in 1975, in a larger accident than the goal king blowout, near silverton spilled 50000 tons laden with tctiic heavy metals into the animus river watershed. in 1979 a breach dam nurture truck new mexico, on the navajo nation sent more than 1000 tons of solid radioactive waste and 93 million gallons of acidic liquid into the river. for decades before the spill last month it leaked heavy metals into samet cresâ over the last ten years and and average of 200 gallons of highly polluted water per minute, or more thansee 00 million gallons per year have flowed out of this

mind and into the river. beyond the immediate cleanup of the spell it is time we overhaul our abandoned mine cleanup policies. we need to make future disasters like this less likel@ ar while resources like oil, natural gas, and coal all pay royalties to return of fate value to taxpayers, hard rxak mining companies can still mind valuable roles for free. a comprehensive approach to refouan should include the establishment of a hard rock reclamation fund. funded by a fair royalty. in a comprehensive survey of abandoned mines and a plan to clean them up. i appreciate the value of hard rock mining and what it means

for families. my father and my mother's father father both made a living in this industr@ ar the industry continues to prfouide good paying jobs throughout the west. passing long, overdue reform to our federal mining law, which has nyou' been updated since 182 is critical if we want to address the root cause of this disaster. >> thank you senator heidrick and for all have come to express your feelings. we are very much concerned avalt this. you are free to leave but you are invited to stay if you're able to do that. at the time of the spill the epa contractor was investigating the amount of water that wasn't behind the clad mi interests of the mine. epa authorize authorize the investigation as part of the cleanup action to address acid mine drainage from the nearby mines.

based on the committee's oversight today it is clear epa new there is likely to be a significant amount of water behind the collapse entrance and there was a risk of a blowout. given these facts it's nyou' clr why they did not exercise more care when working at the site. epa has said it has e be or they spent $8 million responding to this bill. thankfully no one was killed or injured by the blowout but a number of important questions remain unanswered about what led to the spell and how epa responded. since the bill epa has conducted an evaluation of the causes and asked the department of interior t an independent investigation and report his findings later next month. i question whether the interior department has the es, aertise t thisary to conred

review. the epa office of inspector general is also requesting a review of the spell. i'd like to thank mccarthy for agreeing to testify today. it's important we hear directly from the top official avalueut what t the spell. particularly sent some comments were made by senators today. she may want to respond to some of those accusations. i like to know the area of the blowout oiewurred is a historic mining district in colorado where local groups were working with the state of colorado and epa to address impact of acid mine training from other sites for years. when i was chairman of this community in la006 we passed a bipartisan bill that would have promoted the cleanup of the sites by good samaritans.

in the years since this issue as received little attention from congress for this committee. as chairman for the second time i look for to working with my colleagues and i think we will do what should have been done ten years aes a. 87 thank you. 87 i want to thank my colleagues so much for coming here today. and of course es, aress my strog feelings for this issue. i know we have a problem in california and you have experienced it firsthand. precid like to nyou'e the mayorf the city of durango, mary brookie said the following front of the house commi invee. it is tented in in times of crisis to point fingers and place blame,

attempts to blame single agencies or individuals are pointless and irbore the scale and complexity of the problem that needs to be aiewuressed. i want to point out the mayor of red ango said that. i hope this doesn't turn into a finger-pointing deal because it does@ yot make any sense. it is important to us to really understand the root causes of the blowout at the mine. so future aiewidents can be prevented and i hope that is the point of this hearing. epa has beritn the process of improving its mine cleanup activities. they've conducted a quick internal review, and and new ritidance based on lessons learned so far. they are not stopping the other investigations. there are two ones aing independent investigationsnyone. one by the department of interior and one by the epa inspector general. those reviews are important and i look forward to reading both of them and implemented what

thto th say. it is important to understand that i said mine drainage is not a new problem. it has plagued thoh mh watershed in colorado for nearly a centur@ ar in in fact epa was at the site at colorado's request to help find solutions to the pr exlem of acid my contamination. the the mines leak more than 330 million gallons into the animus river each year. that issee 00 times more than te spill.

we need to work to pass reforms that ensure the taxpayers. these are pose a serious threat to water raise that people use

for recreation. mine waste frequently contains high levels of dangerous heavy metals including mercury, lead arsenic, cyanide and other hazard chemicals used to mine operations. in california we have 47000 abandoned mines. nationwide there are over 500,000 abandoned hard rock mines. yet the federal government is barely making a dent. i can pontificate colleagues on both sides on how bad this is, unless we spend some dough on this we are going to face more of these terrible disasters. epa spends an average of $220 million per year, the bureau of land management spends 5 million to 10 million respectively.

