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

97–235 PDF 2016

ABANDONED MINES IN THE UNITED STATES AND 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR GOOD SAMARITAN 

CLEANUPS 

(114–29) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 21, 2015 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

CARLOS CURBELO, Florida 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

TESTIMONY 

PANEL 1 

Hon. Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ........................ 5 

PANEL 2 

Eric E. Cavazza, P.E., Director, Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation, 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, on behalf of the 

Interstate Mining Compact Commission and the National Association of 

Abandoned Mine Land Programs ....................................................................... 34 

Luke Russell, Vice President of External Affairs, Hecla Mining Company, 

on behalf of the National Mining Association .................................................... 34 

Doug Young, Senior Policy Director, Keystone Policy Center .............................. 34 

Chris Wood, President and CEO, Trout Unlimited .............................................. 34 

Lauren Pagel, Policy Director, Earthworks ........................................................... 34 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Mathy Stanislaus ............................................................................................ 55 

Eric E. Cavazza, P.E. .............................................................................................. 60 

Luke Russell ............................................................................................................. 80 

Doug Young .............................................................................................................. 89 

Chris Wood ............................................................................................................... 99 

Lauren Pagel ............................................................................................................ 111 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Bob Gibbs, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, request 

to submit the following: 

Letter of October 20, 2015, from Matt Mead, Governor, State of Wyoming 

and Chairman, Western Governors’ Association, and Steve Bullock, 

Governor, State of Montana and Vice Chair, Western Governors’ Association, to Hon. Bill Shuster, Chairman, and Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ...... 115 

Joint comments of R. John Dawes, Executive Director, Foundation for 

Pennsylvania Watersheds, and Branden S. Diehl, CEO, Earth Wise 

Consulting, on behalf of Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds ......... 119 

Hon. Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, post-hearing 

responses to requests for information from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Bob Gibbs of Ohio asked how many mines the EPA is currently 

investigating .................................................................................................. 8 

Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas requested the cost of abandoned 

mine cleanup ................................................................................................. 18 

Hon. Cresent Hardy of Nevada asked how many contaminated sites there 

are in Nevada ................................................................................................ 19 

Hon. Bob Gibbs of Ohio asked if the EPA has mining engineers on 

staff ................................................................................................................ 20 

Hon. Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona requested information on Superfund 

National Priorities List sites that are construction complete ................... 22 

Page

VI 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Statement of John Gioia, Chair of the Board of Supervisors and the Contra 

Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Contra Costa 

County, California ................................................................................................ 138 

Statement of Laura Skaer, Executive Director, American Exploration and 

Mining Association ............................................................................................... 150 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 97235.001
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 97235.002
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 97235.003
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 97235.004
xi 


Insert offset folio 5 here 97235.005
xii 


Insert offset folio 6 here 97235.006
(1) 

ABANDONED MINES IN THE UNITED STATES 

AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR GOOD SAMARITAN CLEANUPS 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m. in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Gibbs (Chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GIBBS. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, a subcommittee of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, will come to order. A couple pieces of housekeeping. 

First, I ask unanimous consent that the hearing record be kept 

open for 30 days after this hearing in order to accept written testimony for the hearing record. If there is any objection? 

[No response.] 

Mr. GIBBS. Without objection, so ordered. 

I will also ask unanimous consent that written testimony submitted on behalf of the following parties be included in this hearing’s record: James Ogsbury, the executive director of the Western 

Governors’ Association; and John Dawes, the executive director of 

the Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds. 

[No response.] 

Mr. GIBBS. Without objection, so ordered. 

I would like to welcome everybody. We are going to have two 

panels, and our hearing today is about abandoned mines and the 

opportunities for Good Samaritan cleanups. 

Past mining activities, far removed from the sophisticated mining practices we see today, disturbed hundreds of thousands of 

acres of land, altered drainage patterns, and generated substantial 

amounts of waste scattered around the Nation. Today it is estimated there are as many as 500,000 of these old abandoned mine 

sites in the United States. Many of these mines were abandoned 

by the owners or operators a long time ago, once the remaining 

minerals became too difficult or costly to extract. 

Although operated consistent with the laws at the time, many— 

but not all—of these abandoned mines now pose environmental and 

health threats to surrounding surface and groundwaters, nearby 

lands, and downstream communities. It is estimated that tens of 

thousands of miles of streams across the Nation are polluted by 

2 

acid mine drainage and toxic loading of heavy metals leaching from 

many of these old mines, impacting fisheries and water supplies. 

State and Federal agencies have worked to remedy these problems, as have local governments and nongovernmental organizations, but the number of these sites and the expense involved has 

made progress very slow. Some of these old mines lack a viable 

owner or operator with the resources to remediate them. Many others are truly abandoned, with no identifiable owner or operator to 

hold responsible. As a result, few of these old mine sites are getting 

cleaned up. 

Public or private volunteers, otherwise known as Good Samaritans, are willing to carry out a partial or complete remediation at 

some of these sites. These Good Samaritans may be driven by a desire to improve the environment. Others may want to improve 

water quality at their water supply source. Still others may want 

to clean up an old mine site for the purpose of remining the area. 

However, most Good Samaritans have been deterred from carrying out these projects by the risk of becoming liable for complete 

cleanup required by various environmental laws. This is because 

Federal laws do not always allow for partial cleanups. For example, 

if a Good Samaritan steps in to partially clean up an abandoned 

mine site, the party could become liable under the Clean Water Act 

or Superfund for a greater level of cleanup and higher costs than 

the party initially volunteered for. 

In the end, most potential Good Samaritans refrain from attempting to address a site’s pollution problems at all because they 

could face the legal consequences if they fall short of complete 

cleanup. 

While Superfund and the Clean Water Act have been successful 

in reducing pollution from commercial and industrial locations, 

these laws have also had the unforeseen consequence of deterring 

cleanup at the abandoned mine sites. In other words, laws that 

were designed to protect the environment may now be inadvertently harming or discouraging the cleanup of the environment. Our 

laws should encourage, rather than discourage, parties to volunteer 

themselves to clean up abandoned mine sites. 

We should consider whether, in some circumstances, environmental standards should be made more flexible in order to achieve 

at least a partial cleanup of these sites that otherwise would remain polluted. This is not about letting polluters off the hook. 

Those who pollute will remain legally responsible for the pollution 

they caused. 

I believe there is little disagreement that encouraging volunteers 

to clean up abandoned mine sites is a worthwhile policy, since 

some improvement is better than no improvement. However, in exploring the details of such a policy, a number of issues arise, such 

as who should be eligible, how should new standards be applied, 

and how should potential remining of these sites be addressed. 

To help us identify and address these and other issues, we have 

a panel of witnesses that have been actively involved in the debate 

over how to address the abandoned mines problem in this country. 

I hope our witnesses will bring forward ideas on how we can remove the impediments to abandoned mine cleanups and get more 

Good Samaritans to step forward. 

3 

At this time I recognize Ranking Member Napolitano from California. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to 

the panelists and the people who are here to listen to this very important issue. 

There are numerous lessons that have been learned from the 

event that occurred in southwest Colorado. First and foremost is 

that, even in the absence of dramatic spills like that one at the 

Gold King Mine, abandoned mines across the United States have 

a significant negative impact on regional water quality and are a 

major source of water pollution to America’s waters. 

As an example, prior to the spill in Colorado, Gold King Mine 

discharged pollutant-laden water at the rate of 200 gallons per 

minute. Moreover, mines in the Animas River watershed have been 

polluting the Animas River at the rate of approximately 330 million gallons of acid mine drainage a year. These ongoing discharges 

disastrously affect plant and animal life in the Upper Animas 

Basin. So much so that the basin’s river and streams were almost 

entirely—almost devoid of fish, even before the spill. This is a problem too big to ignore, not only here in the gold mine area, but also 

in other parts of the country. 

Most importantly, the spill reminded us of the scope of the problem that isn’t unique to the Animas watershed. Abandoned mines 

are currently polluting rivers and streams across the country. By 

current estimates, approximately 500,000 abandoned hardrock 

mines are located throughout the United States. Sadly, the exact 

number and location of abandoned mine sites throughout the country is unknown. 

Let me repeat that: We do not know how many of these mines 

exist, or where they are. And I am asking that possibly we ask 

NACo [National Association of Counties], the BLM [Bureau of Land 

Management], and the Forest Service to do an assessment—and especially the Conference of Mayors and the National Governors Association—to be able to report to us when, where, and how they 

are, so we can begin to at least understand where are the priorities 

that we may face in the future for some of these spills. It is a real 

disaster. 

And also, one of the factors we sometimes leave out is the American tribes and their lands, who are particularly vulnerable to this 

pollution. According to the United States Geological Survey, more 

than 40 percent of the watersheds in or west of the Rocky Mountains have streams in which impacts of mining represent a potential threat to human or ecosystem health. These mines and mines 

across the country carry a variety of pollutants, including zinc, cadmium, silver, copper, lead, and arsenic. When these mines inevitably leak, these heavy metals and pollutants travel into the nearby rivers and streams with disastrous water quality consequences. 

Furthermore, the cost of cleaning up the sites is enormous. Nongovernmental organizations, such as Earthworks, have estimated 

that it would cost anywhere from $32 billion to $72 billion to reclaim abandoned hardrock mines located throughout the U.S. The 

size and scope of the problem posed by these mines, these abandoned mines, and the resources necessary to address it call for action. 

4 

H.R. 963, the Hardrock Mining Reform and Reclamation Act of 

2015, introduced by my boss on the left, Ranking Member DeFazio, 

and the ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources, 

Representative Rau ́l Grijalva, is a step towards the right direction. 

I cosponsored the legislation because it recognizes that Good Samaritan legislation alone will not solve the problem. Without a 

dedicated fund to address abandoned hardrock mine sites, these 

mines will continue to pollute America’s rivers and streams. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and look forward to the witnesses. 

Yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. At this time, since the ranking member of the committee, the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

Mr. DeFazio, is here, I open the floor for any remarks he would like 

to make. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I wish 

I could stay for the entire hearing and pose some questions. I have 

worked on this issue for many years. I have an abandoned mine 

in my district, Formosa Mine, which I have visited, which is producing 10 million gallons a year of acid drainage, and it has destroyed prime salmon habitat and has caused other downstream 

problems. It is yet another foreign bankrupt company with inadequate bonding. And, you know, the EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] is looking at a cleanup. But again, we are depending upon the taxpayers. 

I think Good Samaritans can play a role. And, in fact, in the 

comprehensive mining reform bill which I filed as ranking member 

on the Committee on Natural Resources, I did include provisions 

for Good Samaritans to incorporate them. But the problem is much 

bigger than Good Samaritans could ever accomplish. As Mrs. 

Napolitano noted, we don’t really even have, you know, a good listing of what the magnitude of the problem is. Many tens of billions 

of dollars for cleanup. 

So, we need a source of funds. Otherwise, you know, these cleanups aren’t going to happen. And my comprehensive bill would—although it is not the jurisdiction of this committee, it would establish a royalty on hardrock mining which will be dedicated to cleanup. 

Now, everybody else in the world charges royalties. States charge 

royalties, Native American tribes charge royalties, private landowners charge royalties, foreign governments charge royalties. 

Only the United States of America, where we are going to run the 

Government like a business, do we not charge royalties. Oh, but 

those companies pay taxes. Yeah. 

You know, it is time to get real about the magnitude of this problem. And that would be one way to approach it—would be to have 

the royalty applied to dealing with it—and it would still take 

many, many, many years to do these cleanups. 

Secondly, I would give authority—again, under this bill, not 

under the jurisdiction of this committee—to Federal agencies to set 

aside particularly sensitive areas which, right now, under the 1872 

mining law, they can’t do. 

So that, and then, as I mentioned earlier, I have the Good Samaritan provisions. So I am very supportive of doing what we can 

5 

to encourage Good Samaritan work, but the magnitude of the problem far exceeds what they are going to do. 

I understand also that the industry is going to propose remining 

dealing with tailings and that, and that can be appropriate in some 

instances. But some obligation should also come along with that activity, you know, and that would be something to be further discussed, if that were to be included in legislation. 

So, I really appreciate the chairman’s attention to this issue. It 

is, as he knows, a really big deal in the Western United States. 

And I am sure there are sites affected in the East, too. But in the 

West it is a really big deal. So thank you for holding this hearing. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Our first panel, we have the Honorable 

Mathy Stanislaus. He is the Assistant Administrator for the Office 

of Solid Waste and Emergency Response at the U.S. EPA here in 

Washington. Welcome, Mr. Stanislaus, and the floor is yours. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. MATHY STANISLAUS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member 

Napolitano and DeFazio. I am Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 

Former and abandoned mine sites can pose public safety and environmental hazards. These sites are located primarily in the Western States, but not limited to the Western States. They are among 

the largest sources of pollution degrading water quality in the 

United States. Acid mine drainage from these mines has polluted 

thousands of miles of streams and rivers as well as groundwater, 

posing risk to human health, wildlife, and the environment. 

This polluted drainage can also affect local communities and 

local economies by threatening drinking water and agricultural 

water supplies, and limiting recreational use of water resources. 

EPA addresses a small subset of these sites. We currently have 

about 137 sites that we are currently addressing from a long-term 

cleanup perspective through the Superfund cleanup program. The 

abandoned mine sites being addressed through EPA’s Superfund 

program again represent a small fraction of the estimated number 

of former abandoned mines found throughout the country. 

From fiscal years 2010 through fiscal year 2014 EPA has ex- pended $1 billion for cleanup at these sites. Of this amount, close 

to $600 million has come from taxpayer resources through the appropriations process, as well as about $470 million coming from responsible parties. 

Although the estimates vary, there are likely hundreds of thousands of former abandoned hardrock mines through the United 

States. In 2011 the U.S. Government Accountability Office testimony reported there were at least 161,000 abandoned hardrock 

mine sites in the 12 Western States and Alaska, and at least 

33,000 of these sites had degraded the environment by contaminating surface water, groundwater, or leaving arsenic-contaminated tailings piles. In Colorado alone the State has identified approximately 23,000 former mines. 

Former and abandoned mine lands exist across private, mixed, 

Federal, and State lands. This mixture of land ownership adds to 

6 

the complexity of this issue. Federal programs that address former 

and abandoned mines are spread among a variety of Federal agencies with no one agency having overall statutory responsibility. 

Principally, five Federal agencies, including EPA, provide Federal 

funding for the cleanup of some of these hardrock mining sites. 

As to abandoned hardrock mining sites and Good Samaritan 

issues, over the years EPA has heard from stakeholders about liability concerns, principally under the Clean Water Act and the 

Superfund, or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, that could deter voluntary efforts. To 

address these concerns, in 2007 EPA issued an administrative tool 

to provide strong protections for Good Samaritans regarding potential Superfund liability. 

The Agency’s interim guidance and the model Good Samaritan 

Agreement and comfort/status letter can be used to provide greater 

legal certainty for volunteers to move forward to provide adequate 

measures to the Agency that a cleanup will be performed properly. 

These tools were intended to address the cleanup of relatively 

small projects by Good Samaritans at orphan mine sites to accelerate partial or complete cleanup of, again, relatively small projects 

to result in very good environmental improvements. 

Further, in 2012, EPA issued a memo to provide clarification 

that, in general, Good Samaritans would not be the entity responsible under the Clean Water Act to obtain a discharge permit after 

the completion of the cleanup work under a CERCLA [Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act] 

cleanup plan developed pursuant to an administrative settlement 

agreement. Thus, these administrative tools address many of the 

Good Samaritan issues raised to EPA by stakeholders over the 

years. 

In closing, there are, again, hundreds of thousands of former and 

abandoned hardrock mine sites located throughout the country, 

posing environmental hazards, and among the largest sources of 

pollution degrading water quality, particularly in the Western 

United States. The scope of the problem cannot be addressed solely 

by current Federal or State cleanup programs. Much more must be 

done to address the risk posed by former and abandoned hardrock 

mines. Encouraging Good Samaritan cleanups is just one of the 

many tools needed to address the complex and costly problems 

posed by polluting former and abandoned hardrock mines. 

Other tools, including additional resources for cleanup of these 

sites within the EPA’s jurisdiction and financial assurance by mining companies to make sure that adequate financial resources are 

there when a mining site gets abandoned, could be addressed. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, and I will start off some questions. 

You are talking about the EPA’s administrative tools. I guess my 

first question is how effectively they have worked. I think the last 

one was put out in 2012. And it is my understanding is that, under 

the Good Samaritan kind of program through these administrative 

tools, there has only been—only one mine has been taken up, is 

that correct—since 2012 under Good Samaritan, only one mine? 

7 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I believe that is correct, one mine has been addressed. And there have been a number of other mines that various 

entities have approached EPA. 

