there was pressure buildup at the gold king mine. they made a judgment that turned out to be wrong. whether constitutes due diligence and factors, that's what the department will have to advise us. we will follow up to see if there were mistakes made, if they could have avoided this or if there was other mistakes. >> thank you. i read a long and detailed testimony to be offered later he points out concerns about the 3 million gallons but also about what's coming in the years to

come and the navajo nation will need. is there any reason to think that this is more than the trigger for this attention? i think it has raised visibility of these issues in a way that i'm hoping something good can come out of it so we will be better off in terms of how we manage these sites moving forward. we've been working with the navajo for years. we will continue to do that. we will address concerns that they have identified as best we can. >> we now know the water may not be at the level it needs to be

so that we are not experiencing fluctuations that we see now. >> thank you. your time has expired. we now recognize the gentleman from north carolina. >> i think there is a clear double standard to how the epa polices themselves compared to how the private sector is policed. >> in yesterday's hearing in front of the hearing committee, when asked if they should be held to the same standards as the private sector, he stated, stated, actually, a higher standard would be quite appropriate. do you still believe today that a higher standard of government is appropriate? >> i do. >> thank you. >> we have a responsibility that is larger than the private sector. >> i would like to submit a wall street journal article written

by a former epa employee. he writes, the facility in charleston west virginia spelled roughly 175,000 gallons 75000 gallons into the local waterway. the recent spill was many times larger yet they went offered to them with everything they had. is the department of justice or an independent investigator going after the epa with everything it has? >> when we get the final report to understand what happened i would expect doj to pay attention and i will pay attention to it as well. >> with the inspector general's be involved involved in that? >> yes and they are doing an independent review. >> the former employee also reference an incident that happened in the clinton administration where contractor was hired and they accidentally

struck a line with a backhoe and contaminated some water. the supervisor was off duty and had subcontracted the work. the epa pursued criminal charges against him. he was sentenced to six months in prison because he was ultimately responsible for the safety on the site. do you take personal responsibility? >> the only question i would make is the department of justice is the one that pursued criminal action here. >> someone should go to jail for this incident than? >> i am not at all aware that there is negligence or we didn't do due diligence and those of the things the department. >> i would beg to differ. we knew there was a problem and and we should of alerted everybody along these lines. >> what actions with the epa take against a private company who is responsible for spill of

this magnitude. >> we would be doing the same thing with that company at this stage in looking to independently identify whether or not there was negligent or criminal activity that led to this. that is exactly the same process we are going through today. >> now this report at 1227 on august 5, the collar emphasize how important it was to notify downstream users who would be affected by the contaminated flow headed toward them. the message was given to the epa. why was it that the state of new mexico and the navajo tribe all found out about this from sources not the epa that cause the incidents in the first place? >> it was part of our contingency plan that we always take advantage so there is appropriate notification. whether or not it was as quick

as it could be, i don't know but that was an appropriate way to notify. >> so you were notified and how hard would it be to pick up the phone. >> we have a whole stream. it's whole stream. it's not us individually deciding who to call. there is a contingency plan for notification that's developed with the states with the local communities and that's what we initiate. this is not done on the fly. this is a plan that was developed with everybody's input. >> while obviously it failed. it failed it failed miserably. it was way delayed. i want to move forward a little bit. this lack of trust has now been instilled in the tribes. how can how can you expect the state and tribes to have faith in your agency to clean up this mess if they can't rely simply on being informed that it's going on? you talk about collaboration but it shows poor respect. i want to ask one more question before you answer because i'm running out of time. why is it so difficult, for tribes they have seats at the table and open lines of communication and getting questions answered because when

i look over at the president of the navajo nation, this could have been dramatically averted. i want to know why there is so much reluctance he and those applications. >> there is no reluctance to go to the tribes and get them involved in the extent that they want to. they. they actually were involved in our command center. they they were there and embeda embedded. >> something seriously went wrong in this application. i hope that you will review that. >> thank you. >> we are now under resourced rules which means we have a second panel that has been sitting for two hours waiting to be heard. we will move this quickly through which means you have five minutes. for your answers, if it comes in five minutes, i'm going to stop