president obama's budget administration proposes reinstituting the superfund tax so polluters pay for cleanup. they propose creating a fee on hard rock mining, unfortunately we fail to act. congress has failed to act. yes we are holding holding this hearing, i import, i think my chairman. i think it is totally and completely appropriate. i asked that the rest of my statement be included in the record, let's step up to the plate. let's not point fingers, let's get something done and stop these disasters from happening in the future. >> thank you, we now welcome to the table the administrator. while she is coming in let me share on the basis of arrivals the republican side will be.

>> that should be glassman, cardin, and marquis. >> clark is not even here. >> administrator mccarthy give us your opening statement. you have heard a lot of comments being made by others and will give you a chance to respond. >> thank you, good morning. i'm gina mccarthy the

administrator of the epa and i thank you for the opportunity to appear today and to discuss the august 5 gold king mine release and subsequent response. this was a tragic and unfortunate incident and epa has taken responsibility to ensure we clean it up appropriately. the epa core mission is to ensure a clue environment and dedicated to continuing to do so. our job is to protect the environment and we will hold ourselves and continue to hold ourselves to the same high standards that we demand of others. epa was at the gold king mine on august 5, conducting an investigation to assess mine conditions so that we could dewater the mind pool and assess the feasibility for the mine remediation. why excavating, the bedrock crumbled and expired smedley

3 million gallons discharged from the mine into cement creek. epa in colorado officials informed jurisdiction of within hours before it reached drinking water intakes and notification to other downstream continued the following day. in the aftermath of the release, we initiated an internal review of the incident and we released an internal review summary report which includes an assessment of the events and potential factors that contributed to the gold mine incident. the report provides observation and conclusions and recommendations that are regents should consider applying when conducting ongoing and planned site assessment investigations and construction and removal

projects and similar sites across the country. epa will implement all recommendations from the report and shared with external reviews. in addition to internal reviews their external reviews, the goal is to provide epa and analysis of the incident that took place, including contributing causes. both internal and external reviews will help inform epa for ongoing plan site assessments, investigations, constructions, and removals. one of our priorities to keep the public informed and our response activities. we have closely corn aided with officials in colorado, mexico, utah, the navajo nation's and

others to keep them apprised of water and sediment results which are routinely posted on our website. these results indicate that water has returned to preevent conditions and supported local and state decision-makers as they made the decision to lift water restrictions. finally i want to clarify that epa was working with the state of colorado to take action at the gold king mine to address the potential to of a catastrophic pick release it and the adverse impacts caused by the significant mine discharges. based upon 2009 to 2014 flow data, approximately 330 million gallons of contaminated water was being discharged from those mines in the watershed each year to the cement creek. that is 100 times more that is 100 times more than

the estimated release on august 5. epa was and continues to work with colorado, the stakeholder group to address these significant discharges that are impacting these waters. it's important to note that all across the country or superfund program has successfully cleaned up more than 1150 hazardous waste sites and successfully responded and provided oversight to thousands of actions to protect human health and environment. all of the affected residents of colorado can be assured that epa has an we will continue to take responsibility to ensure that the gold king mine release gets cleaned up. thank you mr. chairman, that concludes my statement. i'm statement. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. let me try to stake out what your position is so that others

can address that position. both the epa and the contractor knew there is a risk of a blowout at the gold king mine, in hindsight do you agree the epa should have spent the time and money to do the necessary engineering and water pressure tests before work began the? >> just yes or no. >> sir my position is the state of colorado, the river stakeholder group knew it, was in the work plan, where there because of the danger of the blowout. >> okay so your answer is no. did epa designate the cleanup here as time critical to cut corners and avoid having a detailed engineering study. >> no sir, we did not. >> white didn't the epa ask a federal agency that does not have a conflict of interest, a

lot of concern about a conflict of interest, with the doi. why didn't you address one of them as opposed to the doi question mark. >> it's important for us to remember we have also put on hold other similar mining responses, many of which are time critical. we went to doi because they have the expertise, there bring in the army corps in, we believe they're independent and their independent and they will give us an independent assessment. as you know there are others investigating the incident. >> so you're saying the doi, those who are saying would have the doi would have conflict of interest is inaccurate. >> i believe there is no conflict of interest.

