--in all, there's over 5,000 mine shafts at its
tunnels and prospects in the upper Animas drainage.
Mr. Perlmutter. And in Colorado, we have many more than
just in this area. I actually represented an engineering
company years ago in another troubled mine with a big release
that the EPA got in and we, you know, built some new treatment
facilities and the like. So can we go to that other picture
that was up there for a moment of exactly where this Gold King
Mine is and the terrain right there? So--the other one. There
we go.
So in preparing for this, this had been--there had been a
release--there had been a slow leakage, if you will, of a
couple hundred gallons per minute as opposed to three million
gallons in a very short period, but over time there's a lot of
liquid release--there was a lot of liquid released from this
mine, and Mayor Brookie, I think you said like 300 million
gallons per year or something like that. So----
Hon. Brookie. That's correct.
Mr. Perlmutter. --just for illustrative purposes, three
million gallons which was released in that August 5th and
August 6th time frame versus 300 million gallons per year. So
we have a lot of work to be done with a lot of mines in the
State of Colorado, and my question is, if the EPA or some
federal agency doesn't help with this, who does? Mr.
Stanislaus?
Hon. Stanislaus. So we are called to address Superfund
mining sites around the country. That's only a small subset of
mines. So we get involved and do the work that we've been doing
in this and all the mines around the country. Clearly, there
are--just in Colorado, I believe there are 23,000 mines just in
Colorado and hundreds of thousands of mines around the country,
and that responsibility is split between other federal agencies
and states.
Mr. Perlmutter. Mr. Greaney----
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter. Your time has
expired.
The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, is recognized for his
questions.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Could I get the first slide, please? Mr. Stanislaus, this
is the public Web site where EPA has been releasing information
about the Gold King Mine spill including videos captured by EPA
contractors that show the blowout as it happens. According to
the Web site, and I want you to look over on the far right-hand
side there, EPA removed profanity contained in the audio of the
videos and obscured visible license plates for privacy
purposes, and then it ends with this: EPA did not edit the
videos in any other way. So first question for you, Mr.
Stanislaus. Is the statement I just read from EPA's Web site
accurate?
Hon. Stanislaus. It is accurate.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Okay. Great. Do you have any reason to
believe that it would not be accurate?
Hon. Stanislaus. I do not.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Okay. Here is video footage of the
early stages of the Gold King Mine blowout that was obtained by
the Science Committee. Let's have video number one.
[Video playback]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Well, the next video is the exact same
footage that EPA posted on its Web site but the last few
seconds of the audio has been removed to prevent the viewers
from hearing the team on the ground saying what do we do now.
Let's have the second video.
[Video playback]
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. So you said that you had no reason to
believe that the EPA's Web site had been altered. I've just
given you reason because the evidence is there, the before
video and the one that you posted on the Web site. Why did the
EPA edit out the audio of the team on the ground saying ``what
do we do now''? Do you got any idea?
Hon. Stanislaus. I do not, you know, and EPA had provided
its----
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. That's good enough. After seeing both
videos, do you think EPA's Web site is misleading to the
American public?
Hon. Stanislaus. I can't tell at this moment.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. What do you mean, you can't tell?
Hon. Stanislaus. I would----
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. You just saw two videos, one that had
it and one that didn't, one that was clear and open, one that
was posted by the EPA. How can you not tell?
Hon. Stanislaus. I would need to compare all the----
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. You just got a comparison, Mr.
Stanislaus.
Hon. Stanislaus. --circumstances behind the two videos and
what the various staff and EPA----
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. The EPA apparently had an on-scene
coordinator on the ground during the spill. Is that correct? Do
you have any idea? Is the EPA on-scene coordinator the one in
the video who says ``what do we do now''?
Hon. Stanislaus. I don't know that information at this
moment.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Okay. EPA did not release videos of
the incident for over a month after the spill, a month. How
long did EPA know about video footage of the incident before it
disclosed the videos to Congress and the American people? Do
you have any idea?
Hon. Stanislaus. Yeah. My understanding was, the video was
provided as soon as possible, and I don't----
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. A month?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, I don't know exactly when EPA
obtained access to the video and the time period. We can get
back to you regarding that time frame.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. All right. Mr. Stanislaus, this is
another video of the spill after the toxic water was moving
more rapidly. Let's go to video number three.
[Video playback]
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. So if the EPA had known the answer to
the question in the previous video, what do we do now, is it
possible the EPA's response would have been better and
prevented the water from escaping the mine so quickly? Could
they have stopped this rush that we just saw?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, all I know at this moment is what is
contained in the internal review, and what the internal review
concluded that the risk of a blowout was identified as possible
by both the State of Colorado and EPA. That was discussed with
the Animas stakeholders----
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Okay. Good. I appreciate that. Hold on
to that statement right there.