you. for the rest of the members, don't wait until there's ten seconds left until you ask a question. give her a fair chance to do this. we will keep the five minute rule so we the five minute rule so we can get the other panel in here. you're up next for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman, actually, i can see something beneficial came out of this tragic incident. course you have responsibility and i congratulate you on the rapid cleanup. it shouldn't have happened in the first place but the benefit that has come is that it's focused us on the mine leaking. i'd asked them to put in a record for the editorial in the tribune. you are taking responsibility is very important for what happened here. i understand that there may be as many, while there's no federal government data, there may be as many as 500,000 abandoned mines. nobody takes responsibility for them. the the state, the federal government, nobody.

is that the case? >> the state and federal government does the best they can but even we don't know where many of these mines are located. >> this was in colorado. >> i know, but in colorado there are three mines listed on something called the national priority list. does this mean that those mines pose a risk as we speak for leakage? >> the reason it's on the national priorities list, which you much might think of a superfund list. >> i don't understand why this isn't covered by the superfund. >> there has been discussion on whether it should be on the national priorities list. they have written to me and i'll take that letter very seriously. there have been discussion but up until 2005, there was a good opportunity to clean this up and it was going in the right direction. >> i need to know whether this acid mine pollution with half 1 million or so mines poses any danger to drinking water or fish

and other wildlife. >> i would have to say, throughout the country there are many instances in which we are looking at sites on the national priorities list which do pose significant hazard. >> including drinking water? we could have some of those leakage into the drinking water the american people? >> that is a continual threat. >> but we don't have any way of knowing that until it's there? >> on the the national priority list, epa is responsible for monitoring those sites. we are are monitoring those. the concern i have. >> can you then alert or make someone do something about it and who does something about it? >> it's either the responsible party or epa. >> or epa. >> that's correct. but we only have a small

fraction of the minds on the national priority list. >> what you do to get on the list? >> it has to be called to our attention and we have to do a site inspection and confer with the governor or the leadership in the tribes. in order to have it on the national priority list we have to make a decision that is very process oriented and public to get them on the site and allow us to then spend federal and state dollars on a more full and rich cleanup. >> i think the ball is in our court on that. thank you very much this is chairman. >> thank you all now turn to mr. meadows. >> thank you mrs. chairman. mr. chairman. i want to clear up something for me. chairman bishop, when he asked why you didn't notify the official wildlife, your testimony was that you didn't anticipate a discharge so there was no notification. then upon further questioning about an unrelated issue, you set a discharge was eminent. you believed it believed it was going to happen. so which is it? your testimony to mr. bishop or your testimony to mr. fleming fleming because they seem to conflict.

>> let me try to be a little clearer. i apologize if i haven't been. been. we were there because concern was raised that there was pressurized water in the mine and that might result in a blowout. that is the reason we were doing the action. the action was not intended to cause the blowout in the actual professional opinion of those in the mind. >> let me go a little further. anytime you do any type of work there is a plan. who approve approve the plan. >> don't you approve the plan? i'm troubled because i looked at bat video and i'm very familiar with 402 permits. i've been there done that.

it didn't seem like you followed your own guidelines that would be applied to the private sector. i didn't see any of those there, so did you intentionally avoid your own guideline? >> they were plans. it was a plan that was developed -- >> did you follow 402 general 402 general guidelines. >> we followed all permits. >> no i didn't ask that. i said 402 guidelines. at two guidelines. it's a specific question. >> we did because -- >> where was all the retention. >> it was all a retention fund. >> so the retention was behind the truck? i saw saw the video and it started flowing to the truck. where's where's the retention. >> the retention pond was constructed in a way that would have manage the anticipated release. that was our anticipated relief. we were trying to generate that in order to relieve the pressure. because it was a blowout that treatment pond was clearly inundated very quickly.