>> i am not aware of recent problems with our office of management. >> lastly, senator bennett made the statement there is no denying the epa cause this disaster. senator gardner in his statement complained that you were not available for some period of time, your schedule did to be to discuss this. >> well sir, we have taken full responsibility with question. i was there on the 12th and 13th. the original response was quite hectic and ongoing. i certainly didn't want my presence there to confuse the situation. i'm not aware the senator reached out to me in any way prior to that and i didn't respond to right away. >> did you hear his statement

that he made. >> i do not hear his statement. >> you might want to look at that. >> another very important while you the department of justice recently told the federal court that epa would submit the bot no carbon rules to the federal register by september 4 and publication would occur by late october. did the epa submit the rules to the federal register by september 4 question mark. >> i'm sorry sir i don't have those numbers in my head. i didn't expect this question. >> was significant though that was the deadline that was given and whether you provided that deadline. >> i don't have the exact date. >> do you have staff sitting here who could answer that question. >> we can certainly get you the answer as quickly as possible. i do not have my office staff here given my subject matter of the hearing.

>> are you aware delaying publications till october interferes with congress to challenge the rules before the big show. >> sir i am aware both you and i want this to get into the federal register as soon as possible. >> thank you senator. administrator mccarthy i want to point out senator and it did price you for being available. so there is confusion once said you were, the other said you were. so moving on. >> i certainly had a conversation with senator gardner. i'm. >> the superfund law calls for epa to issue rules requiring certain industries to provide financial instruments is for cleanup so that taxpayers are not on the hook. in 2009 epa identified hard rock

mining industry as the first class facilities requiring financial assurance rules. in other words, they would they would be there should their action cause a problem. epa is undertaking this rulemaking but now you're under court order to finish that rule by december 2017. can you describe the steps epa is taking to ensure these critical rules are promulgated according to the court schedule. >> we have also committed to an august 2016 draft, prior to that draft we intend to work with our federal agencies so we can be assured the financial responsibility role will be as accurate as it can be in terms of how much responsibility those parties should take first cleanup. also how best to ensure financial responsibility will be solid and appropriate.

>> how will these rules help insure taxa payers are not on the hook for future cleanup? >> my understanding is that we have an ability to require financial responsibility for our existing and new active sites. the challenge for us, these legacy sites that we are talking about like gold king mine, where we do not have a responsible party that we can lean to, that we will not be able to address those issues with this particular rulemaking. >> in response to the gold king mine spell, deep you issued a stock work order stop work order and you requested a review of whether those sites were a potential for a blowout similar to what happened at the gold king mine. i want want to thank you for that. clearly we don't want to play russian roulette with these mines.

i understand the review has resulted in suspension of cleanup at ten sites including three in california and four in colorado. again i appreciate your quick action to identify other sites that could present a concern. can you describe what action epa is taking to assess the potential risk at the sites? >> you're absolutely right, we were very concerned any similar situation learned from the independent review that is being done from doi before they proceeded. we have identified as best we can, all of the sites that epa is engaged and which is a small fraction of the sites you want to look at. it is over a couple hundred, we are looking at similarities between this angle king mine incident. we are allowing sites to proceed where there is imminent hazard. if there is not we are waiting for the review to be done so we

can make sure similar sites learn the lessons that we are going to learn on the basis of what happened at the gold king mine. >> thank you. i i think that is very commonsense and wise. one concern raised about cleanups of abandoned mines of good samaritans is who will be responsible if something goes wrong during the cleanup? this is my concern. i love the fact that people could come forward and cleanup, but who pays if things go wrong? and something could easily go wrong. if good samaritans are not responsible, who would be on the hook for those costs? would it not be taxpayers question ark. >> it would be. >> that is why i think it is critical we work together to come up with rules that make sense but not have a situation where they just go in there.

if epa made this kind of mistake, and i know it it weighs heavy on your heart, that epa's in there and look what happened. now a good samaritan comes for without any expertise and it could happen again. we have to be very careful about it. i want to say the obama administration has proposed reinstating the superfund and establishing a fee on hard rock mining. >> ..

what i'm curious about is that if ths is an independent review and we are assuming that that's the way you've set it up to be most certainly there would have been a contract or documentation as to what the expectations were. is there a memorandum of agreement or documentation concerning what the dui would review and if not why would we receive copies as requested by the committee as requested by the documents including the

charge questions or the scope. they haven't received the recommendation last evening. how are you send these the views of these following the conclusion of the hearing will. one was to make sure that the eta doesn't actually ourselves controlled by scope of the investigation. they scope themselves so that they wouldn't be accused of narrowing that inappropriately. so i'm happy to follow up to see if i can be helpful getting information about how they have defined it. but they haven't seen the documentation either.