So given that the risk was identified, EPA had every reason
to believe that a blowout was possible. Was the EPA prepared to
properly respond to an environmental event of this magnitude?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, again----
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. That's an easy answer because we got
three million gallons of toxic water that ran into the river.
Were they adequately prepared?
Hon. Stanislaus. So because of that risk----
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Yes or no.
Hon. Stanislaus. I need to answer that question. Because of
that risk, they put in place specific plans----
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Okay, but they didn't execute their
plans.
Hon. Stanislaus. If I can--so in the work planning, so the
whole point was to carefully remove the rock buildup and then
remove the water as part of the investigation phase. The
investigation team also concluded that the emergency response
component of the plan did not include the worst-case scenario
of a blowout and that's something that I committed to going
forward to make sure that happens.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Well, according to news reports, the
EPA failed to notify local officials including the Navajo
Nation for 24 hours after the spill. They did not have a plan
to deal with an environmental event of this magnitude, and
clearly what do we do now, that question, they didn't have an
answer to.
Mr. Chairman, I got lots more that I could talk about but
my time is expired.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer, is recognized for
his questions.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And with respect and in the spirit of fairness, I do want
to say that I object to the pejorative and accusatory title of
the hearing: ``Holding the EPA Accountable for Polluting
Western Waters.'' I think it's been very clear from the
testimony today that the EPA was very far from being the first
mover in the release of the heavy-metal-laden mine wastewater,
and it's an untenable stretch to say that the EPA is solely
responsible for this spill. Just remember, it makes no sense to
compare Deepwater Horizon to this spill. There's tens of
thousands, perhaps millions of difference in order of size and
impact.
The EPA was only at the site because it was concerned about
the decades-long problem of contaminated wastewater release,
and blaming the EPA for the larger problem of the wastewater
release is like blaming firefighters for the forest fire.
Three million gallons were released on August 5th. As we've
heard today, three million gallons are released every week year
in and year out. I'm very concerned about what Dr. Benn has
talked about, this impact on the Navajo Nation. I like to think
about the larger impact to the Navajo Nation about all those
gray releases and black releases and others that Mayor Brookie
talked about.
And on the call for accountability, we've already heard
that the EPA has released 2,500 pages up on the internet, and
yet to hear any resistance from Mr. Stanislaus about not being
willing to come forward with all the transparency that is
requested, and I have yet to hear a description of what the EPA
is somehow withholding. You know, we want to hold people
responsible but it seems to me that they're doing their best to
come forward.
Two years ago, Peter Butler, the Coordinator of the Animas
River Stakeholders Group, appeared in a video that highlighted
the history of the mines in that region. I'd like to ask that
that video be shown now.
[Video playback.]
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me go a few
seconds over.
Chairman Smith. There's no time for questions, though.
That's the problem.
Mr. Beyer. I'll just point out that that video was done in
2013, two year before the EPA spill.
Chairman Smith. EPA had plenty of notice of the dangers of
mine spillage, and I thank the gentleman for pointing that out.
If you have a question, we'll acknowledge you for another extra
30 seconds. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Beyer.
The gentlewoman from Virginia, Ms. Comstock--no, I'm sorry.
The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Westerman, is recognized for
his questions.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Greaney, I have with me a copy of the action work plan.
On the title it's ``Environmental Restoration LLC.'' Who
prepared this document?
Mr. Greaney. That is traditionally prepared by our response
manager assigned to the project.
Mr. Westerman. Okay. So how many layers of approval did
this document go through?
Mr. Greaney. That document would be basically a
collaborated effort between the on-scene coordinator from the
U.S. EPA as well as the response manager, and those two--the
OSC, the on-scene coordinator, would traditionally sign off on
it as is accepted.
Mr. Westerman. So somebody from your company signed off on
it and somebody from the EPA signed off?
Mr. Greaney. The response manager from our company as well
as U.S. EPA on-scene coordinator.
Mr. Westerman. So were professional services employed by
engineers, geologists or hydrologists used in preparation of
this work plan?
Mr. Greaney. No, that would have been any data that--we
work off of the data that is provided to us within the Task
Order as well as any other data that's provided by the federal
on-scene coordinator at the time of the Task Order. We are not
an engineering form. Data is provided to us by the agency.
Mr. Westerman. But this is clearly engineering-type work,
so who was qualified to prepare this plan?
Mr. Greaney. The engineering component of our Task Order
would have been the actual structural design and installation
of the entranceway to the mine as well as the completion of the
tunnel work, and that would have been subcontracted to a
specialized subcontractor who is already on contract and ready
for us to initiate the work.