>> but ms. mccarthy, listen. they're talking to someone who normally has multiple retention ponds in case of blowouts. i know that i have had to construct them so you anticipate worst-case scenarios and it doesn't look like you anticipated worst-case scenarios. it looks like you kind of cut some corners to get it done and you were working on it. >> this is one of the issues the internal review raised as to whether or not the plan was adequate. >> what's your opinion on that? was adequate? >> the internal review clearly pointed out, what they saw was not adequate. >> okay, so let me finish. >> we don't know what's there but we honestly think we have to look at the department of the interior -- >> why do we have to look at

that. you keep coming back to that is this independent agency. >> that's right. >> well as part of the administration so i hardly see the doi being independent necessarily the way we think of independent so why not the inspector general? >> the inspector general is looking at this issue. >> why wouldn't they have the main authority? the inspector general for the epa. >> they are going to be looking at this. >> why wouldn't they have the main authority? >> we are going with agencies who have specific expertise. one of the things we did was to make sure we weren't defining the scope. >> so who decided who's going to inc. inspect to? >> know i left that up to staff to decide. >> but your agency decided who was going to be independent. >> we actually consulted with a number of of agencies. those agencies agreed to do it. >> can you get those documents to the committee in terms of the inquiries that were made in

terms of who would be best? if you made multiple inquiries you'd have data and email to back that up. >> i certainly can see what we have available if that's the request. we did try -- we did try to get authorities to actually look at this that would have the expertise to do an independent review. >> if you would get that to the committee, i yield back. >> under five minutes, well done >> thank you mr. chairman and for both of the chairman, think you are having this hearing. hearing. ms. mccarthy, it's probably no secret to you that tens of million americans despise the epa. many feel this way because of the high-handed and arrogant way the epa operates. it is constantly moving the goalpost of environmental standards and many of these cases the standards are quite stringent.

they ignore the high economic cost of further tightening of standards shows a disregard for the difficulty that many americans face in putting food on the table without having to pay higher prices for energy or losing jobs because of the high regulation to businesses. my state of colorado is being forced to sue the epa for clean energy plants. the arrogance of the epa is seen by the horror horrible disaster in colorado that we are here to investigate today. no one has been punished in the epa is seeking to avoid any hit on its budget or judgments against it resulting from this disaster. it wants other parts of the government to pay any judgments.

so this to me, ms. mccarthy is a double standard because had the private sector cause the environmental tragedy in colorado there would be serious fines and possible criminal penalties. this this brings me to my first question in light of the perceived double standard that the epa operates under where the private sector is not allowed to use its own science and come to its own conclusion unquestioned would you support legislation by congress that would require the epa to disclose, to the american people, online, whatever science whatever science that uses to form its judgments? >> sir i'm not prepared to talk in big picture about what we would support or not support. i am here to tell you that we have taken full responsibility for this issue. we are treating this the same way we would be treating the private sector and

why while you are absolutely right that we enforce our statutes that's what brings the benefits people rely on in this country and i believe they will continue to rely on our ability to deliver those. >> a private company would have to absorb a fine assess by the epa from its budget. you are seeking to have. >> not in this consequence. this was actually actually a response action to try to mitigate a danger that was pointed out to us in the challenge with the private sector would be the same as us. make sure sure that if an accident happened at that site that they get people out and keep them safe. that they reduce this bill quickly and they take account and accountability for all of

the damage it caused. >> or private company wouldn't have been fined? if they were acting in good faith? >> only if the actions they were taken were against an order or settlement or someone was found negligent or criminal in the activity. in in those last two issues, what the department of the interior will help form, if we were negligent and didn't do what we should've done, if we didn't do due diligence we will have to be held accountable for that. >> let me ask about the contractor. is the contractor being suspended from further work on mines until the result of the investigation comeback question? >> no sir because the consultant , contractor was working under the direct supervision of our on-site coordinator. is my understanding that at this point we don't have any reason to believe he wasn't doing the work that was he was tasked to do. >> is the directors epa director's fault? >> i'm not sure where fault lies. that's what the department of the interior is going to