hispanic you are anticipating an independent review, but you don't know if the epa has seen the document which lays out the scope of the investigation by the independent verb. hispanic they didn't dictate the scope of that investigation. >> but you would assume the copy of the independent agency. >> the independent agency is going to dictate that themselves and we are going to live with whatever scope they believe is appropriate as an independent investigator. >> that document should exist. the reason i ask is because you already stopped work at other locations in the preliminary report but it must be based on an understanding of the review in the first place. >> they indicated that they would do the review and they understood that they were going to be established in the scope and it's my understanding they

are intending to complete the review in october. >> so either the documents exist in your agency hasn't seen them, or second the documents are still being developed at which time my question would be because if not we are able to see a copy of the mandate should be very tough to get them. >> i am continuing to make sure they epa is not perceived as interfering in this investigation in any way that would question the end dependence of the review. and that is what we are going to continue to do. >> if it is an independent review it seems to me that the independent review agency would have been provided with a copy of what you're going to be reviewing in how they would do it. >> in this case i do not believe that we have seen that type of documentation. >> you have not? >> we have seen the press release. that is what we have seen and i know that the review is going to

be looking at the incident itself at the contributing factors. beyond that i haven't seen the limitation on how they are going to conduct that. >> has there been a preliminary issue from the independent dui? >> we have looked at the press release that was issued and we are hands-off to address the very issue that you are concerned about which is our independence. >> the reason i'm asking the question is a moment ago you indicated you already shut down work at other locations based upon the information. it did not come from the dui? like that was a look from the national subgroup team at epa that has done the review of the minds that are on the list and have taken a look at what might

be closely similar to this effort and they are consistently looking at those to see what would continue or not if there is any similarity or chan that we need to learn lessons here, those reviews and assessments in work is on hold pending the results of this investigation. >> what about reports that created the need to suspend the existing applications without the available for this committee? spinnaker that was just a memo that was a directive to the agency which i thought was appropriate to do to be very cautious that there was no way in which the goldmine release would happen again at another site because i is unclear and i will remain unclear until the independent review is done about what was the real pitcher getting factor. what happened that we need to make sure will never happen again? and >> thank scenic thank you for your testimony.

>> thank you mr. cardin. we do want the independent review and we want it done with the integrity of an independent review to understand what happened to prevent this from happening in the future. so we all support that and we appreciate your commitment to the independent review. i was listening to my colleague's testimony at the hard rock mining but clearly the states that were directly impacted the most are the ones we heard from today and there are thousands of abandoned mines. all books creates some environmental challenges and some have been under control and have been pretty well controlled and others are much more problematic and we are still evaluating the risk factors as

to whether the action is needed and that was put with part of the process in this particular episode. i was impressed by the senator's comments but we haven't reviewed them all for a long period of time. i understand the political environment we are operating under where it is difficult for the new environmental laws or the fundamental law but i would hope that we would get your evaluation as to whether the current law or the clean water act were the rules for the inactive mines are adequate. we heard the -- had been accountable and we need a dedicated funding source to deal with these types of urgent needs a we are talking about the

multi-billions of dollars in outstanding needs and we need to be the least understanding and have more transparent awareness that there is ongoing problems every day and yet get our feet taking appropriate actions to make sure that the communities are as safe as they need to be. how do we go about doing that? >> we are talking about 23,000 in colorado alone and more than 161,000 in the west and alaska and so clearly this is a very large challenge. i think i would point to the fact that the administration in the fiscal 16 budget proposed a fee that would be charged on the hard rock mining to actually support a fund that would allow us to do a better job of tackling these abandoned mines and the continual impact that they are having on water quality and i think that it's important

to remember that many federal agencies have jobs to do that there is no leadership position that but is accountable for the entire issue and it makes it very difficult from the perspective of the track the minds which are only a small percentage of what's out there on the abandoned mines and make it into the list to track and monitor and take action but in this case it isn't on that list and the local community didn't want on that list that the state was unable to address this challenge and we've been working for 17 to 20 years to try to figure out how to address the minds of the river and it is an