Mr. Westerman. So a professional engineer subcontractor
prepared----
Mr. Greaney. No, we prepared that plan, and then there was
a subcontractor to us who came in subsequent to that plan to do
the engineering, design and installation of the restoration
work after that plan was submitted.
Mr. Westerman. So were there engineering design documents,
drawings or specifications?
Mr. Greaney. I don't know the answer to that. As far as the
actual construction phase of that, I don't know.
Mr. Westerman. So were you involved in this project?
Mr. Greaney. No. Not directly, no.
Mr. Westerman. So would it not be normal practice if
somebody's out doing the work that they would have the plans
and the specifications?
Mr. Greaney. The work plan--again, it's more of a timing
issue, I believe. That plan would've been turned in within,
say, 30 days or so, 60 days, and it varies depending on what
the federal OSC wants, and it's the preliminary approach. The
way our contracts work is, we're giving, you know, a set of
technical directions and then we define an operational approach
to meet that technical direction. So that was a plan saying
here's how we're going to get there. It mentions that we're
going to hire a competent contractor to do that work but it
doesn't define who because it hasn't been procured yet.
Mr. Westerman. It doesn't say anything about hiring anybody
for professional services. It does talk about subcontractors.
This document was provided for transparency purposes on the EPA
Web site, and it lists three attachments that weren't included
in the document, which I think would be pertinent to the
document. The first one is the cost estimate. What was the
total cost of this project?
Mr. Greaney. I do not have that information. I can
certainly get it for you.
Mr. Westerman. And then the schedule wasn't included. Do
you know the time frame of the schedule?
Mr. Greaney. I believe the schedule, the safety plan and
the cost were the three attachments, and my understanding was,
we did turn those over minus the cost was redacted for
confidentiality reasons.
Mr. Westerman. I think that's pertinent to the issue in
that my question is, was there adequate cost and adequate time
allowed to do this job properly?
Mr. Greaney. There was certainly the cost and schedule
provided to do the project as was originally understood, yes.
Mr. Westerman. So why would that be redacted out of the
document?
Mr. Greaney. For--the cost itself was unit cost as part of
her contract, and that was confidential business information
that was redacted.
Mr. Westerman. And also not included in the document is the
site health and safety plan. Was there a site health and safety
plan?
Mr. Greaney. Yes, there is, and again, it's my
understanding that it was released. I don't understand why you
didn't have access to it.
Mr. Westerman. Okay. So we're really not sure about how
design engineering was done on this project and if the people
who approved the work plan were qualified to approve that.
Because there was obviously a lack of planning that went into
this because of the spill that occurred.
But Mr. Stanislaus, is there--is this common practice?
Hon. Stanislaus. Is what common practice?
Mr. Westerman. To prepare these plans without professional
services?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, clearly, there's a whole sequence
beginning with the request for proposal which identified the
specific circumstances and risk. It then goes into a work plan.
It then goes into a construction plan and execution plan. You
know, what the review team found was, the expertise both of the
State of Colorado, EPA and the contractors were the right
expertise so the mining expertise was in place. They had a plan
to execute that, and the review report goes through how that
report--how the plan was executed.
Mr. Westerman. Most laws--most states have laws that say
you can't do this type of work without a professional in charge
of the work, so does EPA exempt following state laws on
professional services for these type projects?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, all the appropriate professionals
for this job--our review team found that the expertise for
doing a job like that was in place on this project team, both
EPA and the State of Colorado and the contractor.
Chairman Smith. And the gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Takano, is recognized.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to get back to proportionality. Three million
gallons in 1-1/2 days was visible as orange oxide in the water
four miles adjacent to this mine, but 300 million gallons, I
understand, flow of waste that wasn't visible, was not captured
in the visual, and that's why we have this visual to make this
comparison. So it's a matter of proportionality.
I find it curious that this Committee is focusing on this
and spending hours and hours and hours of time trying to figure
out in the wrong venue. It should be a court of law figuring
out the liability, and we're jumping to conclusions in this,
and the title of this hearing is even jumping to a conclusion
which, you know, was misleading, when we should be talking
about this, and in the spirit of that, I would like to yield
more time, my time, to the gentleman from Colorado to continue
his questions.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Takano. If the Committee
would allow me to go forward?
Chairman Smith. Absolutely. Would the gentleman--would Mr.
Takano yield just for a minute or for a couple of seconds?
I can't wait to use the gentleman's arguments the next time
a private company dumps millions of gallons of toxic water into
a pure river, and thank you for yielding, and the gentleman
from Colorado will be recognized.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So I think Congressman Beyer, Congressman Takano have
really hit on the key point here, which is, as Dr. Williamson
said, we've got thousands of mines in Colorado, many abandoned,
many properly closed with all sorts of issues, and at some
point we've got to address them. We've had, you know, lakes
collapse into mine shafts, causing huge releases down the
Animas River and into the San Juan and into the Navajo Nation.