identify. the question is, the key decision that was made there was the understanding based on the site conditions, and this was the experts from us and colorado, that there was low or no pressure. that was the key decision. it wasn't the fact that he did the work the way the task order indicated. it was the fact that a determination was made that proved to be incorrect. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman for having this hearing today. i'd like to pick up where he was. you just set up a private company did what they should've done it would have been no problem. what i would submit to you as if the epa had done what they should have done we would not have had the spill. there ought to be equal consequences for the epa just as there are for private citizens. i cannot believe for one minute that the epa would not aggressively go after another

grouper company who was involved in cleaning up a potential environmental hazard, particularly if they did not have the experience and expertise of doing so and they created up problem such as the epa created. you would would go after them and there would be heads rolling so to speak. >> untran. that would be precisely what the epa is guilty of and nothing has happened yet. you say you are treating yourself the same as you do other companies and quite frankly that is just not the case. have you read the summary report of the internal review of the blowout? >> yes i have. >> you may recall on page two, the last sentence there says the team conducted a limited review of internet resources to determine if there are existing guidelines or procedures for investigating sites with similar characteristics as the site. so obviously they do not have

experience cleaning up mines such as this. they had to refer to the internet, the expertise, apparently, is restricted to google. is that correct? >> i will have to look at the exact sentence you are reading but the on scene coordinator has extensive mining and engineering expertise. we worked with the colorado division of reclamation in mining and safety who have considerable expertise as well including knowledge of that area. >> according to that report, the summary review, the epa relied on internet resources to figure out what to do in this scenario and that is according to what you have submitted. according to the claims act, are are you familiar with the discretionary. >> that is a legal loophole within the law that would allow the epa to get out of having to

pay for any damages. my question to you was whether or not the epa plans to utilize that exemption. you are saying you are not familiar with it. >> i'm not an expert in the claims process. i apologize if we need to answer your question in more details. >> my question is that as a legal loophole in the law. will you commit to us today that the epa will not utilize that loophole and you will pay for damages? >> we will work with the doj to compensate as appropriate. >> will you not utilize a legal loophole to get out of it. >> i can't say i will do something against the law. i'm sorry, i can't do that. >> know this is within the law i just don't want them utilizing a loophole to get out of what they are responsible for. >> i am not trying to get out of any of my responsibilities. >> are you familiar with

greensboro, georgia. in my district there was a similar experience six months ago where the epa, likewise with a contractor that a contractor that made a mistake and they struck a water line and there was a spill into the lake. do you recall that? >> i don't recall that. it's another example of the epa having a similar problem. i would like to add this to the evidence. you stated you were taking full responsibility for this spill. in light of the criminal charges in prison prison sentences that others have experience from much less, for much smaller accidents , ms. mccarthy, in the interest of fairness, the

american people who have experienced the wrath of the epa for much smaller scenarios and accidents than this, i think it's it's only appropriate that you would resign as a statement of fairness for other americans have experience for smaller incidents. with that, i yield. >> thank you mr. chairman, i appreciate you mr. chairman chairman for having this hearing and allowing natural resources to be part of the committee. thank you for making the trip mrs. mccarthy. several things i'm looking at. first of all, when i look at how people have to deal with the government and the regulations is proportionality. we know how that's defined within an accident. when it something happens that's out of their control that they didn't want to have happen and probably wish they could take

off somehow but accidents happen and we forgive people for accidents yet we see in unforgiveness attitude coming from your agency with people who haven't done things intentionally. when we talk about proportions, going going back to that west virginia mine spill where was 7500 gallons of water that people face criminal indictments immediately and could go to prison it prison. the company is out of business. in this case here with 3 million gallons being dumped when other activities should've been taken ahead of time, that's 400 times the amount of pollutant that got out. we are talking about company that is the size of a small backyard pool versus 400 of those types of pool. the proportion for the criminal charges versus what has been brought upon your contractors, do we expect a 400 multiplier for prison time in charge