incredible challenge but when they epa responded when the state wanted us to look at this issue, the pressure behind the mine which had been going on for quite some time and we went with them on the site and we developed the work plan with them and a wink to public meetings to the stakeholder group it was completely open and completely transparent. everybody agreed on the next steps and those are the next steps we took. >> i would just ask that you would keep us advised to whether you have adequate tools. we talked talked of talked of the budget a bit about the dedicated funding source and whether they are strong enough because the bottom line is we want to protect the communities and hold those that are responsible accountable for the reclamation and it seems to me that the tools could be stronger

senator sullivan. >> good morning. i want to echo what our panel mentioned at the outset. the senator talked about water is life out west and i think that's something that we agree with. we certainly all want clean water and i agree with the senator that we all want to make sure that the polluters are accountable and help make sure we keep water clean the want the water clean the want to emphasize that the senator talked about where we also believe that the government should be held to the same standards as it requires the public and private sector. do you believe that? and the reporting requirements that the public does? >> that is the reason that the sites were on the list. >> what do you think would happen to a private company if they did what the eta had done

in this with vns rivers of accidentally causing a blowout very significant pollution, some arguments saying take too long to notify. in my estimation the facts will be borne out not by the independent review but the way in which you do an action like this which is difficult to do. as the first make sure if there is an accident -- >> we are trying to explain -- is my answer is -- >> i don't have a lot of time but what would happen if you heidi or a contractor and accidentally caused what's do you think would have been to the company? >> exactly the same thing the epa did if they took the same -- >> what penalties would have

been? >> there will be no penalties unless it was against a settlement order. >> i would like to submit for the record a wall street journal article september 9, 2015 that lays out several examples of even smaller than this private sector companies where there was an accident and there was pollution and there were officials that were criminally charged and some went to jail. do you think that -- if you think that the epa should be held to the same standards as private sector companies were higher standards do you think anyone should be held criminally liable or go to jail for what happened? >> i have exceed you to receive the review that is going to tell me what happened at that site using an independent voice and i am looking forward to that. but the sequence of events when you have a spell is to keep your people safe at the site. it is than to stop this bill as quickly as possible and then to ensure the cleanup.

>> all i'm saying is that your agency has created according to this article criminally charged people for accidental spills and some have even gone to jail. still smaller. but if you are going to hold your agency to a higher standard than the private sector, you need to be aware of what you've done as an agency in the past. and i do want to mention that this is a frustration. i think it is a frustration for the country and that's why people have focused on this and we have abandoned mines. they are still leaking right now and if you are a private sector in charge of a company like that you would be in jail. right now they allow the wells to beat all over the state of

alaska. they don't clean these up. let me talk more broadly. from the last session the supreme court had utility regulators and in just a recent case south dakota, alaska, are you familiar with those cases? >> just came out as a preliminary injunction. >> they either violated the constitution, the clean water act with the clean air act.

what would happen to the private sector company if it was continually violating the law. spackled belief that we are violating the law. >> have you read the michigan versus epa case? have you read utility case? >> there is a pulmonary injunction. >> in us being court cases but said that they epa violated the clean water act and the clean air act and the north dakota federal court recently said the waters are the u.s. rule that we've debated and a lot of us think that it violates the law. the court said that it's very likely that it did. do you think a private sector company can violate the law? >> this is the way the process works when they interpret the law.

we violated the law of the constitution that is exactly -- >> i think you need to reread these cases because that is what the supreme court said. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman very much and thank you administrator mccarthy for being here today. we've got a big mess on our hands. we are dealing with a law that was passed in 1872, ulysses s. grant was the president of the united states and it hasn't been amended since then and he did a great job by the way on winning the civil war, just a great job. i want to compliment him on that. this law may have been

appropriate for 1872. we were trying to get people to go out west. colorado isn't even a state yet. we've got to get people out of their 1870 to the law passes can 1876 colorado becomes a state. so it says you get out there and we will give you access to these mines. some people say there are 160,000 abandoned mines and some say that there are 500,000 abandoned mines. what is the revenue stream to put in place in order to ensure that we don't have a revenue stream.

in 1970s began the 1970s began of the 1980s we created a superfund program that was intended to deal with the worst sites across the country. the canal in new york state and the subject of the movie a civil action in massachusetts and we put the program in place. but the mining industry even today doesn't want to pay for the minerals that are on federal land. these are taxpayers liberals at the company's belief that they should get for free. now over in the house of representatives -- ranking member of the natural resources committee and i introduced a bill saying that they should have to pay.