Mr. GIBBS. So would you concur that the changes that EPA made 

in 2012 are taking effect, are working, or have they had a negligible effect? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, what we believe is that it addresses the 

issues of liability on a Superfund for being a responsible party, as 

well as responsibility for the discharged post the cleanup. And 

those are the big issues that have been raised—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, then how come there aren’t more Good Samaritans? I know on our second panel coming up, when we are through 

with this panel, in their testimony they are saying that there are 

lots of Good Samaritans out there, including a couple of people that 

are representing entities that are going to testify in the next panel. 

They say that they have had to back away because the tools aren’t 

there giving liability protection—not the conflict in the law, you 

know, because you just said in the 2012 administrative rule you 

wouldn’t have to get NPDES [National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System] permits under section 402. But apparently, it is not 

working if there has only been one taker. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. I really don’t have any information as to 

what are the factors regarding whether there are a large number 

of Good Samaritans, and what are the factors they have decided to 

pursue or not pursue. 

What we believe we have done is we have addressed the liability 

concerns from the Superfund and Clean Water Act perspective, and 

we are open to further refinement. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Back in 2006 the EPA proposed legislation that 

would provide liability protections for Good Samaritans. Does EPA 

still support that proposal? If not, why not? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, you know, since that time we have, in 

fact, clarified the liability on Superfund and on the Clean Water 

Act. So I believe that we have addressed the concerns. 

Again, we continue to want to—if the chairman—— 

Mr. GIBBS. I think it still goes back to the fact that we just don’t 

have entities taking up the initiative to go and work on these 

cleanups, and that is evidenced by the testimony in our next panel. 

So I guess my message to you, as the EPA Assistant Administrator 

on this, is that those administrative tools, even though they were 

well intentioned, are not working, because we still have this issue 

of all these abandoned mines. 

Now, do you concur that there are over half-a-million abandoned 

mines in this country? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. Actually, the only specific number I have 

in front of me is the GAO [Government Accountability Office] 

study. Your number of 500,000 is probably in the ballpark, so—yes. 

Mr. GIBBS. I am curious how many mines is the EPA investigating right now? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, investigating, I don’t have the—we have 

137 where EPA is involved in long-term cleanup. 

Mr. GIBBS. Are these primarily hardrock mines, or are they 

gold—what kind of mines are they? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I believe the 137 are hardrock mines—— 

8 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I can clarify that. In terms of other mines that 

we are investigating, I don’t have that information in front of me, 

but I can get it to you. 

[The information follows:] 

Attached is a list of 139 mining related NPL sites in response to a request 

from Chairman Gibbs. Mr. Stanislaus referenced 137 sites, but this list now 

includes the recently NPL proposed sites Bonita Peak and Argonaut mines. 

The table provides information about mining and mineral processing sites 

proposed for, listed on, and deleted from the National Priorities List (NPL) 

as well as mining sites being cleaned up using the Superfund Alternative 

Approach (SAA). The table includes NPL status (i.e., proposed [P], final [F], 

deleted [D], or not on the NPL [N]). For those sites that have reached the 

construction complete stage, the date when they reached the CC status is 

provided. 

Mining and Mineral Processing National Priorities List Sites as of 

April 21, 2016 

Region EPA Id Site Name 

NPL 

Status 

Code 

Superfund 

Alternative 

Agreement 

Flag 

CC Date 

01 MED980524128 CALLAHAN MINING CORP F N 

01 VTD988366621 ELIZABETH MINE F N 

01 VTD988366571 ELY COPPER MINE F N 

01 VTD988366720 PIKE HILL COPPER MINE F N 

02 NJD980785646 GLEN RIDGE RADIUM SITE D N 9/15/2005 

02 NYD986882660 LI TUNGSTEN CORP. F N 9/25/2008 

02 NJD980529762 MAYWOOD CHEMICAL CO. F N 

02 NJD980785653 MONTCLAIR/WEST ORANGE RADIUM 

SITE 

D N 9/15/2005 

02 NJD002365930 SHIELDALLOY CORP. F N 

02 NJD980654172 U.S. RADIUM CORP. F N 9/28/2006 

02 NJ1891837980 W.R. GRACE & CO., INC./WAYNE INTERIM STORAGE SITE (USDOE) D N 9/16/2003 

03 PAD000436436 AMBLER ASBESTOS PILES D N 8/30/1993 

03 PAD987341716 AUSTIN AVENUE RADIATION SITE D N 9/27/1999 

03 PAD077087989 FOOTE MINERAL CO. F N 10/28/2010 

03 PASFN0305549 FRANKLIN SLAG PILE (MDC) F N 

03 PAD980829493 JACKS CREEK/SITKIN SMELTING & 

REFINING, INC. 

F N 12/23/2004 

03 PAD002395887 PALMERTON ZINC PILE F N 

03 VAD980705404 U.S. TITANIUM F N 8/25/1997 

04 SCN000407714 BARITE HILL/NEVADA GOLDFIELDS F N 

04 SCD987577913 BREWER GOLD MINE F N 

9 

Mining and Mineral Processing National Priorities List Sites as of 

April 21, 2016—Continued 

Region EPA Id Site Name 

NPL 

Status 

Code 

Superfund 

Alternative 

Agreement 

Flag 

CC Date 

04 TND987768546 CHEMET CO. D N 5/15/1996 

04 TN0001890839 COPPER BASIN MINING DISTRICT N Y 

04 SCN000407376 HENRY’S KNOB S Y 

04 SCD003360476 MACALLOY CORPORATION F N 9/26/2006 

04 KYD049062375 NATIONAL SOUTHWIRE ALUMINUM 

CO. 

D N 9/24/2008 

04 NCN000409895 ORE KNOB MINE F N 

04 FLD010596013 STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO. (TARPON 

SPRINGS) 

F N 

05 ILSFN0508010 ALCOA PROPERTIES N Y 

05 ILN000508170 ASARCO TAYLOR SPRINGS F N 

05 ILN000510407 BAUTSCH-GRAY MINE F N 

05 ILD050231976 CIRCLE SMELTING CORP. P N 

05 ILD062340641 DEPUE/NEW JERSEY ZINC/MOBIL 

CHEMICAL CORP. 

F N 

05 ILD980606941 EAGLE ZINC CO DIV T L DIAMOND F N 

05 ILN000508134 HEGELER ZINC F N 

05 IL0000064782 MATTHIESSEN AND HEGELER ZINC 

COMPANY 

F N 

05 IL0000034355 OLD AMERICAN ZINC PLANT F Y 

05 OHD004379970 ORMET CORP. F N 8/4/1998 

05 ILD053980454 SANDOVAL ZINC COMPANY F N 

05 MID980901946 TORCH LAKE F N 9/23/2005 

05 IND047030226 U.S. SMELTER AND LEAD REFINERY, 

INC. 

F N 

06 NMD002899094 CHEVRON QUESTA MINE F N 

06 NMD980749378 CIMARRON MINING CORP. F N 9/24/1992 

06 NMD981155930 CLEVELAND MILL D N 9/23/1999 

06 NMD007860935 HOMESTAKE MINING CO. F N 9/20/1996 

06 NMN000607033 JACKPILE-PAGUATE URANIUM MINE F N 

06 OKD000829440 NATIONAL ZINC CORP. P N 

06 OKD980629844 TAR CREEK (OTTAWA COUNTY) F N 

06 TXD062113329 TEX-TIN CORP. F N 9/20/2004 

10 

Mining and Mineral Processing National Priorities List Sites as of 

April 21, 2016—Continued 

Region EPA Id Site Name 

NPL 

Status 

Code 

Superfund 

Alternative 

Agreement 

Flag 

CC Date 

06 OKD987096195 TULSA FUEL AND MANUFACTURING F N 

06 NMD030443303 UNITED NUCLEAR CORP. F N 9/29/1998 

07 MO0000958611 ANNAPOLIS LEAD MINE F N 9/25/2007 

07 MOD981126899 BIG RIVER MINE TAILINGS/ST. JOE 

MINERALS CORP. 

F N 

07 KSD980741862 CHEROKEE COUNTY F N 

07 KSN000705026 FORMER UNITED ZINC & ASSOCIATED SMELTERS F N 

07 MOD098633415 MADISON COUNTY MINES F N 

07 MOD981507585 NEWTON COUNTY MINE TAILINGS F N 

07 NESFN0703481 OMAHA LEAD F N 

07 MOD980686281 ORONOGO-DUENWEG MINING BELT F N 

07 MON000705443 SOUTHWEST JEFFERSON COUNTY 

MINING 

F N 

07 MON000705842 WASHINGTON COUNTY LEAD DISTRICT - FURNACE CREEK F N 

07 MON000705027 WASHINGTON COUNTY LEAD DISTRICT - OLD MINES F N 

07 MON000705023 WASHINGTON COUNTY LEAD DISTRICT - POTOSI F N 

07 MON000705032 WASHINGTON COUNTY LEAD DISTRICT - RICHWOODS F N 

08 MTD093291599 ACM SMELTER AND REFINERY F N 

08 MTD057561763 ANACONDA ALUMINUM CO COLUMBIA FALLS REDUCTION PLANT P N 

08 MTD093291656 ANACONDA CO. SMELTER F N 

08 MT6122307485 BARKER HUGHESVILLE MINING DISTRICT F N 

08 MTD982572562 BASIN MINING AREA F N 

08 CON000802497 BONITA PEAK MINING DISTRICT P N 

08 COD980717938 CALIFORNIA GULCH F N 

08 COD981551427 CAPTAIN JACK MILL F N 

08 MT0001096353 CARPENTER SNOW CREEK MINING 

DISTRICT 

F N 

08 COD980717557 CENTRAL CITY, CLEAR CREEK F N 

11 

Mining and Mineral Processing National Priorities List Sites as of 

April 21, 2016—Continued 

Region EPA Id Site Name 

NPL 

Status 

Code 

Superfund 

Alternative 

Agreement 

Flag 

CC Date 

08 CON000802700 COLORADO SMELTER F N 

08 UTD988075719 DAVENPORT AND FLAGSTAFF 

SMELTERS 

F N 8/30/2012 

08 COD980716955 DENVER RADIUM SITE F N 9/27/2006 

08 COD081961518 EAGLE MINE F N 9/17/2001 

08 MTD006230346 EAST HELENA SITE F N 

08 UT0002240158 EUREKA MILLS F N 9/21/2011 

08 MT0012694970 FLAT CREEK IMM F N 

08 SDD987673985 GILT EDGE MINE F N 

08 UTD093120921 INTERNATIONAL SMELTING AND REFINING D N 9/27/2007 

08 UT0002391472 JACOBS SMELTER F N 

08 UTD070926811 KENNECOTT (NORTH ZONE) P N 

08 UTD000826404 KENNECOTT (SOUTH ZONE) R Y 

08 MT0009083840 LIBBY ASBESTOS SITE F N 

08 COD042167858 LINCOLN PARK F N 

08 UTD081834277 MIDVALE SLAG D N 9/29/2011 

08 MTD980717565 MILLTOWN RESERVOIR SEDIMENTS F N 

08 UT3890090035 MONTICELLO MILL TAILINGS 

(USDOE) 

F N 9/29/2004 

08 UTD980667208 MONTICELLO RADIOACTIVELY CONTAMINATED PROPERTIES D N 9/2/1999 

08 MTD021997689 MOUAT INDUSTRIES F N 9/27/1996 

08 UTD980951420 MURRAY SMELTER P N 

08 CON000802630 NELSON TUNNEL/COMMODORE 

WASTE ROCK 

F N 

08 UTD980952840 RICHARDSON FLAT TAILINGS P N 

08 UTD980951388 SHARON STEEL CORP. (MIDVALE 

TAILINGS) 

D N 5/12/1999 

08 MTD980502777 SILVER BOW CREEK/BUTTE AREA F N 

08 COD983769738 SMELTERTOWN SITE P N 

08 COD980806277 SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN D N 9/26/1996 

08 CO0002378230 STANDARD MINE F N 

12 

Mining and Mineral Processing National Priorities List Sites as of 

April 21, 2016—Continued 

Region EPA Id Site Name 

NPL 

Status 

Code 

Superfund 

Alternative 

Agreement 

Flag 

CC Date 

08 COD983778432 SUMMITVILLE MINE F N 9/30/2013 

08 MTSFN7578012 UPPER TENMILE CREEK MINING 

AREA 

F N 

08 COD007063274 URAVAN URANIUM PROJECT (UNION 

CARBIDE CORP.) 

F N 9/29/2008 

08 UTN000802704 US MAGNESIUM F N 

08 CO0002259588 VASQUEZ BOULEVARD AND I-70 F N 

08 SDD980717136 WHITEWOOD CREEK D N 9/25/1992 

09 CAD983650011 ARGONAUT MINE P N 

09 AZD008397127 ASARCO HAYDEN PLANT N Y 

09 CAD980496863 ATLAS ASBESTOS MINE F N 9/2/1999 

09 CAN000906063 BLUE LEDGE MINE F N 

09 NVD980813646 CARSON RIVER MERCURY SITE F N 

09 CAD980638860 CELTOR CHEMICAL WORKS D N 9/29/1989 

09 CAD980817217 COALINGA ASBESTOS MINE D N 3/14/1995 

09 AZD094524097 CYPRUS TOHONO MINE N Y 

09 AZ0000309013 IRON KING MINE - HUMBOLDT 

SMELTER 

F N 

09 CAD980498612 IRON MOUNTAIN MINE F N 

09 CA1141190578 KLAU/BUENA VISTA MINE F N 

09 CAD983618893 LAVA CAP MINE F N 

09 CAD980673685 LEVIATHAN MINE F N 

09 CA0001900463 NEW IDRIA MERCURY MINE F N 

09 NV3141190030 RIO TINTO COPPER MINE N Y 

09 CAD980893275 SULPHUR BANK MERCURY MINE F N 

10 WAD009045279 ALCOA (VANCOUVER SMELTER) D N 7/30/1996 

10 OR0000515759 BLACK BUTTE MINE F N 

10 IDD980725832 BLACKBIRD MINE P N 

10 IDD048340921 BUNKER HILL MINING & METALLURGICAL COMPLEX F N 

10 WAD980726368 COMMENCEMENT BAY, NEAR 

SHORE/TIDE FLATS 

F N 

13 

Mining and Mineral Processing National Priorities List Sites as of 

April 21, 2016—Continued 

Region EPA Id Site Name 

NPL 

Status 

Code 

Superfund 

Alternative 

Agreement 

Flag 

CC Date 

10 IDD984666610 EASTERN MICHAUD FLATS CONTAMINATION F N 

10 ORN001002616 FORMOSA MINE F N 

10 OR7122307658 FREMONT NATIONAL FOREST/WHITE 

KING AND LUCKY LASS URANIUM 

MINES (USDA) 

F N 9/28/2006 

10 WAD000065508 KAISER ALUMINUM (MEAD WORKS) F N 

10 ORD052221025 MARTIN-MARIETTA ALUMINUM CO. D N 12/29/1994 

10 WAD980978753 MIDNITE MINE F N 

10 IDD081830994 MONSANTO CHEMICAL CO. (SODA 

SPRINGS PLANT) 

F N 9/20/2000 

10 ORD009412677 REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY F N 9/29/2006 

10 AK0001897602 SALT CHUCK MINE F N 

10 WAD980722789 SILVER MOUNTAIN MINE D N 9/28/1992 

10 IDD980665459 STIBNITE/YELLOW PINE MINING 

AREA 

P N 

10 ORD050955848 TELEDYNE WAH CHANG F N 9/13/2002 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Well, the next round of questions I want to get 

more. I have two goals here today: to figure out what we can do, 

legislatively, to improve the Good Samaritan. You, as the EPA, are 

you agreeable that that is an issue, that we should take a legislative proposal to try to fix some of these problems? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, you know, we will certainly participate 

with you and the committee on any legislative efforts. Frankly, we 

don’t know whether it is a legal gap, or whether it is a perception 

gap that inhibits, or whether there is a cost issue that inhibits 

Good Samaritans working for us. 

Mr. GIBBS. And the second goal I want to get to too is the role 

of the EPA in these abandoned mines. And we will get to the spill 

in August, you know, what is happening there. But at this time I 

am going to turn the line of questions over to Mrs. Napolitano, and 

we will get to that in the next round. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you so very much, sir. 

Mr. Stanislaus, there are three different acts that most mines 

have to be able to help pay for the cleanup: the Oil Pollution Act; 

SMCRA [Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act]; and Superfund. What about hardrock? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, within EPA’s jurisdiction, hardrock mines 

that cause a significant enough risk to rivers and to public 

health—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And? 

14 

Mr. STANISLAUS. And then we address them. We have 137 sites 

that we are addressing through the Superfund program and our 

limited resources. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But do the miners of the hardrock pay into 

the fund, or—to be able to clean up like the others? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. That is the taxpayer—that is the normal appropriations process. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. That means the taxpayer. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. That is right. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. In 1972 there was a fee charged per acre. How 

much was that? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. That I would not know. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. $2 per acre. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. OK. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. A concern is, of course, is that some of these 

hardrock mines are creating problems, but—and we have folks that 

agree that there should be a way to be able to hold them accountable to—for the cleanup. So those are questions that I might have. 