against him or your boys or the contractor? >> the west virginia spill ended up contaminating drinking water supplies for many people. it caused significant concern and it was done by a company that wasn't following the law in their requirements. that is why that was pursued. in this instance, i am not saying that 3 million gallons spill did know damage. clearly will hear that damage happens. the difference here is that when there is an accident you have to determine whether someone was doing the things they should've been doing and an accident occurred that they couldn't have anticipated or whether there is fault and blame. that's what were were trying to dip determined. the question earlier was posed, if you have a project and

anticipation of a possible blowout, and you mentioned it was very possible, they should of been notifying wildlife. : so how much should we come after you for not following the law and notifying fish and wildlife but as well as

not even following what your own documents show, you should have had hydrostatic testing as well as the possibility of a relief pipeline to relieve pressure? >> i do not believe the agency violated the endangered species act, and we can continue to look at that and talk. you're absolutely right. if we did something wrong, you should come after us, and frankly i take full responsibility for that as well. >> my constituents face a lot of issues from federal agencies coming after them. someone trying tosomeone trying to change their cropland from grazing or wheatfield to an orchard field. someone on their case over soil preparation with large, large fines. does that seem fair, especially when the people involved, if there is a

period where they make application and don't here back and then get come back on after that ninety-day period? does that make sense? >> i cannot speak to the particular instance i'm unaware of. >> our folks are taking a hit on it. >> sorry, time is out. mr. palmer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this mccarthy, thank you for coming today. five months ago the epa put toxic sediment into a creek in greensboro, georgia. initially the epa denied having anything to do with the project and later admitted it funded the cleanup and development operation the triggered this bill. didbill. did you requested department of interior review for the hospital? >> i am not directly aware

of it, sir, so i will have to get back to you. >> the record indicates that you did. it makes me wonder why after an accident like that you did not stop all of these cleanup efforts and particularly with the gold king mine after having is bill in georgia just a few months ago. let me ask you, you have been asked several times if anyone at the epa will lose their job over this incident. has anyone at the environmental restoration llc been fired over this? >> not that i am aware of. >> am i correct in that you responded earlier that you are continuing to use them as a contractor? >> that is correct. >> also, are you aware that it was reported that the epa collected about 15,000 tons of poisonous waste from two

mines in 2005 and dump them down the shaft without notifying the mine owner who happens to be mr. hennis who owns the gold king mine, and the epa did not take responsibility for that or a sister pay for the cleanup. >> i'm not aware of that incident, sir. >> ii think you need to look into that as well. one of the things that really concerns me about this -- and i realize the epa has a job to do. i have brought this your attention before about some of the heavy-handed tactics the epa engages in. the chairman talkedchairman talked about the fact that the epa has clearly violated federal law, that it does not mr the epa did not realize they violated the law or that the epa did not intend to violate the law or that the epa was just trying to do its job when violating law. that does not matter.

it does not matter in the context of how you treated other folks. mr. goss are brought out the case of edward hanna sack, sentenced to six months in prison for discharging oil into a navigable stream. he was convicted due to the fact that he was off duty and not present when the accident occurred. a poultry farmer was convicted. havinghaving grown up on a farm i am fairly familiar with that. they told her she had to get a national pollution discharge permit over be fined $37,500 per day. true to her native west virginia spirit, she is fighting it. mr. johnson built a stock pond for horses and cattle

on his 8-acre property. a stock pond of former army corps of engineers enforcement officer inspected and concluded it provided environmental benefits and at the water flowing out is three times greater than the water flowing into it, yet he has been fined $16 million. this is just a small farmer. then you have the situation with the range of resources corporation of texas being forced to spend $4.2 million defending itself after the epa issued an emergency order. the epa accused the range of sourcessources of causing or contributing to the contamination of two water wells, and then when it was quickly determined they had nothing to do with it despite incontrovertible evidence, the epa claimed it was not required to prove any