So let's just go back to basics here. So the EPA started
working on this at least with the stakeholder group and with
its professionals in 2014, did it not, Mr. Stanislaus?
Hon. Stanislaus. Yeah, slightly before 2014.
Mr. Perlmutter. So you worked with affected individuals to
try to figure out what to do to minimize that 300 million
gallons that was being released into a river that runs right
through the heart of Durango and into the Navajo Nation. Is
that right?
Hon. Stanislaus. That's correct.
Mr. Perlmutter. And in so doing, you contracted with the
private sector to do the construction and remediation work that
the professionals felt was appropriate, did you not?
Hon. Stanislaus. That's correct, with EPA oversight.
Mr. Perlmutter. And that one of those contractors was you,
Mr. Greaney, and your company, true?
Mr. Greaney. That's correct.
Mr. Perlmutter. And listening to your testimony, you've
done some 1,300 similar kinds of tasks for the EPA, and I think
you testimony was 10,000 for other agencies and the private
sector.
Mr. Greaney. That's correct.
Mr. Perlmutter. The kind of work you do can be dangerous.
Isn't that true?
Mr. Greaney. That's also correct.
Mr. Perlmutter. And it can be complex?
Mr. Greaney. That's correct.
Mr. Perlmutter. Can you--how would you describe all of the
tunnels that you're dealing with in this Silverton complex or
the Silverton mining district when you were working on the Gold
King Mine?
Mr. Greaney. They're obviously very complex.
Mr. Perlmutter. And so the Chairman started off his
statement saying well, would a prudent person undertake this?
Well, one prudent person, probably not, but when 300 million
gallons a year are coming into a beautiful river where into a
city that prides itself on being very outdoors and very health
conscious, should the United States and should the State of
Colorado, even though it may not be prudent, try to undertake
to fix something like that? Mr. Greaney, what would you say?
Mr. Greaney. We address many, many task orders on behalf of
the U.S. EPA, and all of them have a basis for each one.
Mr. Perlmutter. And Dr. Williamson, in your experience,
does the EPA, does the Division of Mine Land Reclamation in
Colorado, do other agencies try to undertake to mitigate
against a constant release like this 300 million gallons?
Dr. Williamson. Yes, sir, in my experience they do try to
offset the sustained discharges.
Mr. Perlmutter. And at some point my guess is, you've been
called as an expert witness in a trial or you've advised in the
past, and hopefully all the things that you've worked on have
gone well, but this is complex and dangerous kind of work, is
it not?
Dr. Williamson. I would agree that it is, yes.
Mr. Perlmutter. I thank Mr. Takano for giving me time. I
thank all of you for being here. There's no real bad guy. We're
trying to fix something that's been 100 years in the making,
and we've got a lot of these in Colorado, and we need some help
with treatment plants in Silverton. They need it on the Navajo
Nation. This is a responsibility that we have as a Nation.
Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter.
The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Moolenaar, is recognized
for his questions.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to address these to Mr. Stanislaus. I wanted to
ask you what lessons that you and the EPA have learned from
this incident, this experience?
Hon. Stanislaus. Sure. I mean, so far, you know, we've
identified that we need to enhance the notification process
with local and state governments. I issued a memo to that
regard asking all the regions to work with state and local
communities, an event like this, which potentially has broader
potential impact.
The review team also identified that there are a number of
things that we could do and operationalize going forward by
looking at and investigating with the private sector potential
remote sensing tools to identify a pressurized situation where
it's technically and from a safety perspective is really
difficult to put a drill pad like it was in this location,
incorporating worst-case scenarios in emergency response
planning. So those are some of those, and some of that's
contained in the internal review document, but it's ongoing
lessons learned. I mean, we learn lessons from the thousands of
sites that we get engaged in around the country.
Mr. Moolenaar. And in terms of overall cost of this,
someone had mentioned maybe $8 million is what has been spent
so far. Is that accurate?
Hon. Stanislaus. That is right. It's $8 million for the
response costs so far.
Mr. Moolenaar. And do you anticipate additional costs
beyond that?
Hon. Stanislaus. Yeah, I mean, certainly some additional
costs. I don't know what that estimate is. There's still going
to be some ongoing monitoring. We'll continue to work all of
the stakeholders on continuing that monitoring and other kinds
of elements to accommodate the stakeholders' requests.