Over the years there—the taxpayers have been left to clean up 

the mess. Is this concept similar in approach taken by the administration to propose a fee for hardrock mine operations to address 

this legacy? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, the administration has, in fact, proposed a 

fee to pay for the cleanup of these hardrock mines. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. What is that fee being proposed? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I am sorry, when or—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How, how much? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Oh. That is brought by the Department of the 

Interior, and I don’t know the specifics of that—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Oh, OK, that is fine. Would Good Samaritan 

legislation be more impactful if it appeared with increased funding? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, I think that the comprehensive solution to 

the hundreds of thousands of sites requires a comprehensive solution. So EPA has a sliver through additional Superfund resources. 

Other Federal agencies have responsibility, as well. Clearly, a dedicated pot of money to deal with the cleanup of that—and Good Samaritan does play a role, but it is only one of the many tools that 

are necessary to deal with the comprehensive problem. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, earlier this year the administration proposed to create the Abandoned Mine Lands program, the AML, 

through a new fee. How important is this, creation of this, to help 

clean up? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, clearly, the administration put forward 

that because there is a significant gap. We have hundreds of thousands of sites—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. What are they basing it on? Because if there 

is—if they are finding out this is a need, what are they basing this 

need on? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Again, that specific information is probably best 

answered by Department of the Interior, how they calculated that, 

so—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, then, what are some of the tools that 

EPA has at its disposal to address these abandoned mines? 

15 

Mr. STANISLAUS. The tools that EPA has, again, it is a small subset, where it is high enough risk where it comes to our attention, 

we do investigation and then we develop a cleanup plan to clean 

up—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But only if it comes to your attention. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. That is right. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You don’t have something that outlines the 

priorities these mines might have. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. No. We don’t have a mine program, per se. It 

is abandoned mines, among other kinds of contaminated sites 

where—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Does the Conference of Mayors and National 

Governors Association ever relate to EPA any of their needs of 

prioritizing, and is part of that 137 that you are talking about included? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I have not had any exchange with the Governors or the mayors association regarding this topic, so—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, maybe we should start looking at that, 

because they are the ones who are going to have to be impacted 

by their pollution, or by their emergency—ability to clean it up. 

What steps has EPA taken under the existing regulatory framework to encourage more Good Samaritans to restore watersheds? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, again, going back to the issues that Good 

Samaritans have identified—that is the potential liability concerns—we have clarified that if a Good Samaritan goes in and does 

a cleanup, they would not be held liable under the Superfund program, and then, once they are done with the cleanup, they would 

not have to get a discharge permit under the Clean Water Act. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, does the use of the Superfund on abandoned mines impact your ability to remediate other nonmining 

toxic sites? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, clearly, we have a limited set of resources. 

Every year we have a backlog of sites. So, I mean—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So you do not have enough budget to be able 

to carry out the needs. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. The need is greater than the amount of resources that we have in the Superfund program. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would then the inventory of these abandoned 

mines throughout the Nation—not just on Federal lands—including 

Native American lands, help the resource for—be a helpful resource? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. I mean it could be that there are other 

agencies probably in a better position for that. We do have an inventory of the highest risk Superfund sites. But, again, our role on 

mining sites is relatively small in those circumstances. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be able to have 

a list of those mines that are in the 137 list that you have, so we 

can help identify and maybe get further information from not only 

the Members of Congress, but also their Governors, to find out how 

they are going to be—should they have—how would I say—an unfortunately catastrophe on their hands. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure, we will get that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And I would like to be able to put in more 

questions later. Thank you, sir. 

16 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Babin? 

Dr. BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Stanislaus, I had 

a couple of questions I wanted to talk to you, ask you about. 

In regards to the big spill into the Animas River, had a privatesector company spilled more than 3 million gallons of pollutants 

into a water body, how would the EPA have responded? 

For instance, in 2014, in the Elk River near Charleston, West 

Virginia, several thousand gallons of chemicals—not 3 million, just 

several thousand gallons—were released. What happened to the 

company that was responsible? What happened to its executives? 

They faced strong enforcement and bankruptcy from the EPA. The 

executives faced criminal charges. How should the EPA be treated, 

in light of the fact that it spilled 400 times as many gallons of pollutants into the water of the Animas River during the Gold King 

Mine disaster? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. So, from a response perspective, the response is 

identical. In terms of responsibility for, and the facts surrounding 

that, we have done an internal review, and we have disclosed that. 

There is an independent review being done by the Department of 

the Interior, and we are going to wait to see the results of that, 

and whether proper procedures were followed or not. 

Dr. BABIN. OK. Well, how will the EPA clean up the Gold Mine 

site? Will it use existing funds from its fiscal year 2015 to 2016 

budgets, or is the taxpayer going to have to foot the bill in the 

President’s fiscal year 2017 budget that will be submitted next February? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, to put it in context, the Animas River and 

the mining complex, there was about 330 million gallons per year 

being released into the Animas River. The whole reason that the 

State of Colorado and stakeholders asked EPA to be involved was 

because of those releases. And we got involved to address the mining complex and the entire State of Colorado, which had the highest risk to river quality, so that is why we were involved, and we 

used Superfund resources to address the request of the State and 

stakeholders. 

Dr. BABIN. OK. Well, you didn’t answer my question about how 

it is going to be paid for. You said Superfund funds, but the—which 

budget is that going to come out of? And will it be new funds from 

the 2017 budget, or is it going to be from the 2015 and 2016 budget? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, the cost incurred to date is based on our 

current budget. Clearly, there are—the stakeholders have asked, 

and we are engaged in the process of whether they should be designated a Superfund site. So we are going through that process 

right now. 

If it were to be designated a Superfund site, we would then pursue responsible parties, if they are around. If they are not around, 

then we would use the Superfund resources that are allocated, appropriated, on a yearly basis. 

Dr. BABIN. So you don’t know just yet. Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. That is right. 

Dr. BABIN. The EPA has admitted it took longer than 24 hours 

to notify parties of a release, and that was the Navajo Tribe—inVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:13 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2015\10-21-~1\97235.TXT JEAN
17 

cluding the Navajo Tribe. What is the law regarding this notification requirement, and why did the EPA not follow the law? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. That is actually not entirely correct. Notification occurred approximately an hour, an hour-and-a-half from the 

incident. We have—— 

Dr. BABIN. You notified the Navajos in an hour-and-a-half? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. No. If I can, notification to the immediate vicinity stakeholders, to the town of the city of Durango, that occurred 

within an hour, an hour-and-a-half. And we acknowledge that Navajo, New Mexico, there was a delayed notification. All notification 

occurred before the plume, before any of those downstream users 

of the river were impacted. 

And actually, the notification occurred to enable pre-impact sampling, so we can compare that with, once the plume impacted those 

areas. 

Dr. BABIN. Well, it is a mystery to me why the Governor of New 

Mexico did not hear about the EPA spill from the EPA and, instead, had to find out from the Navajos. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. 

Dr. BABIN. That the spill had occurred. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, that is a fair criticism. I mean I think 

that, we, working with the States, can do better. I issued a memo 

to really ramp up the broader notification. Incidents like this, 

which is multistate, a larger regional issue, we should do a better 

job. We are in the process of augmenting the notification process, 

which is done jointly with EPA and States. 

Dr. BABIN. OK. While EPA has had years of experience in cleaning up Superfund sites, what expertise does EPA and its remediation contractors have in dealing with abandoned mine sites? Does 

EPA remediation contractors have particular expertise in mining 

engineering and abandoned mine cleanup technologies? And why 

should the EPA be the lead Federal agency in even cleaning up 

mine sites? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, with respect to this particular site and 

other mining sites like this, we bring together, both internally and 

externally, the kind of expertise that deal with the cleanup of abandoned mines. 

Dr. BABIN. Thank you. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. OK. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Ms. Johnson, you are recognized. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In 2011 the 

Government Accountability Office, or the GAO, could not come to 

a definitive estimate on the number of hardrock mines on Federal 

or other lands. How critical is it, having this information, and determining the scope and nature of the abandoned mines across the 

country? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, I mean, I think more information on the 

number of mines is important. But equally, and probably more important, is the subset of mines that have the highest risk to river 

quality. So I would say it is not just a number, but also the data 

behind those mines. 

Ms. JOHNSON. And there are different statutes that are sometimes conflicting as to whose responsibility it is. I know that EPA 

is blamed for everything. But I am trying to determine at what 

18 

point does EPA get the full responsibility after a mine is abandoned? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Again, EPA has an extremely small role in this 

situation. So EPA—again, we are currently involved in 137 sites 

where we are doing long-term cleanup. There is a larger—relatively 

small additional number where we do investigations. 

So, the small subset that have the highest risk, where we get involved—and those—the cleanups are fairly big. I mean there are 

hundreds of millions of dollars of cleanup for those kind of mining 

situations. 

Ms. JOHNSON. What would you estimate the budget needs to be 

to take the responsibility for all the abandoned mines? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. You know, we don’t really have a good estimate 

on that. I had an estimate done by somebody else, and I don’t really have that in front of me. 

Ms. JOHNSON. But I would suspect it would be quite large. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. I can get you that—we have not done an 

estimate. I know there are estimates done by others, and we can 

get that to you. 

[The information follows:] 

Representative Johnson requested cost of mine cleanup—Mr. Stanislaus 

was referring to a GAO study: ABANDONED MINES: Information on the 

Number of Hardrock Mines, Cost of Cleanup, and Value of Financial Assurances, GAO-11-834T: Published: Jul 14, 2011. Publicly Released: Jul 14, 

2011. See: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-834T. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Has the process been updated to determine at 

what point EPA takes on the full responsibility or at what point 

does the private mine lose its responsibility for cleanup? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. So first, you know, EPA generally gets involved 

when a State—typically, in the mining situations, where the State 

asks us to be involved because of the magnitude of the mine and 

the risk. So that is how we typically get involved. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Is it a frequent thing that the private mines— 

owners or supervisors or whatever—go out of business, abandon or 

change their name so that they cannot be held responsible? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. Well, again, let me answer the second part 

of your question first. So, EPA would pursue a viable responsible 

party, if they exist. And our experience is many of these sites don’t 

have a viable responsible party who is there to pay for those resources. And I should note that is one of the reasons we are pursuing a financial assurance rule to partly address that issue. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Hardy? 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I am from 

Mesquite, Nevada, which—Nevada—some would believe that, when 

they think of Nevada, they think of Las Vegas. But its roots are 

really in the field of mining. Literally, thousands of mines were 

opened up in Nevada before it even became a State. It was in a 

territory. So there’s, literally, thousands of open mines out there, 

hardrock mines, small ones and some larger ones. 

With that being said, can you tell me how many contaminated 

sites there are in Nevada? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I can’t tell you, no. 

19 

Mr. HARDY. Could I get that information? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. The information that the EPA has, sure. 

Mr. HARDY. Yes, that is all I am asking. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. 

[The information follows:] 

Representative Hardy requested a list of contaminated sites in Nevada: 

Carson River Mercury Site and Rio Tinto Copper Mine. 

Mr. HARDY. All you have, not anything else. 

You know, Nevada’s nickname was ‘‘The Silver State,’’ so it is a 

big issue in Nevada. It is still one of its better paying job commodities in Nevada. 

A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to sit and question Administrator McCarthy. And I am going to go along the same lines 

of questioning with you that I did with her. And I appreciate that 

you have a chemical engineering mind, so you know the value of 

having that background. Is that correct? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. 

Mr. HARDY. How many archeological—or geological engineers do 

you have? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I don’t know, but I can get that to you. 

Mr. HARDY. How many hydrological? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, similarly, I can give you a breakout of the 

various disciplines that we have—— 

Mr. HARDY. Information we had from that meeting, none. We 

have more on this committee than you have in the EPA. 

And so, with that questioning, I ask myself, you are trying to 

move forward in implementing some kind of cleanup process, words 

of your testimony, the ‘‘effort to reduce risks posed by contaminated 

land.’’ Do you believe that this, what you come up with, is going 

to be one size fits all for every State? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I am sorry, are you referring to the Good Samaritan—— 

Mr. HARDY. Yes. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I think so, because the issues of Superfund liability may arise around the country. So we think the issue of an 

innocent party, a Good Samaritan going in and wanting to go and 

do some really good work, and being protected from Superfund liability while they are doing their work and long-term responsibility, it would apply wherever. 

Mr. HARDY. OK. What—I would like to go a little further with 

this. Is the—it may be—on the protection of legal issues, but without having the expertise to actually develop this through 

hydrological and geological sites, how do you plan on implementing 

that plan? I mean where do you get the expertise from that? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, the goal of the Good Samaritan administrative tools is for an outside entity to develop a plan that we 

would review, and that would be part of the agreement. But I am 

pretty confident that we have the expertise to review those plans. 

Mr. HARDY. OK. I guess one of the reasons I bring this up is I 

am introducing a bill that happens to have—it is H.R. 3734, and 

it has to do with education and mining. Those funds have been cut 

over the last 20 years, and continue to be diverted somewhere 

else—even more than that. We are at a shortage of those type of 

20 

engineers, mining engineers. So I am hoping that my colleagues 

will look at maybe endorsing this bill to help bring some of that 

expertise on that, it helps folks like you better manage your job 

and better fulfill your field in these aspects. 

But along with that being said, my frustration since Nevada has 

become a State, these mines—not only do they have to submit to 

the EPA and the administration, all administrations, the environmental side of issues, of how to open these mines, but they also 

have closure within that process. 

Why are we not—I mean does there seem to be a problem here 

in other States that I am missing? Because Nevada has—you can 

open the mine once you are approved, and you have to meet certain 

closure sites. Some of these came well before it was a State, I understand. But we don’t have a lot of water, so we don’t get a lot 

of water contamination in Nevada with these type of mines. 

But I guess I am just trying to understand why we are not forcing these closures the way they should be—when they submit the 

plan, you should be following through their plan, instead of having 

to redevelop that. And it shouldn’t be—have to have some Superfund, in most cases, other than to protect that somebody doesn’t go 

out of business, and shouldn’t have to be able to protect these folks 

that want to do it as the—on their dollar. I appreciate that. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I think you are exactly right. Ideally, 

when you have a new mine opened up, you do have to have a closure plan, and have adequate financial assurances. And just to underscore, the large, overwhelming majority of these mining sites 

are managed by States. I know you are going to hear from a State 

witness later on. And that is, frankly, where it should be the lead, 

with the Federal Government providing a supplement. 

We are engaged with the States and other stakeholders, whether 

augmentation or financial assurances are necessary, because there 

are gaps between just closure and safe closure. That has arisen, 

and is a reason for our involvement from a Superfund perspective. 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you. I have another question, but my time is 

out. 

Mr. GIBBS. Before I move on to the next question, for a matter 

of clarification for the record, did I hear you say the EPA does not 

have a mining engineer or a hydrologic engineer on staff, but that 

you rely on the private-sector contractors? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. No. I said we have a mixture. We have expertise in-house, engineering, and hydrogeological expertise, and then, 

on a side-by-side basis, we also bring to bear—— 

Mr. GIBBS. So the EPA does have mining engineers on staff? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, we have folks involved experienced in 

mining and cleaning up mining sites. 

Mr. GIBBS. They are not engineers, though. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Mining engineers, I will have to get back to you. 

Mr. GIBBS. I believe you don’t, but—— 

Mr. STANISLAUS. OK. 

[The information follows:] 

Chairman Gibbs’ inquiry regarding EPA mining engineers: EPA Region 8’s 

mining coordinator has a Mining Engineering degree from Colorado School 

of Mines. The EPA On Scene Coordinator (OSC) on-site during the incident 

has a Geological Engineering degree from Colorado School of Mines. AddiVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:13 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2015\10-21-~1\97235.TXT JEAN
21 

tionally, EPA contractors include staff with science and engineering backgrounds, and Region 8 consults with state partners at the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment and Division of Reclamation 

and Mine Safety who have many years of experience in mine site remediation. In conducting mining-related operations, the EPA uses private companies with mining engineers to conduct mine remediation work. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Mrs. Kirkpatrick? 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for having this hearing. As you know, this spill impacted my 

district fairly directly. I represent the Navajo Nation, and also the 

city of Page, which is on Lake Powell. And we were in immediate 

contact with your department, and also with those communities, as 

this unfolded. 

And when I went to the city of Page for a meeting with their 

chamber, with their school superintendent, with community leaders, I learned that there is an overarching plan to do cleanup of 

these mines, but evidently there is a lack of funding. And I have 

since learned that about $300 million has been cut from the EPA’s 

budget, which should be directed toward that cleanup. 