alleged connection. you were going to continue on that path and force them to pay until you finally relented and gave it up. we also turned over the personal data of 80,000 farmers to environmental groups. i don't understand why you can come before this committee and sit they're and say you are sorry for what you have done in the context of how you treated private companies. you really ought to be sorry. mr. chairman, i yield. >> thank you. mr. westermann. >> thank you, mr. chairman. despite efforts to minimize this spill, the facts cannot be ignored that 3 million gallons of the civic to have acidic water was released not because of an accident but mistakes caused by neglect because of the culture of arrogance

with the epa assumes they can operate outside the rules and regulations that others must adhere to, and quite simply the epa did not have those irresponsible charge with the professional experience, licensure required to do this job properly to safeguard life, health, property. administrator, we cannot put this water back in the whole, but i hope we can hold everyone accountable who negligently let it out. along with that i hope you'll make procedural changes taking competence out of the equation to prevent future spills. i have concerns in your ability to safeguard public interest. kayfor, do you believe that the activities conducted at the gold king site would require engineering design work? >> i'm sorry,sorry, sir, i don't know whether i am

qualified to answer that question, but i will respond. >> maybe i can help you out. colorado defines the practice of engineering is the performance of others of any professional service or creative work requiring engineering education, training, and experience and special knowledge including consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, design , and construction to evaluate compliance with plans and specifications in connection with utilizations of the forces, energies forces, energies and materials, nature, development, functioning of processes, apparatus, structures, buildings, works, oy combination our aggregation thereof employed and then devoted to public enterprise or use. again, do you agree activities conducted at the >> i am well aware there was a work plan that required a

significant amount of expertise. what you asked me was the exact action at the site. i am not prepared to answer that portion of the question. >> you are saying you do not have the expertise to determine whether professional services were required, but you did say an earlier testimony the on-site coordinator had significant mine engineering experience. >> that was my understanding. >> and engineering expertise went into preparing this work plan. >> that is correct. >> colorado law goes on to say that it requires that only aa professional engineer may practice engineering and that all engineering documents issued in connection with engineering work must pay the signature and seal of the colorado licensed professional engineer who is directly responsible for the engineering work. did a professional engineer

design or stamp drawings or the plan for the work being conducted at the gold king site which resulted in the blowout? >> i would be happy to follow up. >> i would think if an engineer did that, you would have those documents with you and say comeau we follow the procedures outlined by a confident professional in charge of this. so far all i have heard as you had a project coordinator. who is this person? >> i do not have his individual name. >> do you know the credentials? >> i don't have his bio in front of me, sir, but the work plan was not developed at the site. it was developed by the state of colorado. >> public input and professional expertise are not the same thing. you should have had a professional design person in charge to stamp plans were drawings or whatever it

was. >> ii am suggesting i cannot answer your question at this point, but i am happy to follow up. >> you have 15,326 employees in the epa as of march 2015. in region eight you have 642. across the country you only have 12 seal -- 12 civil engineers on staff. two geologists and one civil engineer in region eight. i think this is unacceptable, and you are at fault for not having the required design professional in charge of this work. >> see what happens when you have an engineer on the panel? right in time for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

it is nice to see you again. i realize this is a difficult hearing, administrator, but we all want the same thing, we do not want these kind of issues and mistakes going forward. everything in your power to mitigate and i personally appreciate the epa attitude about taking full responsibility for the 3 million gallons of toxic -- i am sure that everyone has repeated this over and over. i really want to focus my question on making sure we are as holistic as possible about identifying just exactly what the harm is, how we identify and address that harm command how we assess the long-term impacts specifically, and i hope that president russell begaye from the navajo nation will forgive me for this because as he spoke in his testimony about the navajo principal, it is very important, i, i think, not