Mr. Moolenaar. And how do you--where do you get the funds
for that? Is that from other programs that maybe of lesser
priority that you'd shift within the EPA budget, or how--where
would you get that funding?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, the budget and all the federal
budget is fairly regimented. We have a fixed pot of resources,
Superfund, kind of emergency response and removals, and what we
do is really prioritize. You know, clearly there are priorities
that come up and we need to respond to emergencies and
prioritize as we go forward. You know, it's a tight budget and
we've had declining resources over the years.
Mr. Moolenaar. So it would come out of the Superfund budget
projects that--lesser priorities would kind of go to the bottom
of that list and you'd move that to this?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, yeah. We have a pot of money to make
ourselves available to respond to emergencies on a regular
basis, so, you know, we use that pot of money to respond.
Mr. Moolenaar. And what--I have not heard--has EPA--
obviously has taken responsibility for this but has EPA
acknowledged mistakes that were made that--you know, for
instance, there's also this comparison, you know, are you--how
would you treat a private actor if they were in this situation?
Obviously you're in the position where you're investigating,
you are conducting the operations, but then you're also
responsible for any penalties. Would you treat a private actor
differently than is--is there a conflict of interest here?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, we would treat the private actor
identically. So for example, when an incident happens, what we
ask--what we demand of the responsible party is to immediately
go forward, expend resources, collect data immediately, analyze
that data, provide water supplies as an example, and, you know,
we would impress the unified command emergency response
structure. So that is identical. You know, we would demand
transparency, and I believe we are identically in transparency.
I would argue, you know, very forward leaning on transparency.
I mean, in terms of long term, you know, we're still in the
midst of investigating. So I ask for internal view and the
Administrator asks for internal review to quickly identify what
happened here, how that should inform other sites immediately.
You know, we also--there's also two other independent
investigations, so we should have the Department of Interior's
investigation done roughly--I know it's 60 days from the time
it started, so I'm guessing it's about 40 days or so, and the
Office of Inspector General of EPA is also conducting--so we're
going to, you know, see all of what is identified. So again,
you know, I have responsibility for the cleanup of contaminated
sites around the country, you know, and we work with
communities to protect public health and safety from the legacy
of these sites. If there are lessons learned, you know, and if
there are ways of holding people accountable, holding ourselves
accountable in those documents, we will certainly look at that.
Mr. Moolenaar. Do you think it would be----
Chairman Smith. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Moolenaar.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell, is recognized.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Chair, and you know, to the people
of the communities affected, you know, I do--I share, you know,
my thoughts, my concerns. This was a tragedy. And to me, it
seems like it's inherently dangerous work when you're dealing
with mines. It's dangerous for the EPA, it's dangerous for the
contractors, and it's awful when anything like this happens.
And, you know, I don't agree with the name of the hearing, Mr.
Chairman, but I do agree with the right to have a hearing about
something that involves an important government agency. In my
experience, these types of incidents will take some time to
thoroughly be investigated and hopefully we get to the bottom
of it, and I think this is a part of that process.
Mr. Stanislaus, I just have a few questions. First, is it
contemplated that there could be a breach of contract or
litigation brought against the contractor or subcontractors
involved? Is that possible going forward?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, again, we are going to evaluate the
two other reports that are coming down, and we're going to have
to evaluate more of the specific facts. We have one independent
review, and you know, it speaks for itself that there was
proper planning, the work plan seemed to be executed. There's
potentially more than could be done in the future. So that's
currently where we are.
Mr. Swalwell. And Mr. Greaney, that's not a comment one way
or another on your work, but I do want to highlight just to my
colleagues on the other side that it does seem that if there is
a right of action available against a private actor, that that
is something that is possible. Is that right, Mr. Stanislaus?
Hon. Stanislaus. That is right.
Mr. Swalwell. And then I do--with that in mind, I would
like to yield the rest of my time. I think it's important for
the Member who's most closely affected by this to continue to
have questions if he wishes. So Mr. Chair, the gentleman from
Colorado, I'd like to yield to him if possible.
Mr. Perlmutter. I thank my friend from California.
Mayor Brookie, you did mention the Good Samaritan bill that
was proposed by Senators Udall and Bennett and I think
Congressman Tipton, which I generally support, but in this
instance, it wouldn't have helped. I mean, we actually were
working on a mine and there was a major release.
Hon. Brookie. That's correct.
Mr. Perlmutter. So in the--in connection with the $8
million that the EPA has spent so far, what has been done for
the town of Durango, if anything, with that $8 million? Can you
tell us?
Hon. Brookie. Well, perhaps Mr. Stanislaus could answer
that, but, you know, we have submitted--we'll be next week
submitting an invoice to the EPA for direct costs associated
with emergency response, loss of sales of water in our case,
and a number of other direct costs to the City of Durango.