But you mentioned in your answer to my colleague’s line of questioning about a safe closure of a mine. Would you just describe for 

the committee what that entails, and about what the cost would 

be? Because I know there are hundreds, maybe thousands of mines 

along the San Juan River that have not been safely closed. So just 

describe for us what that means, what that entails. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure, I will try to do my best. I may need to 

supplement that after the hearing, but we are looking at the need 

to have more comprehensive financial assurance, because our experience is that the mines that are being closed are being inadequately closed, from an environmental perspective. The most 

acute is acid mine drainage issues, which impact rivers, so that we 

want to make sure, with respect to the rule that we are pursuing, 

that enough financial assurance covers not just base reclamation, 

but comprehensive closure, and also addressing acid mine drainage. 

Does that answer your question? 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Not exactly. I would like to know a little more 

detail about—because my understanding, from talking to people in 

the area, is a lot of these mine shafts from various mines are connected. And so you might be dealing with—and I am just using a 

hypothetical at this point, but 10 to 15 different mining operations 

that are directly connected, in terms of the cleanup. 

I am just trying to get an idea of the impact and the magnitude 

of trying to safely close these mines. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. I may need to get back to you more with 

more comprehensive—— 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. That is fine. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. And you are absolutely right. We need to separate long-term abandoned mines, which are interconnected complexes. So you have to deal with it from a whole-area perspective. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Right. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. So—— 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. And I guess my point is that this is fairly 

complicated. 

22 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. It is not just simply, you know, putting up a 

door on an old abandoned mine shaft, that it is—but let’s visit 

some more about that. 

My other question is have there been closures of abandoned 

mines and cleanups that you consider successful? And, if you can, 

give us an example of that. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. Of the 137 or so—I can get back to you 

with a list, and—— 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. OK. 

Mr. STANISLAUS [continuing]. With the elements of the cleanup. 

[The information follows:] 

Representative Kirkpatrick requested information on Superfund NPL sites 

that are construction complete: These are listed as ‘‘CC’’ in the table on 

page 8. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

And then, my last point is that, you know, 215 miles of the Navajo Nation are along the San Juan River, and that is agricultural 

land. So I was late getting to this committee, because I was in a 

Committee on Agriculture hearing. But we are really concerned 

about soil contamination. So I hope that you will continue to monitor that water, but also the soil, because we have reason to believe 

that this contamination has been going on for a long time. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. Clearly, it is a long-term issue. And so at 

least most immediately we are in discussions with the Navajo and 

all other stakeholders about a long-term monitoring plan. There 

are also separate conversations about potential Superfund listings. 

So that is all in the works. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Sure. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Rice, any questions? 

Mr. RICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me ask you this, since there is apparently no accountability 

in this administration. Was anybody fired over this 3-million-gallon 

spill of toxic chemicals into this river? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, again, as I answered earlier, from a response perspective, we have moved forward, we will continue to 

move forward. From an accountability perspective, we have done 

internal review and—— 

Mr. RICE. Was anybody fired? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. No. 

Mr. RICE. OK. Was anybody disciplined? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, again, we are waiting for independent investigations by the Department of the Interior and the Office of Inspector General—— 

Mr. RICE. That is what I thought. 

Mr. STANISLAUS [continuing]. To determine whether—— 

Mr. RICE. How long—— 

Mr. STANISLAUS [continuing]. Were followed or not. 

Mr. RICE. This gold mine was closed, right? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I am sorry? 

Mr. RICE. This gold mine was closed? 

23 

Mr. STANISLAUS. It was abandoned, that is right. 

Mr. RICE. How long has it been abandoned? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I think the most recent activity was a couple of 

decades ago. 

Mr. RICE. OK. And so, the company that did it, it no longer exists, or it does exist? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, one of the companies does exist. 

Mr. RICE. OK. And do they bear some of the financial responsibility? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, they are clearly a responsible party, and 

EPA’s plan is to pursue—— 

Mr. RICE. Have they been paying for the maintenance of the 

mine? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Have they been paying for the maintenance 

of—— 

Mr. RICE. You don’t know? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I don’t know the answer. 

Mr. RICE. OK. On new mines—you know, you raise some interesting issues. You said you are looking at additional financial assurance. I know there is the Haile Gold Mine in South Carolina 

they are looking at reopening right now. And I know the Army 

Corps of Engineers has been very involved in looking at remediation. 

There is apparently a Federal and a State permitting process, 

correct? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, depends on—yes, I don’t know the particular situation, but it can depend on the mine. 

Mr. RICE. OK. Oh, it depends on the mine. So certain mines, 

there is no Federal permitting process for? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, I believe that is—some mines are on Federal property, some mines are mixed ownership, some mines are 

private. 

Mr. RICE. OK. So if there is a mine on private property that is 

going to produce some toxic material, there is no Federal permitting requirement for that? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, not from a—well, let me get back to you— 

because other Federal agencies have various other responsibilities 

on mining sites, so let me get back to you with where Federal authority would touch on mining sites. 

Mr. RICE. OK. If there—well then, let’s just limit it to mines on 

Federal property. Is there some kind of a Federal permitting requirement for that? If I wanted to open a mine on Federal property, would I have to get a Federal permit to do that? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well—— 

Mr. RICE. Would you guys review it? Would you approve it? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, there is a review process. 

Mr. RICE. All right. And I wouldn’t have to give you clear bond 

or financial assurance that I had the capability to clean it up when 

I got through? Surely to God I would have to give you that. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, yes. Some bonds are actually in place. 

State programs and some bonding or financial assurance are done 

through Federal programs, most notably BLM and Forest Service. 

Mr. RICE. OK. So we are talking about Federal property again. 

If I was going to do it on Federal property, I wouldn’t have to give 

24 

you very clear assurance that I had the capability and set aside the 

money to clean that site up? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. So I think the question is whether that financial assurance, be it through a State program or a Federal program, is adequate. And what our experience has been, there have 

been enough mining sites where the closure and reclamation— 

there is a gap to deal with the environmental issues. 

Mr. RICE. All right. There is obviously State regulators, I would 

assume, in every State that deals with this. Right? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. That is right. 

Mr. RICE. And I would assume that they all would require bonding and financial assurance also. Right? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. That is right. 

Mr. RICE. So it is really not a problem for new mines, is it? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, that is currently what we are examining. 

We are looking at where there are gaps between financial assurance, whether it is done by State programs—— 

Mr. RICE. OK. 

Mr. STANISLAUS [continuing]. Or a Federal program. 

Mr. RICE. And this—and what about continuously operating 

mines? Let’s say mines that were open—have been open for decades. There is a big copper mine out there in the West, Kennecott. 

Surely they are setting aside reclamation money. Surely they have 

set aside enough money to close the mine. Is that right? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I wouldn’t know. 

Mr. RICE. Gosh, you are the EPA. You don’t know that? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, again, EPA is not—— 

Mr. RICE. What do you do from 9 to 5? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I am sorry? I am sorry? I couldn’t hear you. 

Mr. RICE. Look—— 

Mr. STANISLAUS. No—— 

Mr. RICE. What I want to—— 

Mr. STANISLAUS. No, sir. We are very much—— 

Mr. RICE. I mean I want to avoid this problem happening again. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. We are involved in dealing with the risk of 

these sites—— 

Mr. RICE. I want to have—I want to avoid this problem happening again. And surely you are not going to let people—the EPA 

is not going to let people open these mines and create these toxic 

situations without putting aside adequate reserves to close the 

mine. Is that true or is that not true? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, clearly, the shared responsibility across 

the Federal Government is for that to be the case. And that is— 

currently we are examining that, not only from a Federal perspective, but from a State perspective. 

Mr. RICE. Wow. OK. This Gold King Mine, you say it has been 

closed for decades. And you don’t know who is paying for the monitoring of that site and the cleanup of that site. You don’t know 

that. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. [No response.] 

Mr. RICE. You don’t know if—you said that there are some surviving companies from this Gold King Mine. They are not bearing 

the responsibility for this? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, again—— 

25 

Mr. RICE. I mean I know—— 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Immediately—— 

Mr. RICE. I know if EPA went in there and busted out their dam 

and let all this toxic water loose, then I am sure that EPA or their 

contractors have some liability. But for the ongoing maintenance of 

this mine, if there are viable parties still existing that mine this 

ore, don’t they bear the ultimate financial responsibility for this? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. That is right, if financial resources are in existence. 

Just to be clear, over the past decades it has been at the lead 

of the State of Colorado dealing with the stabilization, dealing with 

the sites. We—EPA recently got involved at the request of the 

State and local stakeholders. 

Mr. RICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. A couple points of clarification. I think in the last 

round of questions there about the mines in Colorado, I believe 

there are three. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, I believe that is—— 

Mr. GIBBS. And one of them has been putting millions of dollars 

in helping to clean up, and the other two are—there’s no owners. 

Is that correct? They are totally abandoned. I mean there is no responsible party. There is one party there, one of the—— 

Mr. STANISLAUS. For one of the mines, that is right. 

Mr. GIBBS. Has been investing dollars to try to do cleanup. For 

clarification. 

Also, for clarification on the question about financial assurance, 

is it true that the financial assurance only applies to active mines 

trying to do a closure? So the issue at these abandoned mines, 

where we got this—it is more than two decades, I think it is about 

a century—that are totally abandoned, that is—really, a moot discussion. There is no financial assurance. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. That is correct. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, thank you. Mr. Nolan? 

Mr. NOLAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of quick 

questions here that I have. And we have got about—I am told as 

many as 7 billion metric tons of waste rocks piled up all over Minnesota’s iron range, up in northeastern Minnesota. Exposed rock. 

Much has potentially hazardous consequences as a result of some 

of the sulfuric content, and its impact on the lakes and the rivers 

and waters in the region. 

So—and there are some companies now that are moving in, and 

they are reprocessing a lot of that ore. The ore was so rich back 

in the day that anything that had anything less than 40 percent 

iron content was just discarded. 

My question of you is have you seen any new technologies that 

we could potentially find some ways to incentivize to go in and reprocess and clean up in the process and take greater advantage of 

the mineral resources that remain in those potentially toxic piles 

all over our range? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I have heard about some emerging technologies. I think it is probably—I would say right now there are 

some efforts to do a pilot in the fields. I do think that many of the 

researchers believe it is promising. So I don’t really have a comVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:13 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2015\10-21-~1\97235.TXT JEAN
26 

prehensive assessment, but I do know that there is some research 

going on in this area. 

Mr. NOLAN. You know, we—I say ‘‘we’’; I wasn’t here—but, you 

know, the Bureau of Mines and Minerals was largely abandoned. 

I have seen reports from the National Mining Association, from the 

land grant universities, from a whole variety of other sources that 

say we need to fund, you know, a national research center to study 

and help facilitate the development of new mining technologies and 

environmental technologies associated with the mining and/or the 

cleanup. Do you see where something like that would be an enhancement to, you know, what we are trying to do here in the Good 

Samaritan, you know, mining and development cleanup initiatives? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, yes. I am not sure of the connection to the 

Good Samaritan. I think, clearly, the more and better technology—— 

Mr. NOLAN. You don’t see the connection? What is the Good Samaritan all about? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I am sorry? 

Mr. NOLAN. You don’t see a connection between the Good Samaritan mining and cleanup activities—— 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, so—— 

Mr. NOLAN [continuing]. And study and research on how to mine 

and how to clean up in a way that is—— 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. I mean I think research and technology is 

all good. And so I would say that, yes, that makes sense. 

Mr. NOLAN. OK. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. And the Good Samaritan projects are relatively 

small projects to kind of stabilize sites. 

Mr. NOLAN. Yes. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. You know, so—— 

Mr. NOLAN. Well, I mean, if we don’t have $33 billion or $72 billion, or whatever the number is—then we better be looking at 

something. You know? And science often has a way of leading us 

to progress. I am glad that you do see the connection after reconsidering it. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Stanislaus, we checked on your roster of employees. You do not have any mining engineers listed. So you say that 

you have personnel that have expertise in cleanup. You know, 

cleaning up a spill compared to cleaning up some of the other sites 

that aren’t mining sites, you know, when I talk to engineers, the 

complications and the details with the stuff that goes into mining 

are a lot different than some of those other cleanups. So, obviously, 

the EPA—I think, to be honest—has to rely on the private sector 

expertise. 

Now, then the question goes further. My first question dealing 

with this Gold King Mine incident, that private contractor—I don’t 

know anything about them. Do they have mining engineers? Or 

what was their expertise level? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, they had mining experience, but they also 

brought in subcontractors with specific mining expertise. 

Mr. GIBBS. Can you provide details for that? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. 

Mr. GIBBS. Because I think that there is a big, big question of 

competency on this whole issue out there in Colorado. 

27 

To give you an example, in 2008 the Tennessee Valley Authority 

had a major coal ash spill, and they brought in numerous independent investigators from the private sector, because they were 

fearful, they didn’t want it to happen again, because they have 

other coal ash facilities. And in this case, the EPA, as you said, Department of the Interior is doing an investigation, which I think is 

through the Bureau of Reclamation. Is that correct? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. That is right. 

Mr. GIBBS. What technical expertise does the Bureau of Reclamation have in this with mines? Because I—go ahead. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, that is probably best answered by them, 

but the Bureau of Reclamation is very much involved in mining situations. They are also, as I understand it, also doing peer review 

with other experts. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, because I would—you know, a little bit of research I did, the Bureau of Reclamation isn’t really in the mining 

business. They are more in the water infrastructure business. Bureau of Land Management probably has a little bit more expertise. 

So I question, you know, why—and then why aren’t—isn’t the 

EPA bringing—like the Tennessee Valley Authority, who brought 

in independent, totally independent, not another Government agency, to do a full-fledged investigation. I mean you are not doing that, 

right? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, yes. I mean so there are two additional investigations going on right now. 

Mr. GIBBS. Who is doing them? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, Department of the Interior and the Office 

of Inspector General. 

Mr. GIBBS. Wait, what is that? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. The Office of Inspector General. 

Mr. GIBBS. Oh, for the Department of—EPA, or—— 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBS. But there is no—there is going to be no contracted 

other private entities like the Tennessee Valley Authority did? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. No. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Yes, just to go back on the Bureau of Reclamation issue, do they have a water quality lab? Do they do any water 

quality research, laboratory studies or analysis? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Again, this has been—the Bureau of Reclamation and Department of the Interior is leading this study, and—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, I guess I am questioning their expertise to be 

the lead agency in that investigation, because I don’t believe that 

they have expertise in heavy metal migration, water quality analysis capabilities, expertise in mine tunnels. That is what we need 

to have, expertise—people who are really experts in that, not selfdeclared experts. 

So I think that is a question of what is going on, because—I am 

going back to Mr. Rice’s line of questioning. You know, nobody has 

been held accountable. And you are saying, well, the investigation 

goes on, and that is fair. But we have thousands of these mine sites 

where we could have more disasters, and we need to make sure it 

doesn’t happen again. And so the EPA should do all they can do 

to make sure that the investigations are legit and carried out by 

people that are credible. 

28 

And it is kind of like the fox and the henhouse regulating themselves, you know. Obviously, the EPA was in partnership or contract with this, and working hand in hand with this contractor on 

this spill when they opened up the mine. 

And we had leach issues coming out, but apparently nobody 

knew what was behind that closure from the sediment rocks and 

everything, and that is when it broke loose. And it didn’t have the 

right things in process to—like a catch basin or anything to catch 

that. So they—is that clear, they were really caught by surprise? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, yes. In the—our own internal review that 

we have issued, it is clear that that risk was identified, and also 

concluded that, if it was capable to be done, going behind the mine 

to identify there was a pressurized situation would have been ideal. 

But also it identifies that it was not—given the sheer grade of the 

mine below that—the contract actually did that, they were able to 

get behind the mine and actually look at those pressurized conditions—confirm it was not pressurized. In this situation they were 

not able to do that. 

And our internal review concluded that they are not sure it was 

possible to prevent a blowout. 

Mr. GIBBS. Your internal review, which are self-declared experts, 

not the mining engineer experts. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, again, our role is cleanup. We were 

brought—the State of Colorado and stakeholders asked it to be addressed because of this very risk. We were brought to this situation 

because of the risk that stakeholders identified, the risk of—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, I—OK, just—— 

Mr. STANISLAUS [continuing]. A blowout. That is why we were 

there—— 

Mr. GIBBS. This all—I think this all goes back to what we are 

trying to do here with the Good Samaritan thing, you know. People 

that really are—have experience and expertise working to do that. 

And we need to get some protections, because obviously, they are 

not stepping up. 

And now, my question on the Good Samaritan concept, would the 

EPA be supportive of partial—if you got a Good Samaritan who 

wants to come in there, if we change the law to make it so that 

it encourages them to do that, and they want to come in and do 

a partial remediation, but maybe not a total remediation, would— 

let’s use an example. 

Say you have a mine that is leaching, OK? And if they come in 

and do a partial remediation it is going to take care of that leaching process, but it might not take care of something further in the 

mine that might be—50 years away it might be another problem, 

but they just don’t have the resources or capability to do that. 