to overlook that the beauty and order and harmony of these very beautiful, pristine areas that aa legal context if we do not deal with actual damage and future damage and make it completely whole then it cannot be available for the kinds of both economic activities and personal activities that we know are critical to this entire area and region. and i know that that will be a complicated process to place a monetary damage from this kind of spill that are more traditional damage crops, suspended outdoor recreation and tourism. i am looking at making sure we restore the area to its original aspect, and the potential it had prior. cancan you talk to me about how you will identify both the long-term impacts yet unknown and how you will encompass this, we are

interested in getting full compensation for all affected states. >> there are two long-term issues that need to be addressed. i know time is constrained. we have a long-term responsibility to deal with the settlement issue which has been one of the major concerns of president russell begaye and the navajo and others because we know that river has not been of high quality for some time. we have to monitor that closely. we now have a long-term concern about that we share and are developing a plan to do that will get input from everyone. the 2nd long-term issue is what happens in the upper animus. we are not close to resolving the issues related

to the ongoing discharge which frankly forced the spill. in terms of looking at this more broadly than a technical challenge, one of the challenges that the navajo and southern ute is we have a trust responsibility with the tribes which makes this more important. >> i will reclaim my time. there is a culture of mistrust, not just for all trust responsibilities, but a specific culture between the epa and our nation's and particularly in this case -- and i hope i do not overstep my authority -- but particularly in the navajo nation i am hoping you identify specifically monetary aspects and damages related to the long-term impact. while i respect your looking at the continuation of environmental problems which is absolutely a job, i want everyone made whole. i am not feeling as

confident about that. i am going to need you to address how individuals process claims, what you will do to make that a non- painful process. the unemployment rate of the navajo nation is upwards of 42 percent. people cannot wait and wait through at bureaucratic process to file and wait for their claims. the appellatethe appellate work that i am sure will be necessary to get fair review you have a few seconds to assure me that you are going to do that. >> will do the best we can. >> i can still go for seven seconds, if you want. i'm kidding. mr. newhouse. >> thank you for being here. one of the risks of being a freshmana freshman as i am

right down here in the line of fire with you. one question in light of the chairmanchairman wanting to get to the other people who have been patient waiting here. certainly this is an unfortunate incident, one that we must do all we can to prevent from happening again. we need to learn from this but also the word accountability has been thrown around a lot this morning. you haveyou have said as much yourself that you will follow this wherever it goes , and i appreciate that. could you tell me how do you define the accountability hear? what would that look like in the end? >> there will be accountability in two ways. whether or not we had administrative or management failures or criminal concerns that arise out of the independent review. those are two related but separate issues. >> i can say, having run an agency myself in a former life, i believe the ability

of the agency and the credibility of the agency, its ability to perform its duties is truly on the line year. it is as much at risk as anything else. i would hope that we can take you at your word that the accountability aspect of this will be followed wherever it goes and that we are satisfied that the people that are in charge are held accountable. >> i know we have both the inspector general who looks at these issues and the oversight committee and i expect we will be able to walk through the accountability issues when all the facts are on the table. >> can you tell me about protocol? can you tell me what protocols are?

>> first and foremost to protect the folks on site to make sure there is no potential for humans, safety issues to arise. the 2nd issue, the challenge is to minimize the spill as much as you can to get that under control. the 3rd is to take a look at the impact downstream so that you can address those and mitigate those as well and obviously is a longer-term challenge of making sure there is appropriate compensation for the claims act, and in the case of epa where we had partners working with us to reimburse them for their expenses. >> were there any that were not followed as well as it should have been?

>> we could have done better on notification. we have already started to do that. what was the precipitating factor among we need to do about it. unfortunately sometimes you learn from one of the worst things command this is one of them. >> i would agree with that. i yield back my time. >> three other members not part of the committee are here to ask questions. mr. pierce. >> thank you for being here today. we have some difference of opinion on whether or not the epa was pushing for these form 95 to be signed. president russell begaye testimonies has apparently

the epa was trying to obtain releases. simply be disavowed in the lab to resubmit the paperwork. >> those can be changed at any time. >> sounds great. >> also, in order to delete down the spill are you going to reimburse the? >> i don't know what your referring to. sorry. >> i would expecti would expect for you to look into that and get back with our office. >> the water released at the dam? >> yes. >> now you're familiar? >> i did not know what you were referring to. >> are you going to be