Obviously the business community will be submitting via the
form 95s for any loss of their business. That would be the
whitewater rafters, hotels, any of the public business, private
businesses that would have a claim for loss of income and loss
of business.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. Mr. Stanislaus, the $8 million, and I
know there was a previous question, what of that $8 million--
explain the mitigation that took place immediately after the
release and how, you know, ,protecting the life and limb of
your contractors and of your own personnel and then what you've
done to slow down this release.
Hon. Stanislaus. Sure. Immediately after the release, we
kind of shored up the situation. We diverted the water so it
could be treated, so we have treatment ponds diverting and
treating the water. We believe we're capturing about 90-plus
percent of the metals in a far better case than described in
the video with the untreated water. We still have more to do in
terms of a long-term solution. That is why I was in Silverton
having that discussion.
Mr. Perlmutter. So let me ask this question. In the video
that Congressman Beyer showed us, there was a discussion of
making the Silverton mining district or at least these mines,
put them on the National Priorities List, make them part of a
Superfund site. How would that affect your ability to pay for,
you know, new treatment plants for the area, for the Navajo
Nation? Can you explain?
Hon. Stanislaus. Sure. By being listed on the National
Priorities List, it makes that site eligible for a permanent
and long-term solution. So in mining sites like this, one of
the fundamental things that are done is a permanent water
treatment system to handle the volume and really reduce all the
contaminants, in this case, metals, before it enters into the
rivers.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, and I thank my friend from
California.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin, is
recognized.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
Mr. Stanislaus, during the spill, President Obama came out
and visited the region but he did not visit the site or meet
with those who are affected by the spill. Did the EPA request
that President Obama not visit the spill site?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, all I can tell you is that EPA
shifted into emergency response. We had emergency response
personnel working emergency response with local stakeholders.
Administrator McCarthy did visit the area, met with local
officials, really want to make sure that the emergency response
is well managed.
Mr. Babin. Again, I think, as someone mentioned earlier, I
think it's ironical that she's not here today either. But let
me ask, does it surprise you that President Obama visited the
area but did not come to the site or visit with the folks who
are affected as the Navajos were?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, all I can tell you is that from
where I sit, you know, we want to make sure that the emergency
response infrastructure is in place. We did that and unified
command had the local government, the states and tribes
involved. Administrator McCarthy did in fact visit all the
local communities, visit the Navajo while she was there to
gauge how the response was going and how we could be of
assistance.
Mr. Babin. All right. Well, then let me ask you this, a few
technicalities. What was the relationship between the EPA and
the Environmental Restoration LLC staff on site conducting work
at this particular mine?
Hon. Stanislaus. The----
Mr. Babin. What was the relationship?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, they are a contractor who pursuant
to a request for a proposal put in place a work plan to deal--
to address the work at this site. EPA oversees the work by the
contractor.
Mr. Babin. Okay. Does the EPA specify what exact work will
be conducted and each step of the work?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, it's kind of a--it is a sequential
process. So we issue a request for proposal detailing the
particular circumstance we'd like the contractor to address. We
ask the contractor to respond with the work plan and then there
are other additional implementation kind of documents.
Mr. Babin. Well, I just--I want to know, does the EPA have
the final decision-making authority on this site?
Hon. Stanislaus. Absolutely.
Mr. Babin. Okay. Did Environmental Restoration LLC ever
raise any concerns regarding the work to be conducted at Gold
King Mine? We've seen some videos today which kind of alluded
to that possibility. Had the Environmental Restoration, did
they ever raise a red flag?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, what I am aware of is, we raised the
issue of the particular circumstance at the Gold King Mine, we
and the State of Colorado. That's the reason why we were there.
And it's to deal with the particular circumstance. The
particular circumstance was that there was a cave-in at the
Gold King Mine area. There was water seeping from that. The
contract was to address that particular situation while also
addressing the mine beneath that, the Red and Bonita Mine, as
well.
Mr. Babin. So the cave-in was what--was that the exact
cause of the spill?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, again, there's a preexisting
condition, you know, going back over a decade or so. Initially
the State of Colorado worked with the mining operator to deal
with the cave-in situation, deal with the water emitting from
the complex of mines. So that had been going on for years.
They've addressed some of the cave-in. We got involved right
around 2014 to deal specifically with the Red and Bonita and
the Gold King Mine, developed a plan as you all have in front
of you.
Mr. Babin. Who were the folks that were operating the
machinery that day? Were they EPA employees or Environmental
Restoration employees? Who were they?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, they were subcontractors, as Mr.
Greaney talked about. I don't have those individuals' names in
front of me.
Mr. Babin. But I just want to know who they work for.
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, they ultimately work for EPA,
absolutely.
Mr. Babin. Okay. They were EPA employees but they were
contractors?