we need a revenue stream so that we can put programs in place that ensure that we begin to work on the worst of these sites in a much more aggressive fashion and that is something you would think that we could agree is necessary when hundred 47 years later after the law was passed to deal with the obviousness that has been created and so do you agree that the revenue stream is completely insufficient in order to deal with the magnitude of the problem which this incident demonstrates its trust with looming. >> i think that suggests we need a revenue that is based on the

principle that is exactly the same way that the coal mines are treated into those abandoned coal mines are cleaned up at the same kind of sorts that source that we need to be looking for here to be instituted by congress to begin to tackle this issue more effectively. >> i would hope that my republican friends could agree that it's time to put a fee on this. giving it away, letting them abandon and then not having a revenue source to deal with the method is created makes no sense at all and i would hope that we could work together on this although i found in the house of representatives that it was impossible to find republican supporters for something like this that does leave kind but does leave kind of a brigade of three black hole and the alternative of course but some republicans continue to profound is that we should have a kind of good samaritan law. and i think that whatever

minimal set of laws that we have on the books it just cannot be waived because that is the last one that we've got. all are potentially leaching into the java. mexico because of those policies that now is in danger with regards to the health of the air, the water, people that live near them and it's time for us to do something about it. >> thank you senator murphy. senator barrasso. >> morning. >> it's good to see you. later today i will be chairing the committee to better understand how they epa actions

are impacting the tribes downstream from the clove king side and i anticipate that we will have a summer day because of a robust discussion. before you came in he said there is no denying that they caused this disaster. he's very thoughtful and this happened in his home state. he had a big partisan concern about what happened and my question to you and isn't it true that when a private company is accused of violating the act but the epa under your specific leadership has aggressively pursued at the civil fines against the company and individuals within the company? and is it true that if there was a 3 million-dollar toxic spill at private citizens that epa would act aggressively against those companies? how large of a fine would they be pursuing under the cases? cynically scenic we've are there to protect what would be the problem. there is no question that the actions contributed to this bill

today that doesn't mean that we are another private sector person would be accused of violating intentionally the clean water act. they would be told to do exactly what we are doing which is to get their people to safety, aggressively stop and make sure that didn't happen again. >> that epa caused this disaster. that is what the senator says and i agree that they ought to be held to an even higher standard but the aggressive nature under your direction i think says that there is a double standard between the way that epa treats itself. but on the second water management issue i would like to discuss the waters of the united states who. over and over again, the preamble to the waters of the united states rules is that it is based on, quote of the science. and the expertise and experience of the agencies. it doesn't appear to have any

support for the statements and the rulemaking record in an attempt to understand the basis for the final rule to the chairman sent letters to the eta and the army corps of engineers. they didn't identify any scientific studies to support the decisions made in the final ruling. they support all others connected. that's the best that they can do for the epa about what it is.

they said when the final rule was under the review. we did a solid science and the experience of both the epa -- >> that isn't what your staff and army corps of engineers are saying. it sounds to me like you are making it up when you go. >> but i would point to kennedy to the record on our work that we have done on the water connectivity study which does look at more than close to 2,000 studies that went through the national science advisory committee process. in fact, we also have the technical support document that

is in the record that is the basis for many of the decisions in the clean water rules. so those are already available. >> that's based on -- >> to sit down with your staff again. >> it is based on the idea that all water is connected, period. and we would disagree on that. finally, in august the eta released the clean powerplant rule and the economies in many states including the home state of wyoming are going to be devastated according to a study issued august 4 at the university of wyoming in the public policy and energy economics to face a loss of 7,211,000 to 11,000 jobs in just the coal mining transport sectors. it doesn't account for all the local businesses that are going to lose revenue as a result of the job losses. the study also found by state could lose up to 60% of its state coal revenue that goes to fund schools and roads and water treatment facilities and

emergency medical services, all things that make people's lives better and keep them safer. so as your plan is taking that away from people in my state and other states that have strong energy sectors, the cost of your regulations are real and immediate and destructive. the benefits of your regulations are theoretical and unproven. my question is how does your clean powerplant that he gave the direct damage to people from other states and how do you make those lives whole? the >> we believe that we have done this in a way that is flexible and looked at the state's concerns that provide significant time that's going to cheat to the chiefs advocate reductions that will allow us to provide leadership that we need to address that is essentially the greatest environmental challenge of the time which is the climate change. >> senator.

