U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

97–755PDF 2017

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 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 
(III) 

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 

(1) 

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. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

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 al-
7 

most 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 
8 

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-toocommon 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. 
9 

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 largescale 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. 
10 

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 
11 

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 
12 

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:] 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 

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 
29 

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:] 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 

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. 
37 

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:] 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 

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, 
57 

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:] 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 

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 
81 

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 metalcontaining 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:] 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 

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 
87 

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 
88 

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 plugin 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 caveins 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. 
89 

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-aMole. 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 
90 

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? 
91 

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 Protec-
92 

tion 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 
93 

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? 
94 

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 work-
95 

ing 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 dis-
96 

trict. 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 
97 

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] 
98 
99 

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? 
100 

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 heavymetal-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 
101 

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? 
102 

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? 
103 

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? 
104 

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. 
105 

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 
106 

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. 
107 

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. 
108 

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. 
109 

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? 
110 

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? 
111 

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. 
112 

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 treat-
113 

ing 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.] 

(115) 

Appendix I 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
116 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH

Task Order 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 

Action Work Plan 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 

Internal EPA Summary Report 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 

Redacted EPA Email 
141 
142 
143 

Work Schedule 
144 
145 

Operational Plan 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 

Gold King Mine - Watershed Fact Sheet 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 

SLIDE SUBMITTED BY RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Æ