Would the EPA be supportive of partial remediation? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Oh, absolutely. I mean under our existing guidance, partial cleanup is allowed, because, from our perspective and 

the Good Samaritan perspective, reducing the magnitude of risk is 

always a good thing. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Well, I guess I used up my time. Go ahead. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, along the same line, if the Good Samaritan is going to come in for the purposes of being a Good Samaritan, 

29 

but if they are coming in to mine and leave a worse mess, what 

safeguards are there to be able to preclude that from happening? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, again, the Good Samaritan guidance is intended to be for a pure Good Samaritan. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Purely. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. So meaning someone who is going there to address the risk from that site. If it is going to be mining, then there 

has got to be a separate process to deal with the mining situation 

and closure requirements and all of that. So it has to be done separately, if I understand your question. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, if we are going to allow the Good Samaritan to have an opportunity to go in and clean up, how are you 

going to build something separate to address anybody coming in, 

another mining company wanting to come in to reopen the mine, 

or be able to mine around the existing mine—— 

Mr. STANISLAUS. So—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO [continuing]. And create a problem for the future of leaching or leaking or being able to contaminate some of the 

streams and the rivers? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. So just in terms of the Good Samaritan project 

itself, you would have an agreement and a workplan to deal with— 

it could be consolidation, it could be encapsulation. But if the entity 

were to separately do a mining operation, that would not be covered, and the protections would not be accorded for the mining activities. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How would you define Good Samaritan, then, 

somebody doing it out of their good will? Who is going to pay for 

it? Where is the Good Samaritan getting the funding to be able to 

go in and do that cleanup? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, a Good Samaritan—we identified factors 

in our—they have to be someone who is not responsible for that 

site, no affiliation with who was responsible for that mining site. 

OK? Did that answer your question? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes, but who is paying for that? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, the Good Samaritan would have to pay for 

that. That is why it is a relatively small project, as compared to 

some of the large projects that we have had, that EPA has had to 

step in with hundreds of millions of dollars. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Will this be defined in being able to determine 

how a Good Samaritan should act in cleaning up? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. So the project would be defined, the activities would be defined—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Keeping it from making it worse is my point. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. So the activities to lessen the risk and to 

consolidate, that would be defined as part of the agreement process. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It would allow them to do mining? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. No. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Just the cleanup? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Just the cleanup. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And that is going to be defined? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. 

30 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. Well, are any of these companies foreignowned, that we can go back to their origin of being able to be the 

PRPs [potentially responsible parties]? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Oh, for the abandoned mines? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Again, when we get involved, we would first 

look at responsible parties. But again, some of these mines have 

been abandoned as much as 100 years ago. So, you know, it is very 

likely that those entities are not around. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, that is probably very true. Now there 

are a couple of other questions I had, and it has to do—and I think 

my colleague, the chairman, indicated about the contractors and 

their qualification. Since you may not have all the required mining 

engineers on staff, the contracts you have, you ensure that they are 

individuals who can deal—who have done it before, who will continue to be able to be responsible and reliable. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, that is exactly right. I mean EPA is not 

doing mining activities. We are not engineering the conduct of mining operations. What we are doing is doing cleanup. So we clearly 

have expertise in cleanup, be it a mining site, or any other chemical waste management site, we have that expertise. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes. But the EPA is only the cleanup. But 

isn’t it also true that the Governor of the State should be able to 

allow that specific mine to go on Superfund, to be able to effectively 

put funding into it, taxpayer funds? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. I am not sure I fully understand your question. 

I mean with respect to—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. This is not on Superfund list. The gold mine 

was not on the Superfund list. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. That is right. There has been conversations— 

it was not on the national priorities list for a long-term cleanup. 

That is right, yes. And so there are ongoing discussions with the 

Governor and the local stakeholders about their perspectives on 

whether it should be listed or not. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, we want to be sure—or at least I would 

hope that we would try to protect the taxpayer from having to end 

up cleaning up abandoned mines, when there might be possibility 

of being able to find the potential responsible parties, PRPs, and 

ensure that you have enough funding to be able to carry out the 

cleanup, but with the cooperation of not only the State and the 

mining interests. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Hardy? 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Gold King Mine, was 

it private or was it a BLM—— 

Mr. STANISLAUS. It is a private site. 

Mr. HARDY. Are you aware that, in Nevada, that almost—there’s 

numbers of 85 percent of our State is federally owned? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. OK. 

Mr. HARDY. That is a fact. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. OK. 

Mr. HARDY. OK. With that being said, I am going to guess—I am 

going to guess—that there’s close to 95 percent of all the mines are 

31 

on federally owned ground. Little befuddling to me that you don’t 

know more about all this Federal ground in Nevada. 

The reason I go down this avenue, you talk about that you have 

the expertise to be able to evaluate these cleanups. But without the 

mining expertise that you folks require mines, before they open, to 

have this mining engineer, this geological engineer, this archeological engineer, every kind of engineer under the—expert to be 

able to open that mine, who evaluates that mine before it opens, 

then, and approves it, if you don’t have that expertise yourself? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, again, there—the agencies who are responsible for that is not EPA. So we have lots of other agencies in 

the Federal Government that has—that lead the questions about 

opening of mines. 

Mr. HARDY. Then shouldn’t we maybe have those other agencies 

involved in this new rule that we are trying to make it safe for 

these folks to be able to have these projects cleaned up, to make 

sure that they are doing the right thing the right way, instead of 

EPA taking the lead on this? Shouldn’t that be some other direction? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Oh, I don’t disagree. 

Mr. HARDY. Shouldn’t the EPA let somebody else take the lead 

on the Gold King Mine? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. I mean, from a cleanup perspective, clearly, EPA has a role and just to clarify, EPA, working with the State 

and the State’s experts, approached it from a cleanup perspective, 

and we brought to bear contractors with specific mining expertise. 

With respect to the broader question of opening and closing 

mines, clearly there are other Federal agencies and State expertise 

that should take the lead on those issues. 

Mr. HARDY. OK. And I just want to make it very clear before this 

committee and this panel here that the closing of a mine doesn’t 

necessarily have to do with always cleaning up contaminants, because the majority of the mines in Nevada don’t have any contamination. The majority of the mines in Nevada and other States in 

the West were—they are small tunnels, shafts. And a closure of 

that mine might have to do with just a concrete cap or a gate or 

a door, which—somebody over there made the statement, but that 

is adequate for most mines. Mines that have chemicals in them 

have a different process, and they have to do that under the approval of the EPA before they can even open of how their closure 

is going to go. 

So why you are not following these issues kind of befuddles me. 

Why we are not having more responsibility, especially in the West, 

where 64 percent of all the West is held by the Federal Government, in making sure that these cleanups happen from the Superfund? And our own State, which—I sat on the State legislature. We 

fund a certain amount of dollars every year for the closure of 

mines, abandoned mines. So everybody has a stake in this thing. 

But it is frustrating to me that—just want to make sure that, as 

we go down this road, that we make it safe, for those people that 

want to try to help and do things, that we protect them legally. 

And also that they understand the obligation of what is going on 

so when—if they do have a challenge, that we don’t have another 

Gold King spill. So—— 

32 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Sure. I mean I would agree for Good Samaritans to move forward we absolutely want to make sure that we address their liability concerns. So—— 

Mr. HARDY. And the Good Samaritans are probably some of our 

greatest assets out there. Well, let’s let them do the work that they 

want to do, and help them do it the right way. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. But I think, as you noted, the magnitude of the 

issue is pretty large. I think States have a fairly significant role, 

both in abandoned and new mines, and the Federal Government, 

so it is a comprehensive situation with the Good Samaritans playing a role as part of that. 

Mr. HARDY. I guess the direction I would like to go back to with 

the situation in Nevada, it doesn’t seem to appear you know much 

about Nevada, but wouldn’t that evaluation of each State be more 

empowering to that State to understand—because Nevada has 

some of the same processes to protect—leave that power in the 

State of Nevada rather than one over—one eye, single eye, looking 

over the whole Nation, so to speak? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, absolutely. I mean I think that cleanup 

has to be led by the States. And not only the cleanup, but the management of it, which is the case. EPA is brought on board in situations from a complexity and cost perspective, as it was in this situation. 

Mr. HARDY. And they should be compensated for that management, especially when it is Federal lands. 

Mr. GIBBS. I want to follow up a little bit. I think I just heard 

you advocating for States to lead in this effort to clean up these 

abandoned mines. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I think cleanup, generally, I mean, the 

States have a very—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. Let me ask you this question. Acid mine drainage and all that, which is part of the abandoned mine issue, is 

there a U.S. EPA site where they have actually been successful in 

cleaning up an abandoned mine site, or has it most primarily been 

States doing it? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Well, I would say it is always—I mean sites like 

this and other sites, there is always a partnership with the States. 

And I can get back to you in terms of specific situations. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. Also, get back to us with a detailed explanation 

of what experts are utilized in-house and contracted on these abandoned mine cleanups, so we can get our arms around what is really 

going on. 

Just a final question. Would you give us recommendations of 

what should be done? Because we had this discussion earlier about 

the administrative tools. Obviously—I don’t know if you concur 

with me, but the effectiveness isn’t all that great, because only one 

Good Samaritan has actually stepped up, and they actually had to 

pull back, from my understanding. But what recommendations 

could you give us that we could do through legislation and otherwise to encourage volunteers, Good Samaritans to step up? Because 

I think there is a lot of willingness out there to do it. But what 

would be your recommendations? And maybe you might have to get 

back to us with that, but—— 

33 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes, let me get back to you specifically. But this 

reminds me of a parallel situation, the contaminated sites generally in the brownfield area. You know? So while EPA provides 

some initial liability clarification, both the financial sector and the 

development sector needed additional outreach and comfort to enable underwriting processes to move forward. 

So we did a lot of outreach to make sure that people understood 

that and actually did that. So I think maybe further outreach. So 

I will get back to you more specifically on the legal side. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

Mr. STANISLAUS. OK. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Thank you. Thank you for coming in today, and 

we will—I guess my ranking member has a quick question. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes, just to kind of clarify the gentleman’s— 

Nevada has dry weather, so they have a very different mine situation as we do in California and other States. 

And I certainly would want to ensure that the Good Samaritan 

is something that can move forward, because it is a necessity. 

But we also need to know what kind of contamination some of 

these mines might have, because I can bring up Moab, Utah. It still 

needs about another billion dollars’ worth of cleanup, and it has 

been on the cleaning page now for, I don’t know, a couple decades. 

And it was leaching contaminations into the Colorado River, which, 

downstream, the rest of us drink. And how—what kind of contamination there might be, other than the contaminants of lead and silver and other things, whether it is—the severity of it. 

And those are the things that we might want to hear, this panel 

to understand, in what areas we might start looking at prioritizing 

and be able to ensure that there’s enough funds to be able to start 

looking at future blowouts. Does it make sense? 

Mr. STANISLAUS. Yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you for coming in, Mr. Stanislaus, and we will 

just take a minute break here while the next panel gets situated. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, welcome, panel 2. Hopefully, some more Members will show up. But thank you for sitting through the first 

panel. 

On panel 2 we have Mr. Cavazza. He is the director of the Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation, Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection. He is speaking on behalf of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission and the National Association of 

Abandoned Mine Land Programs. 

We have Mr. Luke Russell. He is vice president of external affairs, Hecla Mining Company, on behalf of the National Mining Association. 

Mr. Doug Young is senior policy director of Keystone Policy Center. 

Mr. Chris Wood, president and CEO of Trout Unlimited, and Ms. 

Lauren Pagel, policy director of Earthworks; welcome. 

And, Mr. Cavazza, go ahead. Welcome, and the floor is yours. 

34 

TESTIMONY OF ERIC E. CAVAZZA, P.E., DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF 

ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, ON BEHALF OF 

THE INTERSTATE MINING COMPACT COMMISSION AND THE 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ABANDONED MINE LAND PROGRAMS; LUKE RUSSELL, VICE PRESIDENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, HECLA MINING COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION; DOUG YOUNG, SENIOR POLICY DIRECTOR, KEYSTONE POLICY CENTER; CHRIS WOOD, 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, TROUT UNLIMITED; AND LAUREN 

PAGEL, POLICY DIRECTOR, EARTHWORKS 

Mr. CAVAZZA. OK. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is 

Eric Cavazza, and I am the director of Pennsylvania’s abandoned 

mine land program, and I am the outgoing president of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs. I am appearing here today on behalf of the Association and the Interstate 

Mining Compact Commission. We appreciate the opportunity to address the important issue of abandoned mine lands and the potential for a Good Samaritan program. 

There are a myriad of reasons why a Federal Good Samaritan 

program is needed, but the most important is to remove the potential for incurring liability under Federal environmental protection 

statutes, such as the Clean Water Act. These liabilities deter motivated, well-intentioned volunteers from undertaking projects to 

clean up or improve abandoned sites, thereby prolonging the harm 

to the environment and to the health and welfare of our citizens. 

The universe of abandoned mine lands is so large, and the existing 

governmental resources so limited that, without the assistance of 

Good Samaritan volunteers, it will be impossible to clean up all of 

these lands. 

We commend you and your colleagues for continuing efforts in 

pursing Good Samaritan protections. Despite the extraordinary 

dedication of those involved in the AML arena, there remains a 

substantial amount of work to be done. This is not due to a lack 

of will, but primarily to insufficient funding. Our efforts need a 

substantial boost, and the potential Good Samaritan solution before 

the subcommittee today will propel us toward our goal. 

We have seen the remarkable results from the Good Samaritan 

approach in States such as mine, which enacted its own Good Samaritan law to provide protections and immunities related to State 

clean water requirements. Over 50 Good Samaritan projects have 

been completed to date, and participants have included local governments, individuals, watershed associations, corporations, municipal authorities, and conservancies. 

I would now like to discuss two specific examples of water treatment projects in Pennsylvania, one of which was successful and another that was never implemented as a result of liability concerns. 

Over the last 15 years, many partners worked to restore water 

quality and reclaim abandoned mine lands in the Indian Creek watershed in southwestern Pennsylvania. Indian Creek is an important tributary which eventually flows into the Ohio River in downtown Pittsburgh. An assessment of the watershed revealed that 

drainage from abandoned mines was the biggest source of impairment, degrading the quality of 17.4 miles of Indian Creek and its 

35 

tributaries. A watershed restoration plan was developed to address 

the most severe discharges and restore water quality. 

Since that time, six passive mine drainage treatment systems 

have been constructed, some on private property. The private landowners and the watershed association were both extremely concerned about liability. The parties applied for and received approval for Pennsylvania Good Samaritan protections. Without this 

protection, this project would likely never have been completed. As 

a result of remediation work, the stream has made a dramatic recovery, and now supports a healthy fish community and is a source 

of community pride. 

The Gladden discharge was a similar story with a different outcome. The discharge dumps an average of about 900 gallons per 

minute of iron-laden water into Millers Run, a tributary to 

Chartiers Creek and the Ohio River. Within one-half mile, Millers 

Run changes from a clear stream with trout to an orange stream 

with virtually no life. Two local conservation groups worked with 

the Pennsylvania AML program and several other Government 

agencies, private landowners, and businesses for over a decade to 

develop and implement a plan to treat the Gladden discharge and 

restore Lower Chartiers Creek. 

In 2009 a private business approached the group with a concept 

to construct a treatment facility for the discharge, and to establish 

a long-term O&M [operation and maintenance] trust fund for the 

facility in exchange for the right to use some of the treated water. 

Both the private landowner and the private business were happy 

to learn of our environmental Good Samaritan Act and the protections it afforded, but were disappointed to learn that no equivalent 

such law existed to protect them from third-party lawsuits and liability under the Federal Clean Water Act. 

After further review, both the private landowner and the private 

business withdrew from the project. No subsequent treatment plan 

has been implemented for the discharge, and it continues to spew 

AMD [acid mine drainage] into the stream today. 

Over the course of the past 15 years, several bills have been introduced in the U.S. Congress to enhance the cleanup of inactive 

and abandoned mines by emulating the Pennsylvania Good Samaritan program. From the State’s perspective we have several recommendations that we believe should be considered in any Good 

Samaritan legislative effort, and these recommendations are discussed in our written statement. 

Mr. Chairman, the legacy of abandoned mine lands still looms 

large in many of our Nation’s communities. It is time for Congress 

to act to enable Good Samaritans to help conquer the monumental 

task of cleaning up our abandoned mine lands. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify. 

Mr. GIBBS. Now, Mr. Russell, welcome. The floor is yours. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. My 

name is Luke Russell. I am vice president of external affairs with 

Hecla Mining Company. I have been involved in environmental 

compliance, reclamation, and remediation of mine sites for over 30 

years, including time worked as remediation manager with the 

State of Idaho at the Coeur d’Alene Basin Superfund site in northern Idaho. 