Hon. Stanislaus. No, no, no. They were contractors,
subcontractors to the prime contractor.
Mr. Babin. Not with Environmental Restoration?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, you know, on typical jobs like this,
you have a prime contractor and you bring particular expertise.
The subcontractor that you're referring to had a particular
expertise in mining operations.
Mr. Babin. It's unfortunate, very unfortunate thing to
happen, and it brings to mind in North Carolina, we had a
rancher or a farmer who accidentally spilled some cow manure
into a local river and was fined $15,000, which is a lot of
money for some folks, and I'd like to see some responsibility
shouldered by the EPA here, and I'm very disturbed that it took
24 hours to inform the folks downriver of the spill even
occurring. Don't you think that's----
Hon. Stanislaus. Again, as I outlined in my opening
statement, there was immediate notification between us and the
State as set forth in a contingency, in a plan for
notification, but I also agree, an incident like this, we need
to have broader notification, us, state and local governments
and tribes, and make sure everyone is aware. All the
notification did occur before any of the impacts of the spill
reached them.
Mr. Babin. I would imagine if you lived downstream, you
would've wanted to be notified----
Hon. Stanislaus. Absolutely.
Mr. Babin. --very, very rapidly.
Hon. Stanislaus. Absolutely.
Mr. Babin. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Babin.
And the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, is recognized.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stanislaus, there was an article by the Associated
Press back on August 20th in which the article says that the
EPA is now downplaying the danger of the Colorado mine spill
but concerns linger that contamination levels are pretty
serious yet the EPA says that the contamination levels were
returning to pre-spill levels and no threatens the rivers. Do
you agree? Is that the EPA's position?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, EPA put in place an aggressive data
program working with everyone in unified command that include
the state, the tribes and all the local governments. We then
went through a laboratory process and then compared that to
preexisting levels and made a judgment once we achieved pre-
existing levels. We communicated that in unified command then
the local governments made a decision about reopening the
river.
Mr. Palmer. The AP article also said that they made
repeated requests to the EPA for information on pre-spill
contamination so that they obviously could compare that to the
current contamination levels. At the time of the article, the
EPA had failed to respond to that request. Has the EPA provided
that information?
Hon. Stanislaus. Yeah, it is on our Web site where we have
tables and graphs and the actual data that compares the data
taken on various days to pre-spill conditions and other
parameters.
Mr. Palmer. So was it on your Web site around August 15th
to 20th time frame? Was it there then?
Hon. Stanislaus. Yeah, I don't have the article in front of
me. I don't know what particular time frame they were talking
about.
Mr. Palmer. The article was on August 20th.
Hon. Stanislaus. But as soon as we could collect and
process the data, we posted it on our Web site. I mean, clearly
there is a laboratory process, particularly with metals, takes
time to analyze that, but as soon as we had that data
available, we not only posted it in the press but immediately
we communicated with state and local and tribal officials.
Mr. Palmer. Okay. Are you satisfied with the levels of
contamination of arsenic and lead and other contaminants that
are currently in the river? Is that consistent with what you
require from private companies in terms of wastewater
discharge?
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, what we addressed was whether the
river has been restored to pre-spill conditions. However, the
Animas River Stakeholders Group and the State of Colorado had
long recognized that there was a whole load of contaminants
going into the river and that is the reason I was in Silverton
just last week at the request of local communities to examine
the possibility of a long-term solution through a Superfund
potential listing.
Mr. Palmer. But you've approved it for recreational use
again, and based on your analysis of the contaminants in the
river, yet other health agencies have advised people not to
drink the water and not to basically come in contact with the
soil. That seems to me to be inconsistent with a water source
being ready for recreational use.
Here's the problem I've got with this, and I--you know, the
EPA plays an important role, and I've been a vocal critic of
the EPA. My problem with this is, there appears to be a double
standard. It's been mentioned several times here. If this had
been a private company, I don't think the EPA would share the
same optimism if this had been a private company. I don't think
the EPA would have handled them the same way that the EPA has
handled itself in regard to Mr. Johnson's video and the obvious
alterations to the video. I think it's problematic that the EPA
is not doing the due diligence and investigating this and
handling this the way they would if it were a private company.
I mean, Mr. Babin mentioned a rancher in Texas. There's a guy I
think in Wyoming who built a pond and they're fining him, what,
$35,000, $37,000 a day. I just don't see--I see a real problem
here with the way the EPA handles this and everything's fine,
look the other way, there's nothing going on here, but you
wouldn't do the same thing if it were a private company. You
would destroy the company.