reimbursing the tribe? >> i do not know whether that is something. >> you will follow up and find out? >> the navajo has not raised that issue. >> also, to chairman bishops point earlier that we needed everyone on the same panel, evidently made the assertion that epa health new mexico shut off the intake for public water system? >> i indicated the notification -- >> no, i didno, i did not ask about the notification. >> that is what i was talking about. >> the sec.'s comment was secretary's comment was that you were not involved at all in the decision. we could prosecute that decision if we have everyone on the same panel together. so the whole idea of accountability, your comment, anyone negligent or

criminal activity, administrative oversight will be dealt with? >> that is part of it. >> about how long the following of the outcome of that? how long will the investigation take? >> anticipated completion in october. >> my point to the others who may be distrust you will actually follow through on that, as the name robert peel mean anything to you? >> very much, sir. >> he is thrown in jail for three years for bilking the taxpayers. has any money gotten back from them? >> we have and continue. >> okay. there were people in the agency who had to sign leave travel salary bonuses.

processes were in place. >> no, are any of the supervisors that signoff from coming to work or him going somewhere he did not go traveling first-class, has anyone been held accountable for that? >> there was a process in place. >> no, has anyone been held accountable? again, going back to the situation, that oversight would be negligence. >> i don't no the exact term, sir, but that is absolutely an administrative responsibility. >> and yet no one has been accountable today. no one has faith that it will result in anyone having

any consequence. you were his direct supervisor for four years. nine through 12. three, four, something. >> yes, sir. >> if people have a little difficulty that you will follow through on this issue they look at that issue and say the highest-paid employees simply gets to skate and no one is held accountable. >> i was the person who held them accountable. >> i understand. he also signed off fraudulent payments to him that he did not deserve. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> ms. miss mccarthy, you recently stated on august 13 that we will be fully

accountable for this in a transparent way. >> yes, sir. >> as a follow-up, we sent a letter signed by 29 other members listing specific questions regarding this bill. when can we expect an answer. you have yet to respond. >> i will double check and get you a tentative date. i think that's a lot of frustration. we will get back to you. >> i have not seen it and don't want to give you a date that i we will then have to explain away. >> if you can get back to us on that, we would appreciate it. in regard to transparency, youtransparency, you said the epa was examining different sites that could suffer a meltdown, as we saw ate gold king mine.

you have identified ten different minds. that did not come down until such time there was a report. how is that feeding and with transparency? >> i do not know the context in which you are referring. >> you have identified ten minds that have the potential for us bill. >> no, i issued a memo to put a hiatus on all mining operations, mining recovery -- what is the word i am looking for? cleanups that we were involved in. as a result of that my cleanups stopped, and we have identified ten. >> are you revealing the locations? >> say it again. >> are you revealing the locations? >> if folks want to have that. >> one of the minds was near crested butte.

one of the suspect minds? >> i can go back and check a look. >> do you feel that it's going to be important to reach out and give that notification advance just as we saw to let people know in the districts. >> we got involved because there was understanding to be a blowout problem. there was no secret that the work was being done in a transparent and publicly accessible way. >> i would like to know how many mining engineers does the epa employee? >> i cannot answer that right now. >> do you know if there are any? >> i know we have a national

mining team that works on these issues. >> do you have any engineers? >> i do not know, sir. >> can you get back to us on that? >> yes, sir. >> you cited that you worked with a lot of people with a lot of expertise. the concern that we see is given some of the protocols you put in place when we want to juxtapose this to a private company meeting rigid standards of your organization puts together the standards. when the document dump came out about two weeks ago and you cited that there was a potential for a blowout at the gold king mine, why was there no effort to determine how much water had actually backed up? if we are talking about having the expertise. >> i would have to go back and identify with both colorado and epa were basing their judgment on, but it was a concern of the entire