speck ipod was mr. chairman. i just wanted to let you know that i did get the information that you were seeking on the clean powerplant when it was submitted. >> the september 4 deadline is that what you're talking about tax >> it was sent on september 4 and we expect to be published in october so i just wanted to let you know that i was reminded of that. >> thank you very much. senator. >> thank you for being here. just a quick question on the contractor issue. it's been mentioned that they had contracted the contractors to do the work. did they have a liability issue or is that something that they released when they contracted with the epa? >> they have to follow the work plan and the data that they have been given. it is a contractor that has been working with the agency for the a number of years and has worked on the sites before. those were the direct orders

that caused. >> the work plan that we developed is one of the things we would've expected the independent review to look at. stomach looking at accountability and you are all as well. >> as you know i live in a community that has had our border chemical spill causing a lot of disruption and a lot of health concerns and other concerns. those executives have recently been sentenced and will be serving time. but one of the issues that came out of this was business interruption so senator gartner brought this up but the rafters and i think that's the senator as well. other people have lost their revenue for the year because of this and they will have a stigma attached that will be even more difficult to gain. is this part of the restitution that you could go back to the community come is that within the bounds of the eta to be able to do things like this?

>> it never happens with the contractor that we are taking full responsible for the. there is a claim process in fact we've received a number of claims from small businesses exactly related to the issues that you've identified and federal law that allows those claims to be processed appropriately, and we will do that and others are well within the boundaries of what a federal claims act is supposed to be compensating. >> i would love to have a follow-up to see how successful that has been because i see the president of the novel donation is very important for them as well. another issue was on the crisis response plan. the senator mentioned that when he was on site four days later there still was not an adequate response plan or team in place. what but you have a response to

that? >> i apologize i wasn't here and i wasn't realizing that the senator was testifying. so we actually had a response team in place. we had on scene coordinators have had more than a couple hundred eta staff. we immediately put that in a motion. we have the area command center that we moved up as quickly as we could but we've always be able to look back to see whether we could have done it better, could we have done it quicker and what are the lessons we've learned? >> you anticipate that is part of the report. >> i believe -- if they don't i know the office of inspector general will certainly be looking at that end of the epa independently will be looking at that as well because that is a huge issue in the spill that we have. and also timing wise i think that there was a national response center wasn't notified

until an hour and a half later you are lucky because you were able to get to those folks with a water intake that he didn't have enough mileage but if it was right there at the source that happened in our community, you wouldn't have had the time. into the claims on the lack of self-service and area living in a rural community, i can identify with that. but certainly there would be some kind of a satellite or other way to get an immediate response. >> that's one of the things we are looking at, senator. we agree that we could have done better on the notification. it's a process we work with and in this case wherein a remote area and we did got a hold of our state partners immediately. those partners went down and notify the national response centers and triggered all of the appropriate medications. as you said the good news is we got there before the plume into any of the areas which could have caused a problem in terms of irrigation diversions or other water infrastructures. speck i think the controversy on over 1 million as opposed to

3 million is something that we need to examine as well. other issues that come to my mind are the health issues. medical monitoring and such you don't don't do with the combination of the metals that are in this border. has that been sufficiently tested, do we know that serious effects, i'm just raising questions that i think need to be raised. i would like to see an final because i just have a couple seconds remaining on the clean powerplant, you know this is going to impact my state great deal we have the highest unemployment rates that directly attributable in the directly attributable to a lot of things that natural gas, yes but also to the regulatory environment. everything you see with thousands that have lost their jobs. it is a concern to me every day. it is a sad affair. i wish that you would come and talk with the folks that the regulations are deeply affecting. it's difficult for the county commissioners laying off county commissioners laying off people and school systems can no longer

function because of the lack of tax revenue and unemployment funding in the state is now under a serious attack. we are hurting and when the regulation goes into effect, it is great to have an even more devastating effect on us directly probably our state most correctly affected. thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you very much for being here today. i think the issue of the double standard is important. people in my state and government and your agency has a reputation of being aggressive but sometimes heavy-handed dealing with individuals that have had problems in this regard you did the right things but the initial reaction seemed to downplay the extent of the

damage. that went on until literally the river turned orange and they could figure out this was a big deal. statements like the water is healing itself is in executive says things like that people would have gone ballistic. so, again we will have to wait and see what comes out of the report and wait for the department of interior and things like that. but i do think that it's fair to say the initial reaction down playing it or appearing to downplay it in regard to the public i think we have enough information so that that was done very poorly. >> senator i appreciate your concern. there is no way that the epa should have downplayed this spill. i certainly did not. we have taken full responsibility and i will work hard to make sure we show you we are following the same standard

of excellence that we demand of others. this was a devastating thing not just for those communities that the epa as well. we will learn from this but it's been a hard lesson for all of us and it will continue doing it we have long-term obligations. i've made it very clear that the epa isn't going away and the way it is going to meet those long-term responsibilities. >> you mentioned earlier that you've got an old mine and the pressure buildup and with all of these things happening, why i believe on september 9 the committee witness testified in engineer wasn't consulted. why is that the case why would an engineer not be involved in the planning. it's about professional engineers. why would that be the case?