36 

Hecla Mining Company is the oldest precious metals mining company in North America, and the United States largest primary silver producer. Today I am testifying on behalf of the National Mining Association, who represents the miners, vendors, and suppliers 

of America’s mining industry. National Mining and its member 

companies have long been interested in promoting the voluntary 

cleanup of legacy mines through the development of Good Samaritan legislation. 

When we speak about abandoned mines, it is important to note 

that we are talking about sites with no viable owner that were created due to mining practices of 100 to 150 years ago, well before 

the enactment of modern environmental laws, regulations, and reclamation requirements. We are not talking about mines of today. 

Today’s operators must provide financial assurance to guarantee 

their sites will be properly reclaimed, and billions of dollars have 

been posted with the State and Federal Governments for exactly 

this purpose. Thus, the abandoned mine land problem is a finite 

and historical problem, not one that will grow in the future. 

Industry wants to see legacy sites reclaimed, and safety and environmental conditions improved as much as anyone. After all, they 

are incorrectly portrayed as being our dirty pictures, when, in fact, 

they represent results of historic practices. The mining industry 

has the desire, the experience, the equipment, and the technology 

to mitigate and reclaim abandoned mine lands. 

Any Good Samaritan faces the risk of perpetual liability under 

provisions of the Clean Water Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA. 

For example, under the Clean Water Act, a Good Samaritan that 

affects a discharge, even if working to improve site conditions, becomes fully responsible in perpetuity, even if they had no role in 

creating the conditions that originally caused the adverse water 

quality. Consequently, remediation measures that could result in 

incremental and, in some cases, significant water quality improvements are not undertaken for fear of the resulting liability. 

Furthermore, a Good Samaritan who begins to clean up, or even 

just investigates an abandoned mine site, runs the risk of becoming 

an operator under CERCLA. CERCLA liability is joint, several, 

strict, and retroactive. Such potential liability is chilling to any voluntary cleanup effort. 

If a goal of Good Samaritan legislation is to improve water quality, the environment, and public safety, then such legislation must 

encourage cleanups by reducing the legal impediments. To remove 

the legal barriers discussed previously, regulators should be given 

discretion to adjust environmental requirements, standards, and liabilities for Good Samaritan projects. Mining companies should be 

allowed to qualify as Good Samaritans. Mining companies that did 

not create the identified environmental problems at a legacy site 

should be allowed to qualify. 

EPA or States must permit Good Samaritan projects. Projects 

should be authorized on a site-by-site basis, with discretion to allow 

important environmental improvements that may fall short of addressing all contaminants at a site, so long as they are—a net improvement is achieved. 

37 

Good Samaritan legislation should also allow remedial actions 

that include the reuse or reprocessing of materials from legacy 

sites. At some abandoned mine sites the best way to partially or 

wholly remediate the environment may be to collect the various 

materials located at the site, utilize them in construction of a new 

mining operation, or process those materials to remove any valuable minerals, and then to dispose of those wastes in an environmentally sound manner. Such projects would be subject to appropriate Federal or State assessment and approval through a Good 

Samaritan permit program. 

Protecting the public interest and ensuring more effective and efficient cleanup of legacy sites created in the distant past is possible, and should include Good Samaritan legislation that embodies 

the elements discussed above. The mining industry stands ready to 

be a part of this solution. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Young, welcome, the floor is yours. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, Representative Napolitano, thank 

you very much for inviting me here to be at this panel, and also 

for actually holding this discussion. My name is Doug Young. I am 

a senior policy director at the Keystone Policy Center that is 

headquartered in Keystone, Colorado. 

And my name is Young, but I am not young to this topic. I actually have been working on this particular specific topic for 20 

years. I started out working on it in the Western Governors’ Association as staff counsel for Governor Roy Romer, then worked for 

12 years with then-Representative—and later Senator—Mark 

Udall on this very topic. So I was the lead staffer for him on the 

various pieces of legislation that he had introduced on this very 

topic. 

And this is a mixed blessing for me because it is unfortunate 

that we are still talking about it, and it is unfortunate that a spill 

like the Gold King spill precipitates a need for this discussion. But 

I am glad it is happening, and I am glad we are continuing to have 

the conversation. The unfortunate part about it is that I wish we 

had fixed this a long time ago. 

To give you a little flavor of the difficulty—you have heard some 

of it here today, your questions have been very, very good, because 

they have hit on the topics that we have been experiencing on this 

particular issue over the 20 years I have worked on it. 

In my experience, we gathered together various disparate interests, just the whole range of folks who are interested in solving this 

over the 20-year period that I worked on specific legislation. And 

we all wrestled with the very topics that you have raised and that 

have been raised in this very hearing. 

We brought together the States, the EPA, the mining industry, 

the environmental community, anybody who would have an interest in this. And we haggled over all of the topics you have raised. 

And the focus that we did at the time was over the Clean Water 

Act, specifically. The efforts back then were to try to come up with 

a new permit, a brand-new permit program under EPA so that— 

or, excuse me, under the Clean Water Act, so that it would deal 

with the discharging issues. 

38 

I should tell you that there are plenty of Good Samaritans. You 

have heard today that the people are actually doing work at these 

sites. What hampers them is the discharge problem. So they are 

doing good work and resolving safety issues, other kinds of issues 

that exist at these sites, but it is the draining, ongoing, perpetual, 

forever releases that are hampering, the big stumbling block, which 

is why we focused on the Clean Water Act liability question. 

I will quickly say that the—and we—the problem is we couldn’t 

get—we got consensus on some of these topics and we wrestled 

with the remaining question, the standards to apply, who could be 

a Good Samaritan, how to deal with sites on Federal property 

versus non-Federal property, how to include the tribes. We dealt 

with all of that. So—but the trouble is we tried to thread the needle on getting consensus on that, but we never got complete agreement, where everybody would come to the table in front of a hearing, like in front of all of you, and say, ‘‘We support this program.’’ 

So I worry that we are going to go back over old ground in using 

the Clean Water Act as the mechanism. I personally believe that 

we now are at a place where we can look at this anew, and look 

at other programs that we could tack on to or make some refinements to, instead of the Clean Water Act, being specifically 

CERCLA as a potential, brownfields as a potential. 

And what you can do, I think, is that you can make amendments 

to those statutes, where you capture the concern of all of the 

issues, but specifically related to discharging releases, and not have 

to go back over the old ground of coming up with a whole new permit program within the Clean Water Act. That still is a potential 

avenue, I think, so I don’t want to discount that. But we are going 

to end up having to go through—we will still go through those 

same issues and still try to refine them and get consensus around 

them. 

But the big concern I have is that the Clean Water Act is a very 

special act, it is a very important one, and I know there are concerns from some folks about opening it up. And I believe that you 

can deal with the discharge issue, the ongoing discharge issue, 

without having to actually amend the Clean Water Act, and do it 

through other authorities, like CERCLA. 

So I just—I am just saying that I think we ought to be able to 

use this opportunity to get at the very issues you have raised—I 

am not suggesting those same issues don’t need to be wrestled with 

again, they do. But there might be a way we can address some of 

the other issues that have stymied this through other mechanisms, 

so we do not end up facing those roadblocks again under this new 

thinking, and try again. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Mr. Wood, welcome. 

Mr. WOOD. Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member Napolitano, thank 

you for having me here today. My name is Chris Wood, and I am 

the president and CEO of Trout Unlimited. I want to offer the following testimony on behalf of TU and our 155,000 members. And 

my testimony will focus on the cleanup of abandoned mine lands, 

specifically the need to facilitate more abandoned mine cleanups by 

Good Samaritans—namely, those who don’t have a legal obligation 

to take on such work, but do it just to improve water quality. 

39 

Our mission is to conserve, protect, and restore North America’s 

coldwater fisheries and the watersheds that they depend on. In 

pursuit of that mission, we have worked to restore streams and rivers that have been damaged by abandoned mines from the coal 

fields of Appalachia to the Rocky Mountain West, and many places 

in between. 

If you could, move the first slide. 

[Slide] 

Mr. WOOD. By now, this image is familiar to everyone. The 3-million-gallon spill in August of polluted water from the Gold King 

Mine near Silverton drew national media attention. 

The next slide, please. 

[Slide] 

Mr. WOOD. But less well-known is the fact that there are thousands of similar, smaller scale abandoned mines that flow through 

people’s backyards all around—all across America. The lesson from 

Gold King is not so much that an EPA contractor screwed up, as 

it is that we need to have a much greater sense of urgency about 

addressing the problem of pollution from abandoned mines all over 

the Nation. 

Abandoned hardrock mines affect about 40 percent of the headwater streams in the Western United States. This is particularly 

important for us, because that happens to be where all the native 

trout are holed up. The lack of a dedicated funding source, and the 

burdensome liability risk for would-be Good Samaritans stalls efforts to clean up these abandoned mines. 

In the East we have pollution from abandoned coal mines that 

damages over 10,000 miles of streams in Pennsylvania and West 

Virginia alone. The East, however, should actually consider itself 

fortunate, because the production of coal is taxed in this country, 

and part of that funding supports an abandoned mine land fund. 

Since 1977, more than $8 billion has been put to good use on the 

ground, cleaning up abandoned coal mines and making them safer 

in Appalachia. Unfortunately, no similar fund exists to clean up 

the legacy of hardrock mining, particularly in the Western United 

States. 

In Pennsylvania, as was mentioned earlier, aided by a Statebased Good Samaritan policy, TU is working with State agencies, 

watershed groups, and other partners to conduct more than 250 

abandoned coal mine pollution abatement projects. 

If you could show slide 3, please. 

[Slide] 

Mr. WOOD. In places such as Kerber Creek, Colorado, pictured 

here, TU and its partners have restored over 80 acres of mine 

tailings, improved 8 miles of stream, and installed over 340 instream structures that are now home to naturally reproducing wild 

trout. Volunteers logged over 13,000 hours of work in the watershed over the past few years alone, and the project has received 

awards from the BLM, the State of Colorado, the Forest Service, 

and the Public Lands Foundation. 

Notwithstanding what happened at Gold King, we know how to 

clean up abandoned mines in the East and the West. Two things 

would dramatically accelerate the scope and scale of our efforts to 

40 

make our water cleaner and our rivers more fishable and swimmable. 

First, as is the case with coal, a dedicated funding source is needed for cleaning up abandoned hardrock mines. Almost every commodity developed off public lands—coal, wood fiber, oil, gas, and 

forage—all have dedicated funding for restoration and mitigation. 

The only commodity that lacks such a dedicated fund is hardrock 

minerals. That needs to change. 

Second, local communities, private interests, and groups such as 

TU need protection from the liability associated with cleaning up 

abandoned mines. The Clean Water Act and CERCLA have been 

tremendously effective at cleaning up our rivers and holding polluters accountable for their actions. They do not, however, lend 

themselves to permitting cleaning up abandoned mines. My written 

testimony provides recommendations for tailored changes that we 

think would fix the problem. 

We strongly urge you to work together to introduce and develop 

a strong bipartisan bill to help us clean up abandoned mines, and 

we stand ready to work with Congress to get such a bill through 

Congress, so that affected communities around the country will 

once again have clean and fishable waters. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Mr. Pagel, welcome. 

Ms. PAGEL. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member 

Napolitano, and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity 

to speak to you today about reclaiming abandoned hardrock mines 

and Good Samaritan policies. My name is Lauren Pagel, I am the 

policy director for Earthworks. 

For over a quarter century, Earthworks has worked closely with 

a broad coalition of local governments, Native Americans, citizens 

groups, and other conservation organizations to improve the policies governing hardrock mining, including abandoned mine reclamation. As the orange rivers in Colorado—both from the Gold 

King Mine spill and the recent acid mine drainage into the 

Uncompahgre River illustrate, we have a problem with pollution 

from inactive and old hardrock mines in this country. This pollution harms Western waters and the communities that rely on them 

for recreation, tourism, and drinking water. 

These orange rivers are stark reminders, but do not adequately 

represent the hundreds of thousands of abandoned mines that litter the West, polluting water in more subtle yet no less destructive 

ways. We have the solution to the problem of perpetual pollution 

from inactive and abandoned hardrock mines. We must reform the 

1872 mining law and institute a reclamation fee similar to the one 

paid by the coal industry in order to stop the next mine disaster 

before it happens. If the hardrock mining industry had been subject 

to a reclamation fee, the Gold King Mine spill likely would never 

have happened. 

Good Samaritan initiatives that don’t include a dedicated and 

significant funding source won’t solve the problem facing Western 

communities and water resources. The EPA has created a process, 

which you heard about earlier, through which qualified projects can 

receive what is effectively a Good Samaritan permit. Applicants receive an administrative order from the EPA to become Good SaVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:13 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2015\10-21-~1\97235.TXT JEAN
41 

maritans and earn liability relief from CERCLA and the Clean 

Water Act. 

Earthworks supports this process, and we have supported several 

legislative proposals in past Congresses that create a narrow exemption from the Clean Water Act for truly Good Samaritans. 

The pollution from many abandoned mines persists despite wellintentioned efforts by Good Samaritans to clean up these mines, 

and the reason is lack of funding. There are many other ticking 

time bombs like the Gold King Mine, messy, complicated, incredibly expensive to clean up, that cannot be solved by Good Samaritans alone. According to the EPA, estimated cleanup costs for abandoned hardrock mines totals approximately $50 billion. This is a 

large-scale problem, and it requires a large-scale solution, which 

comes in the form of a reclamation fee. 

Cleaning up abandoned mines can be a win-win for our economy 

and for clean water. According to data from the State of Montana 

Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, each million dollars spent on 

cleanup creates 81 jobs. In addition to job creation, these restoration activities put degraded lands into productive use and grant relief to communities that are currently shackled with excessive costs 

for water treatment. 

The Obama administration has proposed a reclamation fee on all 

hardrock mining, similar to what the coal mining industry pays. 

This fee would generate an estimated $180 million per year to fund 

abandoned mine reclamation, and that would create an estimated 

14,000 jobs for those in the mining industry. 

Congressmen DeFazio, Grijalva, Lowenthal, and others have introduced legislation that would bring us closer to ensuring that the 

Gold King Mine disaster does not happen again. H.R. 963, the 

Hardrock Mining Reform and Reclamation Act, would facilitate the 

cleanup of abandoned hardrock mines, while creating tens of thousands of reclamation jobs across the West, far into the future. This 

bill modernizes the antiquated 1872 mining law by balancing mining with other uses of public lands, while ensuring a fair royalty 

to the taxpayer and creating a reclamation fee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of 

Earthworks on this important topic, and we look forward to working with the committee to address the real problem of abandoned 

mines—that abandoned mines pose to water and public safety in 

the West. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. I will start out. Mr. Russell, thanks for 

all of your testimony, it is all great and helpful. But, Mr. Russell, 

you talk about mining companies needing to qualify for Good Samaritan works, OK? And I would agree with that, because that is 

where the expertise is, and I think we had discussion on the first 

panel about questioning the expertise of that panel. 

I guess my first question is what issues are you facing that you 

haven’t been able to qualify? And then also, would remining an 

abandoned site—is that an issue? Because we are talking about 

how we need more resources. 

Now, it seems to me one of the ways that we get resources, if 

some of these abandoned mines can be reopened when they are reclaimed and—or maybe areas in the mine can be remined. You are 

the expert, you would have to tell me. But I will just give you an 

42 

example. I know in the oil and gas fields, you know, we have got 

wells that were put in in the 1920s and 1930s and now we have 

seen—until the price dropped, anyways—coming back in with a 

new technology, they can strip those walls and get oil and gas they 

couldn’t get, you know, 50, 60 years ago. It is the technology. 

So with improved technology, remining efforts, is this one way to 

go? And if so, what are the regulatory challenges to be able to get 

there? As you say, mining companies need to be qualified. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. Let me give you an example. I worked at a mine that—it was first mined in the late 

1860s, the competing mining camps were called Leesburg and 

Grantsville on the heels of the U.S. Civil War. One hundred years 

later, I was there permitting a new mine, new technology, able to 

come back into that same area and mine again. 

The historic mining had left placer sediments in the downstream 

area. As a part of the modern mine, we were able to come in, clean 

that material up, use some of that material as part of the construction, so it was a win-win for the environment, a win for us. So we 

did not reprocess that material, but we were able to utilize it as 

construction material. 

So, yes, there is great opportunity. And, as testified earlier, that 

under a Good Samaritan program there would be a bright line between what would be that type of remediation and cleanup and 

what would be a renewed mining operation. That renewed mining 

operation would be subject to all State and Federal permitting. It 

would be required to post a financial assurance, which would be 

different than that first piece, which could be remediation—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Now, are you seeing roadblocks put up by the regulatory agencies to do that? What have your challenges been? 

Mr. RUSSELL. Sir, the biggest challenge was mentioned earlier. 

If there is a discharge, the wheels fall off. The liability, potential 

liability of having to be responsible for that in perpetuity essentially is a chilling—— 

Mr. GIBBS. So, essentially, you are buying the liability that was 

from 100 years ago. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Exactly right. 