Hon. Stanislaus. Well, all I can say is that from a
transparency, taking responsibility for the spill, we've done
it, and you know, EPA is involved in thousands of contaminated
sites around the country. I take that responsibility very
seriously. I want to make sure--because communities and states
ask us to be involved because of the public health and
environmental dimension of that problem. I want to make sure
that work is done because ultimately I think we all want to
address the conditions that resulted in locals asking us to
provide assistance. So I am committed to learning the lessons
from this site as well as others.
Mr. Palmer. That is what we all want. That's what we want
for Durango. That's what we want for the Navajo Nation. That's
what we want in every community in the country, ever
municipality that is under an enormous burden imposed by the
EPA, and it appears to me, Mr. Chairman, that there is a double
standard.
I've gone over my time. I yield the balance. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Palmer.
And the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Bridenstine.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Benn, the EPA triggered a spill that has done damage to
the Navajo Nation. They then took the lead in the aftermath of
the spill and now they are investigating themselves. This seems
like a clear conflict of interest. Does this concern you?
Hon. Benn. Yes, it is a clear conflict of interest, and we
have approached officials about trying to figure out if we can
actually have somebody appointed other than the EPA to do the
investigation.
Mr. Bridenstine. Do you believe that the EPA will hold
itself accountable? Earlier we saw a video from Representative
Bill Johnson from Ohio, he had a video, and it indicated that
maybe the EPA might not be totally forthright about how they're
presenting themselves in this matter. I mean, is this of
concern that maybe the damages might not all be prevalent
because they're investigating themselves?
Hon. Benn. Well, just to be clear about how they
communicated information to us form the beginning, it wasn't
until 24 hours later that they let us know what happened, and
at the same time, when they did let us know, it wasn't really
them that told us about what happened. It was actually the
State of New Mexico that approached us and told us about all
this information.
Mr. Bridenstine. It appears Cynthia Kaufman, Colorado's
Attorney General, called for a non-federal independent review
of this matter. Is that correct? Are you aware of that?
Hon. Benn. No, I'm not aware of that.
Mr. Bridenstine. Well, that indicates that that's her
intention. In your testimony, you state that the EPA region 9
tour guide was with you on your site visit. Is that correct?
Hon. Benn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridenstine. You further stated that it appeared during
your visit to the mine site that it was the first time an EPA
region 9 official had visited the location. Is that to your
recollection?
Hon. Benn. Yes. When we were--we were actually one of the
first ones up there. There wasn't too many other jurisdictions
that had access to it. We kind of, you know, bogarted our way
up there, and because EPA told us that water was clear.
Mr. Bridenstine. Right.
Hon. Benn. And we wanted to make sure, and when we got up
there, obviously it wasn't.
Mr. Bridenstine. Well, that was my next question here. You
noted that yellow water was still exiting the mine at the time
of your visit. Can you tell us a little bit more about what you
saw in regards to the water still exiting the mine?
Hon. Benn. It was still mustard orange, and we did see
where they had put in the ponds, and then we saw how they were
treating it with sodium hydroxide and a fluctuant actually that
captures the metals, and we saw that on the day that we were up
there.
Mr. Bridenstine. And this was all coming from the mine at
the time?
Hon. Benn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridenstine. This is a question for my good friend from
New Mexico, Steve Pearce. He says that in New Mexico, about 60
percent of the total surface water is in this watershed. The
Navajo Nation is at ground zero as well.
Mr. Stanislaus, is the problem going to be cleaned up in
New Mexico? Is it now? It is going to be cleaned up?
Hon. Stanislaus. Yeah, so we have worked with the State of
New Mexico and other States and the Navajo Nation. So we
provided data, and we've concluded the data has shown that it's
been restored to pre-incident conditions. But there is a long-
term solution. There's lots of discussions by stakeholder
groups about potential of Superfund and other vehicles. So as I
identified in my opening statement, there is a load from mine,
a lot of mines, about 330 million gallons per year, and the
Animas River Stakeholders Group identified that concern as well
as the State of Colorado as something--as there is a need for a
long-term solution.
Mr. Bridenstine. So can my friend, Steve Pearce from New
Mexico, go home and tell his constituents that the drinking
water is safe? Can he do that in good conscience right now?
Hon. Stanislaus. Yes. I mean, what we've communicated with
the State of Colorado--I'm sorry--the State of New Mexico is
that the water has returned to pre-incident conditions.
Mr. Bridenstine. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Bridenstine.
We have no other Members with questions so let me thank all
of our expert witnesses today for their testimony. This has
been a very informative hearing, and I think you've heard from
Members on both sides of the aisle their keen interest in the
EPA cleaning up the problem, making sure that it doesn't happen
again, and looking forward to the conclusion of the
investigation because we do want someone to be held
accountable, and we want the EPA to take responsibility.
Thank you all, and we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Additional Material for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]