>> i do not know why that was the state. but my understanding is the actual work plan was called in to assist for the very reason a problem happened which is that a blowout was the scene as likely inevitable to help the state take care of that at their request. we developed this plan with the state. then we work with the stakeholder group that is filled with mining experts and local constituencies and we did public hearings on the work plan before we initiated work. we have a lot of engineering expertise on this work plan and the way this happened was as sad for us as it was for anybody and

we didn't anticipate the work that we were doing but have aggravated the situation and we were there to relieve the situation as it was building up. >> we will look and see about the discrepancy. my understanding is the removal actions are classified into three categories. emergency, time critical and not time critical. can you tell us the difference in the sense of which category to use for the particular actions? >> if it is possible and happy to respond in writing after. i'm not sure that i will get the nuances correct. thank you very much. >> senator fisher. >> thank you and welcome administrator. i would like to drill down a little bit on some of the items the senator brought up about

cell phone coverage. in the omaha herald there was an article that stated there was no cell phone coverage of the at the goal line the day of the spill. and that was confirmed in an august 16 e-mail posted on your agency website but also said that over satellite phone was at the local so to clarify there wasn't a cell phone or satellite phone. there was no way to immediately communicate to those downstream when the toxic water began rushing out. so, my question is was the epa really properly prepared to inform local communities if there was a spill that happened in which did happen? >> i cannot at this point come from the cell phone coverage. i apologize i will get back to you on that but the notification

would have been beneficial to all of us and that is one of the reasons that we have asked for a review of all of this and a beating about the notification process. it is a very secluded and a difficult place to reach but we did get in touch with our colleagues in colorado and we made sure that those diversions were protected before the plume arrived because it is quite a distance away from any populated area. >> and i would imagine that he would be looking at how the plans are developed in the future not with tractors but also. that is one of our first orders of business.

>> they were the ones that were performing the work when the blowout occurred. is that correct? >> under the direction of the on scene coordinator. >> did they have an emergency action plan? >> i'm sorry i didn't mean to interrupt. >> did they have any urgency operation plan or any kind of a contingency plan on your own? >> they required it from the contractor and they developed their own. and that is something the internal review looked at, but there may be broader emergency plans that are also appropriate that i can't speak to at this point. >> did i understand correctly when you said that the epa was active in developing the plan with the subcontractor is that correct? >> the work plan for the actual actions in the site was

developed with the state of colorado and the epa. start with the health and safety plans. were you involved in the development? >> i don't know if there was back-and-forth with the contractor. the contractor did develop a plan that was seen by the internal review team when they looked at it as being inadequate to address a blowout situation. >> do you have copies that you could provide us with that would outline the involvement of the epa? >> on the web already there is a request for the proposal and there is the work plan and the task order. all of those issues have been posted. i do not know if there is additional communication. >> i would like to see the health and safety plan and be able to understand the involvement of the epa.

i hear a lot of confusion about the plan in just how important it could have been in the spill that we are dealing with. i have a few questions about the notifications to the jurisdictions within the state of colorado. they didn't notify the irrigation districts and they didn't know about this until the yellow plume reached the irrigation waters. have you been made aware of any information concerning that. it was too very much rely on the state to know where the diversions are and to be able to work with us to appropriately

identify and notify all of the key stakeholders. >> the epa has followed all of the noticed requirements of section 103 three in the comprehensive of the comprehensive environmental response compensation and liability act. >> there is some discrepancy out there if the epa really did follow the requirements that you are supposed to do. >> i'm happy to get back to you on it. i don't have them at my fingertips, but we very much have said that the notification could have been better and we have to continually update these

lists as does the state working hand in hand because clearly we don't want the epa wanting to know the business of every river and stream but we want to make sure that we do that as well as test to make sure that we are doing it right so people get to those issues and we are not suggesting that there isn't room for improvement here. >> if you can get back to me in a timely manner i would appreciate it. i thank you for inviting to get back sometimes it is months and months and months. so if you could try to get me some information -- >> why don't we save by thanksgiving that would be helpful. >> i would appreciate that. thank you administrator.