Mr. GIBBS. And so they call that a tail. You know, it goes on forever. 

Mr. RUSSELL. It is a long tail. 

Mr. GIBBS. A long tail. OK. Mr. Young, you talked about not 

doing this through the CWA [Clean Water Act], but maybe 

brownfields or Superfund. Can you just expound on it a little bit 

more? 

Mr. YOUNG. Sure, most certainly. I was going to just make a real 

quick observation on remining, if it is OK. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. We did deal with this quite a bit, historically, including in previous legislation that would use the Clean Water Act permit. One way we worked this through was that any remining that 

occurred—I mean the effort has to be to clean up the site. So it is 

not—the purpose of remining would not be to actually remine and 

develop the resource. The purpose would be to do the cleanup. And, 

as you are doing that cleanup, if you run across recoverable assets, 

minerals, you can develop those. 

43 

But the way we did it was that any of the revenue that you received for that mineral, recovered mineral, would have to be 

plowed back into the site itself you are cleaning up, or future abandoned mine sites. So that was—I just throw that out there as a solution, as a potential thing to look at, because that is the way we 

dealt with that. 

I will say, though, again, that I think I am a little concerned that 

if we go back to the Clean Water Act and try to establish a new 

permit program, we are going to go through these same debates 

and issues again. That, again, can be a good or bad thing. But 

it—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, let me just—— 

Mr. YOUNG. Go ahead. 

Mr. GIBBS. That takes us back to, I think, what Mr. Stanislaus 

was talking about. They did this administrative stuff in, I think, 

2007 and 2012, and I was arguing—trying to debate—about that. 

It must not be effective, because only one entity took it up, and I 

don’t think they were successful. 

So you know, I guess the question is whether the administrative 

action the U.S. EPA has taken is or is not working. You would concur with that, right? 

Mr. YOUNG. I would agree. I will, though—I will applaud the 

EPA for doing that. I think it is primarily, from my perspective, focused on the CERCLA aspects of cleaning it up. There is already 

a CERCLA Good Samaritan provision under the CERCLA statute. 

The question becomes when you have got a release after a 

CERCLA removal action is complete, and you have got an ongoing 

release. You are still subject to citizen lawsuit provisions. In other 

words, there still has to be some statutory fixes that would give 

legal assurances, real assurances, to Good Samaritans. 

Again, I think the EPA program is great. But if I were an attorney advising a Good Samaritan under that EPA administrative 

program, I would tell them you are still—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Because it doesn’t protect you from third-party lawsuits. 

Mr. YOUNG. Correct. 

Mr. GIBBS. So that is a big issue. 

Mr. YOUNG. Correct. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Cavazza, I know Pennsylvania has done really 

well in cleaning up and really, I guess, has a Good Samaritan law, 

State law. Correct? I guess it has been successful. But, you know, 

what is the conflict with Federal law? I mean, when an entity is 

coming in to do a cleanup, they get protection under State law for 

State lawsuits or third-party lawsuits, but they have no protection 

if it is taken to a Federal court. What have been the issues there 

for you? 

Mr. CAVAZZA. Yes. You are correct. The Pennsylvania Good Samaritan Environmental Good Samaritan Act protects Good Samaritans, people cleaning up these sites, from all State and clean water 

liability. However, there is no protection under the Federal laws, 

primarily the Clean Water Act and also potentially under 

CERCLA. And, in my time in Pennsylvania, we have worked with 

a lot of partners on projects that I think would have had significant 

improvement in cleaning up abandoned mine sites and abandoned 

44 

mine drainage. However, that fear of that Federal liability has 

caused some of the partners to walk away from the project. 

Mr. GIBBS. So it is very challenging. OK. I will turn it over 

to—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On a yes or no answer, please, because I have other questions I would like to get to 

the panel, one of the lessons learned from the Gold King Mine is 

that, despite the best intentions of the parties, cleanup attempts 

can fail, and can have significant consequences to downstream communities. However, I understand the Good Samaritan concept. 

The costs of such failure at a Good Samaritan site are not all 

borne by the Good Samaritan, but are passed along to others, including the taxpayers. If we ultimately really want to solve the 

problem of abandoned hardrock mines, would you agree that concepts of these Good Samaritan cleanups and a dedicated fund for 

hardrock mine cleanup are inseparably bound together? Yes or no. 

Panel? 

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Mr. CAVAZZA. My microphone is not working. Yes. I would say 

yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes, OK. 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. WOOD. Yes. 

Ms. PAGEL. Yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. And to Mr. Cavazza, does the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs or the States 

have an inventory of abandoned mine sites? And who do they share 

it with? And what does the information contain? 

Mr. CAVAZZA. Well, there is a—there are inventories, partial inventories of hardrock sites. They are not maintained by the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs. They are 

maintained by individual States and some of the Federal agencies 

that—Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, National 

Park Service, they have partial inventories. 

The Federal Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, who administers all the abandoned mine land programs for 

coal across the country, does maintain a national inventory of 

abandoned coal sites. It is known as AMLIS, Abandoned Mine 

Land Inventory System. It is—just like the hardrock inventories, it 

is not 100 percent complete and comprehensive. It does not identify 

every mine—coal mine site and the problems associated with them 

across the country. 

However, most of the highest priority sites have been captured 

there. And I think the State inventories of hardrock sites, along 

with the Federal agency hardrock inventories, have identified a significant number of high-priority sites. And probably the effort to 

try to make the inventories 100 percent complete and comprehensive may not be worth the cost and effort to do so because the magnitude of the problem is so great, and the number of sites we have 

already identified that are of priority is already very large, that 

any money that we would be able to allocate toward the problem 

would probably best be spent on the high-priority sites we have already identified. 

45 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Are you saying that all the high-priority—that 

every one of them that should be looked at is a high priority? In 

other words you have identified the high priority. The ones that 

you have not identified would not qualify to be prioritized? 

Mr. CAVAZZA. No, I do think some of the mine sites that are not 

included on any of the inventories, whether they be coal or 

hardrock, would be high-priority sites. But I think that would be 

a minority of the unidentified sites. I think most of the high-priority sites have been identified and are already on an inventory. 

There just is not a comprehensive national inventory of those sites. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And why is that? 

Mr. CAVAZZA. I think there are a number of factors. I think the 

cost and difficulty of creating such an inventory has been a deterrent to having that be completed. Many of these sites are very remote. Many of them were mined several hundred years ago, so 

there aren’t very good records to even locate them. It takes a lot 

of field reconnaissance or some type of remote sensing to find these 

sites. 

And then, the problems associated with them are—can be very 

diverse. There can be mine subsidence issues, water problems, and 

those are all very difficult to quantify and put a cost to. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, I would hope that maybe the Conference 

of Mayors or other organizations would start looking at what is in 

the backyard in order to prevent any kind of impact they might 

have on their environment and on their fishing and other tourism—tourist impacts. 

Mr. Wood, your testimony suggests that you believe Good Samaritan protections should only be extended to Good Samaritans, not 

companies or communities. 

Mr. WOOD. I am sorry, did you say do I believe that? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes. Why? 

Mr. WOOD. I—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It suggests that you believe that it only be extended to them. Why? 

Mr. WOOD. I don’t believe that. I think Good Samaritan protections should apply to anyone that doesn’t have a historic legal interest in the pollution. So we work very close—mining companies 

are some of the best restoration practitioners out there when it 

comes to cleaning up abandoned mines. And so long as they don’t 

have an historic legal connection to the abandoned mine site, I 

think we should be encouraging them to get involved. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But who would make that determination? 

Mr. WOOD. Who would make the—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. That there is no inherent conflict. 

Mr. WOOD. Well, I mean, it should be fairly easy to determine 

if an abandoned mine was at one point owned by the company that 

is—now owns it. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. One of the concerns I might have is 

whether or not some of the folks who might want to remine a 

mine—not necessarily the one who originally mined it—that they 

may be doing it for profit and leave a worse situation than was 

there before. 

Mr. WOOD. No, but I think Mr. Russell put it well. I mean, you 

know, there is going to be areas where you can remine for the sake 

46 

of processing materials. They should go through the full Federal 

permitting process for that kind of a project. But for other areas, 

where they are truly acting as a Good Samaritan—meaning that 

there is a neighboring property that they don’t even own that they 

can do some good work on and help make things better—by all 

means I think we should encourage that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But asking Good Samaritans to clean up the 

old mines either through administrative process or via legislation 

will not—and cannot—fully address the hundreds of thousands of 

old mines that currently threaten our safety and clean water. Why? 

Mr. WOOD. I am sorry. Say that one more time. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, Ms. Pagel, this is for Ms.—this is asking 

the Good Samaritans to clean up old mines. It will not fully address the hundreds of thousands of mines that are currently 

threatening our waters and our safety. 

Ms. PAGEL. Yes, Good Samaritans have a role to play in cleaning 

up abandoned mines. But without an adequate funding source, you 

are only going to have a small number of mines that are cleaned 

up. And so, if we really want to address the full scope of the problem, we need a dedicated funding source, we need a hardrock abandoned mine reclamation program that can be used by States, local 

governments, et cetera, to clean up those sites. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would this dedicated fund be able to help 

move the programs forward faster? 

Ms. PAGEL. Yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Include more? 

Ms. PAGEL. Yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And where would that funding come from? 

Ms. PAGEL. The funding would come from a reclamation fee 

charged on the hardrock mining industry, similar to what the coal 

mining industry has paid since the late 1970s. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Rokita? 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you organizing us this morning, and I appreciate the witnesses’ testimony 

so far. My apologies for being late. I was, ironically, at another 

hearing discussing coal mines, et cetera. So I appreciate everyone’s 

leadership in their field. 

Ms.—is it Pagel or Pagel, I am sorry. 

Ms. PAGEL. Pagel. 

Mr. ROKITA. Pagel. Thank you. So I understand—and I will probably have to zoom out a little bit from the detail that you are probably used to, but would Good Samaritan projects improve the environment or not? Should we encourage Good Samaritans to perform 

cleanups at mine sites? 

Ms. PAGEL. We should. And I would hope we could also get Good 

Samaritans additional funding from a reclamation fund to do those 

cleanups. 

Mr. ROKITA. At the end of the day, funds are not—would you prefer having no cleanup be performed at an abandoned mine site, or 

having a Good Samaritan perform a cleanup? 

Ms. PAGEL. A Good Samaritan. I mean we have supported Good 

Samaritan cleanups in the past, and we continue to encourage 

Good Samaritans to clean up any sites they are able to. 

47 

Mr. ROKITA. Your remarks about reclamation fees and royalty 

payments focus on issues that, if I understand the jurisdiction correctly, are not part of this committee’s jurisdiction and, further, do 

not address the ongoing liability concerns that innocent parties, including States and local government, face if they want to clean up 

a mine site, large or small. 

So, do you believe that the fear of exposure to strict liability 

under Federal laws is causing many potential parties to shy away 

from performing the cleanup activities? 

Ms. PAGEL. I think that the lack of funding and potential legal 

liability issues are causing Good Samaritans and others to shy 

away. I do note there are jurisdictional issues. But I think that the 

reclamation fee and the Good Samaritan issue are inextricably 

linked, and I think that there is agreement on that issue. 

Mr. ROKITA. So your organization is on record that we need to 

address these liability concerns? 

Ms. PAGEL. Yes. 

Mr. ROKITA. All right. OK. Anyone else want to comment on the 

line of questioning I just gave to Ms. Pagel? Mr. Young? 

Mr. YOUNG. I would observe that in the first bill I worked on 

with Representative Udall at the time, we had a Good Samaritan 

permit provision in the Clean Water Act, and we also had a funding source included. It was two titles. And the funding provision 

became so controversial that we ended up having to split that out. 

The funding—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Controversial because people around here fought on 

turf lines? 

Mr. YOUNG. It was—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Or was it a tax issue? 

Mr. YOUNG. Taxing issue, ideological, political. I will tell you that 

the provision that we had was we borrowed the fee structure that 

Nevada currently has. Nevada has a fee system for mining currently, and we just picked that up and borrowed it and used it and 

we proposed it as a Federal fee-type system. 

So—but we—I worry that, if we deal with that specifically—I 

know it is not the committee’s jurisdiction, but I worry—I agree 

with every panelist who has said that this is a major funding issue. 

I just think there is a way we can do this without having to directly assess a fee or a royalty, in that if you incentive more Good 

Samaritans, they bring their resources to the table. 

If the mining industry was a Good Samaritan and didn’t have to 

worry about the liability questions, they would bring their resources to the table. Not just the mining industry, but the States 

are ready, willing, and able to be Good Samaritans, as well. The 

States themselves are thwarted because of this long-term liability, 

perpetual liability question. So the more that we can establish this 

program and have it working, the more I think we can attract 

those resources without having to deal with the political headwind 

of doing a fee or a royalty. That is my opinion. 

Mr. ROKITA. And do you have a model State program in this 

area? 

Mr. YOUNG. For? 

Mr. ROKITA. Good Samaritans or other programs, or anything 

like that? 

48 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, there are Good Samaritans that are doing 

work as long as they don’t touch the draining water. So there are 

Good Samaritans doing work out there right now, but they are just 

not touching the water, the draining water, the acid mine drainage. 

Mr. ROKITA. Anyone else? Yes, Mr.—they always do this to me. 

Staff brings witnesses in whose names I can’t pronounce. 

Mr. CAVAZZA. Cavazza. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you. 

Mr. CAVAZZA. In Pennsylvania we have dozens of watershed 

groups who I will call Good Samaritans for purpose of this quick 

response. And they have undertaken dozens of restoration projects 

at abandoned mine sites across the State of Pennsylvania. And 

most of those cleanups were not done to Federal Clean Water Act 

standards. However, they addressed a significant portion of the pollution that came from these mine sites, and they have made significant improvements in water quality, such that many streams that 

were dead now support healthy, aquatic life populations and fish 

populations. 

And, you know, Pennsylvania does have a State Good Samaritan 

program, and I think many of the features of that program could 

serve to help develop a Federal—a similar program at the Federal 

level. 

Mr. ROKITA. Let me quickly ask—my time has already expired, 

but such is the tradition of this committee to go just a little bit 

over. 

I want the record to reflect Mr. Young was talking about the fact 

that even mine operators could be Good Samaritans if there were 

significant liability protections. Let the record reflect that the questioner, Mr. Rokita, was nodding his head in affirmation of that. Is 

there anyone who disagrees with that concept on the panel? Anyone on the panel who disagrees? 

[No response.] 

Mr. ROKITA. And let the record reflect that no—that all of the 

panelists are nodding their head negatively, meaning they don’t 

disagree. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for the hearing. I 

yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. A couple questions. I think maybe for Mr. Young 

and Mr.—the person from Pennsylvania, I am sorry—you know, 

there has been some talk maybe—well, first of all, the Good Samaritans, how many are out there? I mean is it a lot, or is it just 

a couple? I mean what would be the potential? 

And I think, Mr. Young, you made a good comment there, that 

for remining and resources there could be a lot. Can you give us 

some idea? I mean we have got thousands of these abandoned 

mines. What is the interest out there? Is it mining companies, 

mostly, or is it Trout Unlimited? 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, I can tell you, just from doing a little bit of research in my State of Colorado, that we have about 30 watershed 

groups that have been created and established for the sole purpose 

of looking at addressing the impacts to their watersheds, which is 

primarily coming from abandoned hardrock mines. 

So there are 30 folks right there. Then you add in the State 

itself, and you add in groups like Trout Unlimited, who has actuVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:13 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2015\10-21-~1\97235.TXT JEAN
49 

ally been doing great work in mines in Colorado, specifically. Then 

you add the mining companies, you add the tribes. I mean potentially you could have tribal folks, if they have the wherewithal and 

could subcontract, as well. 

So, I mean, the idea—if you see in my written testimony, my definition of a Good Samaritan is a very broad definition. Just anybody that wants to aid and make improvements, but didn’t have 

any past connections, it could be quite a few. 

Mr. GIBBS. The point that I am trying to get clarified, that is it 

significant? Because I think there are some out there who say, 

‘‘Well, not really. We got to have all these other resources coming 

in,’’ and sometimes, if you tax too much, you end up with less. So 

you know, I have a whole theory. If you want more of something, 

tax it less. You want less of something, tax it more. That might 

apply, if you get to a certain level. Just editorialize there a little 

bit. 

Anybody want to speak up about who should administer a Good 

Samaritan program? Should it be the U.S. EPA? Should it be the 

States or how should that be structured? 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, I would say that what we looked at in the past 

would be thinking about having it be a delegated State program. 

You do have to have somebody that would be looking at the plans 

and proposals, and it could easily be the States. 

But you are right. Whatever program, whatever mechanism you 

choose to try to house this within, whether it is CERCLA, 

brownfields, Clean Water Act, you would have to have somebody 

that these Good Samaritans would go and get approval. So you 

would have to work through those. But it is up to what makes the 

most sense, and where you can get the most support. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Cavazza, you had a comment? 

Mr. CAVAZZA. I will agree with what Mr. Young said. I mean we 

feel strongly that the States are in the best position to have primacy delegated to them to implement a Good Samaritan program 

for, you know, Federal Clean Water Act liability protection, and 

possibly CERCLA liability protection. We have a lot of experience 

with delegated programs like the mining program and already 

some delegation under the Clean Water Act. So we would know the 

Good Samaritans and partners involved, and also, I think, have a 

better handle on the problems, and what the potential solutions 

are. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Another question, I think probably for Mr. Russell and Mr. Young, potentially, because you are in that locale, I 

think. On the Gold King spill out there, we had a lot of discussion 

with the first panelist about questioning the expertise and their 

hiring of private contractors and an investigation. 

Does anybody want to comment on what your feelings are about 

what is going on? Is the investigation significant? I mean is it credible enough, the way they are going about it, or should they go 

about it like the Tennessee Valley Authority did? You know, what 

are your thoughts, being out there in the area? What are you seeing? Not to put you too much on the spot, but—— 

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I really am not that knowledgeable about what EPA is doing on that investigation. It is a 

50 

tragedy that it happened, and I think it could have been prevented 

by having the right expertise working on it at the beginning. 

Mr. YOUNG. And I think you also heard that this particular mine, 

the drainage adit, was part of a larger complex of different mine 

tunnels. And the reason why I think we need a Good Samaritan 

program is because it also protects people who would go in and do 

investigations, thorough investigations. 

Right now, that—because of liability exposure potential, there is 

a discouragement to even go and really do thorough investigations 

of just how the Gold King Mine connects with Sunnyside or some 

other mines that are in that complex. And if you do ‘‘solution X’’ 

on one adit, it might have some implications in other structures 

underground. And I think this may be an example—I don’t know 

too much about the investigation, so I can’t answer your question 

specifically. However, I am trying to use the Gold King as an example of why we really need Good Samaritan program in Federal statute, so that we can incentivize more people to do thorough investigations to see how the underground hydrology works, and not 

have to worry about even investigating being then saddled—— 

Mr. GIBBS. So what you just said to me, what—being a novice, 

and, you know, not an expert in mining, we got an 

interconnectivity issue in this mine, or this spill, and the Bureau 

of Reclamation doesn’t have the experts. We know the EPA doesn’t 

have the experts. We already, I think, came to that consensus at 

the first panel. And if they don’t bring in the right people, we probably won’t get the real determination of what the investigation— 

what really happened, or—to have another one. 

Mr. YOUNG. Correct. I think if you can—if we can find a way to 

prevent or reduce the exposure of liability to folks who would go 

in and poke around just to see what is there—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Got you. 

Mr. YOUNG [continuing]. Then, you know, I think we could have 

more capability brought to the attention of these sites as a complex, and potentially avoid a Gold King. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Wood, since you have got some experience out 

there with Good Samaritan work, how many have actually carried 

out and resulted in—you know, from this guidance that they put 

out in 2012, have we got some positive results? What is your experience? 

Mr. WOOD. So there is actually two sets of guidance that EPA 

put out. One was as a result of a project that we did at a place 

called American Fork Canyon in Utah, where we were trying to 

protect a Bonneville cutthroat trout population from some historic 

mine waste that was leaching into the stream. And we negotiated 

an agreement with the EPA that became the basis for what they 

call the Good Samaritan policy, which we think provides an effective protection from CERCLA liability. 

So we were able to use that. To my knowledge, I think we are 

the only entity that has ever used the 2007 Good Samaritan policy. 

We have used it three or four times to—basically, we come up with 

a plan of operation, we have engineers that do this for us. They 

then get that approved by the EPA, and we are protected from liability, so long as we are not negligent. 

51 

As far as the 2012 EPA guidance, that was targeted at the Clean 

Water Act. And frankly, we didn’t feel that that provided—that 

provides us enough protection to get involved in issues of draining 

adits. So we will not be utilizing that. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Just one last quick question in regard to partial 

remediation and not going in and doing a complete cleanup—because under the CWA right now it is potentially a liability for Good 

Samaritans to have to go the whole route, and that is one of the 

hurdles. 

Is there anybody on the panel that doesn’t support partial remediation? 

[No response.] 

Mr. GIBBS. We are all good on that, right? I would hope so. I just 

wanted to make sure, because of all the issues there. 

So, Mrs. Napolitano, you have any final questions? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, I would like to ask probably of Mr. Russell, what is the process of a mine, when it is closed, a hardrock 

mine when it is closed? What do they do to the mine? 

Mr. RUSSELL. That would—it is, obviously, a site-specific response. But in general, at the end, at the latter stages of the mining process today, mines are designed to be closed. So at the latter 

stages of the active mining, activities are being taken to recontour 

and regrade the site. To address any residual chemicals, covering 

materials that could have potential—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How do they do that? How do they do that? 

They put water in it? Do they fill it with water? 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, if it is an open pit or an underground, some 

may fill with water at closure. Some are dry closures. It just depends on the geography of the—geology of the site. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. And if there is a watershed coming 

through, will that fill up that water—potential leak problems in the 

future? 

Mr. RUSSELL. It is, again, site-specific. In many cases, no. In 

some cases, that is a concern. But that would have been identified 

in the initial baseline environmental study that would have done 

exactly what Mr. Young was saying on some of these abandoned 

sites that can’t be done. But for an active or a new mining operation that is thoroughly investigated prior to the start of mining 

operations, so we know at the time of closure if that would be an 

issue that needed to be addressed, and we would try to address it 

as a part of the act of mining operation, not leave it to the final 

stages of closure. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But in the mines that have not been covered 

through the mining law, it was prior to, the old abandoned, what 

happens to them? I mean they are graded? Does somebody go back 

and reassess them and be able to say these are possibly—mines 

that are—possibly might be leaking contaminants into the nearby 

streams or the rivers or the aquifers? 

Mr. RUSSELL. You are talking about abandoned lands at this 

point? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Correct. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes. So abandoned mines that have been identified 

and resources brought to bear, such as Trout Unlimited and others 

through a Good Samaritan effort, or State programs like in PennVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:13 Apr 29, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2015\10-21-~1\97235.TXT JEAN
52 

sylvania, they are being addressed by either removal actions, cover 

actions, et cetera, to address whatever that source of contaminant 

is to reduce or remove it. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But it depends on the size of the problem, too, 

so that the Good Samaritans would not be able to go in and clean 

up a major site. So what happens to those mines that are not going 

to be considered doable for a Good Sam to go in and work with? 

Mr. RUSSELL. There may be limits to what a Good Sam would 

be interested and willing to do. But I think if the goal is improvement in the environment, or reduction in risk to human health or 

public safety, then there is a lot that can be done. A big bang for 

a small amount of dollars can be achieved by partial remediation 

at those sites. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right. But there are still going to be some 

that are going to fall through the cracks, and how do we protect 

the communities and the environment and all the other things that 

are impacted with those that are not going to fall into that let’s 

look at them and find out where they are at, or they are on the 

list, or their potential—what about those mines? 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, those sites, again, by making some measured 

gains that we have seen through collaborative efforts and through 

the State programs that Mr. Cavazza has talked about, we are addressing those. But there—and not all the sites. I mean you talk 

about—you heard half-a-million sites. There is just a subset of 

those that pose any environmental issue whatsoever. Some are a 

small pit, some might be a shaft. 

But there are—in that universe it is only a subset of sites that 

actually are posing environmental issues. Not to undermine that— 

those impacts on those sites, but it is not all of those sites. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And to Mr. Wood, Ms. Pagel, is there some aspect of this that we need to start maybe recognizing that there is 

an impact, going to be a future impact on those that are not being 

addressed, that are falling through the cracks, if you will? 

Ms. PAGEL. Yes. While Good Samaritans can take on some of 

these sites, and hopefully will, the—you know, the issue of—you 

know, that the chairman brought up of taxing too much and et 

cetera, you know, the hardrock mining industry in this country has 

been able to take minerals from public lands without paying a royalty—so for free—since 1872. They have not paid a reclamation fee. 

They have significant tax breaks. And it is the—in order to get 

those sites cleaned up that are not going to be cleaned up by a 

Good Samaritan, we need resources from a reclamation fee to do 

that. And it is long overdue to have that type of reclamation fund. 

Mr. WOOD. I will simply add that, you know, I hope we can get 

to a point that we are concerned about the mines that are falling 

through the cracks. Because right now, the situation we have is 

that EPA is worrying about 127 or so Superfund sites, the worst 

of the worst. And then everybody else is running around, trying to 

cobble together nickels and dimes, and partnering with great fear 

of exposure and risk of liability to get what we can done. 

But the game is not about what is falling through the cracks, because the cracks are defining the game right now. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, what would you suggest is an adequate 

and a fair way of dealing with it? Anybody. 

53 

Mr. WOOD. Well, I mean, I think—you know, as I think you 

have—this may be a rare hearing, where you have unanimity on 

the panel, but I think we need to have Good Sam protection, particularly relative to the Clean Water Act. And I think we need to 

have a dedicated funding source. Now, whether that comes from a 

tax or something else, you know, there are many paths to the top 

of the mountain. But once you get there, the view is the same. 

The fact is we have to find a dedicated funding source, wherever 

it comes from, because the magnitude of the problem is too great 

to not. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Mr. YOUNG. I would submit that it is conceivable, if we had a 

Good Samaritan program, that we wouldn’t have any fall through 

the cracks. I think there is enough—I just gave you the number 

that we have, 30 watershed groups in Colorado. They would be 

more than willing to take the initiative to find the resources and 

the technologies to do the cleanup on anything that is affecting 

their watershed. 

And you know, clearly, because you asked, there are techniques 

you can employ. They don’t have to all be active, meaning you don’t 

have to create a wastewater treatment facility that is expensive 

and that has to be operated continuously. You can do passive systems, or you could even put bulkheads in these draining adits to 

actually prevent any future releases at all. 

So, there is a range of technologies and techniques that each 

have their own expenses associated and effectiveness. And so I 

think—I mean I am just trying to suggest that I think if we can 

get a Good Samaritan program going, and in place, that the resources will come, and we may be able to capture all of it, potentially. I mean that is the hope. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And that also would bring to mind—in my 

mind—the issue of recycling that water, reclaiming that water, 

cleaning that water for potential use. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. GIBBS. Just a quick question comes to mind. We talk about 

the funding source, and I know Ms. Pagel says and Mr. Wood says 

how necessary it is. I am assuming States do have some fees attached to that hardrock mining. Anybody want to—— 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, some States do. I know Nevada has a State fee. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. It is on hardrock mining—— 

Mr. YOUNG. It is on hardrock. 

Mr. GIBBS [continuing]. In Pennsylvania, I guess, but you have 

probably got some fees—— 

Mr. CAVAZZA. We do have some small fees that noncoal operators 

pay, but it is a very small fee, and it generates a very small pot 

of money to deal with noncoal reclamation. But the only fee Pennsylvania has for coal reclamation and treatment of mine drainage 

from those abandoned mines is the Federal abandoned mine land 

grants—— 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

Mr. CAVAZZA [continuing]. That we receive, just like Ohio. And 

as you know probably, the authorization to collect that fee runs out 

in 2021. And just like funding needs for hardrock, I think that fee 

54 

needs to be extended, because there is a lot of work left to do, and 

that—it has certainly gone a long way to help solve the problem. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Well, I want to thank all the panelists for coming 

in today. It has been helpful as we work forward. I think there is 

definitely a need, a consensus that we need to do something to help 

the Good Samaritan policy, and to make it work, because currently 

it isn’t working very well. 

So thank you very much, and this adjourns the hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

55 


Insert offset folio 7 here 97235.007
56 


Insert offset folio 8 here 97235.008
57 


Insert offset folio 9 here 97235.009
58 


Insert offset folio 10 here 97235.010
59 


Insert offset folio 11 here 97235.011
60 


Insert offset folio 12 here 97235.012
61 


Insert offset folio 13 here 97235.013
62 


Insert offset folio 14 here 97235.014
63 


Insert offset folio 15 here 97235.015
64 


Insert offset folio 16 here 97235.016
65 


Insert offset folio 17 here 97235.017
66 


Insert offset folio 18 here 97235.018
67 


Insert offset folio 19 here 97235.019
68 


Insert offset folio 20 here 97235.020
69 


Insert offset folio 21 here 97235.021
70 


Insert offset folio 22 here 97235.022
71 


Insert offset folio 23 here 97235.023
72 


Insert offset folio 24 here 97235.024
73 


Insert offset folio 25 here 97235.025
74 


Insert offset folio 26 here 97235.026
75 


Insert offset folio 27 here 97235.027
76 


Insert offset folio 28 here 97235.028
77 


Insert offset folio 29 here 97235.029
78 


Insert offset folio 30 here 97235.030
79 


Insert offset folio 31 here 97235.031
80 


Insert offset folio 32 here 97235.032
81 


Insert offset folio 33 here 97235.033
82 


Insert offset folio 34 here 97235.034
83 


Insert offset folio 35 here 97235.035
84 


Insert offset folio 36 here 97235.036
85 


Insert offset folio 37 here 97235.037
86 


Insert offset folio 38 here 97235.038
87 


Insert offset folio 39 here 97235.039
88 


Insert offset folio 40 here 97235.040
89 


Insert offset folio 41 here 97235.041
90 


Insert offset folio 42 here 97235.042
91 


Insert offset folio 43 here 97235.043
92 


Insert offset folio 44 here 97235.044
93 


Insert offset folio 45 here 97235.045
94 


Insert offset folio 46 here 97235.046
95 


Insert offset folio 47 here 97235.047
96 


Insert offset folio 48 here 97235.048
97 


Insert offset folio 49 here 97235.049
98 


Insert offset folio 50 here 97235.050
99 


Insert offset folio 51 here 97235.051
100 


Insert offset folio 52 here 97235.052
101 


Insert offset folio 53 here 97235.053
102 


Insert offset folio 54 here 97235.054
103 


Insert offset folio 55 here 97235.055
104 


Insert offset folio 56 here 97235.056
105 


Insert offset folio 57 here 97235.057
106 


Insert offset folio 58 here 97235.058
107 


Insert offset folio 59 here 97235.059
108 


Insert offset folio 60 here 97235.060
109 


Insert offset folio 61 here 97235.061
110 


Insert offset folio 62 here 97235.062
111 


Insert offset folio 63 here 97235.063
112 


Insert offset folio 64 here 97235.064
113 


Insert offset folio 65 here 97235.065
114 


Insert offset folio 66 here 97235.066
115 


Insert offset folio 67 here 97235.067
116 


Insert offset folio 68 here 97235.068
117 


Insert offset folio 69 here 97235.069
118 


Insert offset folio 70 here 97235.070
119 


Insert offset folio 73 here 97235.073
120 


Insert offset folio 74 here 97235.074
121 


Insert offset folio 75 here 97235.075
122 


Insert offset folio 76 here 97235.076
123 


Insert offset folio 77 here 97235.077
124 


Insert offset folio 78 here 97235.078
125 


Insert offset folio 79 here 97235.079
126 


Insert offset folio 80 here 97235.080
127 


Insert offset folio 81 here 97235.081
128 


Insert offset folio 82 here 97235.082
129 


Insert offset folio 83 here 97235.083
130 


Insert offset folio 84 here 97235.084
131 


Insert offset folio 85 here 97235.085
132 


Insert offset folio 86 here 97235.086
133 


Insert offset folio 87 here 97235.087
134 


Insert offset folio 88 here 97235.088
135 


Insert offset folio 89 here 97235.089
136 


Insert offset folio 90 here 97235.090
137 


Insert offset folio 91 here 97235.091
138 


Insert offset folio 92 here 97235.092
139 


Insert offset folio 93 here 97235.093
140 


Insert offset folio 94 here 97235.094
141 


Insert offset folio 95 here 97235.095
142 


Insert offset folio 96 here 97235.096
143 


Insert offset folio 97 here 97235.097
144 


Insert offset folio 98 here 97235.098
145 


Insert offset folio 99 here 97235.099
146 


Insert offset folio 100 here 97235.100
147 


Insert offset folio 101 here 97235.101
148 


Insert offset folio 102 here 97235.102
149 


Insert offset folio 103 here 97235.103
150 


Insert offset folio 104 here 97235.104
151 


Insert offset folio 105 here 97235.105
152 


Insert offset folio 106 here 97235.106
153 


Insert offset folio 107 here 97235.107
154 


Insert offset folio 108 here 97235.108
155 


Insert offset folio 109 here 97235.109
156 


Insert offset folio 110 here 97235.110
157 


Insert offset folio 111 here 97235.111
158 


Insert offset folio 112 here 97235.112
159 


Insert offset folio 113 here 97235.113
160 


Insert offset folio 114 here 97235.114
161 


Insert offset folio 115 here 97235.115
162 


Insert offset folio 116 here 97235.116
163 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 117 here 97235.117