£
-------
Report Contributors: Tina Lovingood
Chad Kincheloe
Naomi Rowden
Kathryn Hess
Barry Parker
John Trefry
Ming Chang
Jill Trynosky
Abbreviations
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
DRMS
Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERRS
Emergency and Rapid Response Service
OIG
Office of Inspector General
OSC
On-Scene Coordinator
START
Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team
U.S.C.
United States Code
Cover photo: An image of the Gold King Mine site after the release of mine water on
August 5, 2015. (EPA photo)
Are you aware of fraud, waste or abuse in an
EPA program?
EPA Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)
Washington, DC 20460
(888) 546-8740
(202) 566-2599 (fax)
OIG Hotline@epa.gov
Learn more about our OIG Hotline.
EPA Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-2391
www.epa.gov/oiq
Subscribe to our Email Updates
Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig
Send us your Project Suggestions
-------
,^ed sr/|v
** U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 17-P-0250
£ Office of Inspector General June 12,2017
At a Glance
Why We Did This Review
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's)
Office of Inspector General (OIG)
conducted this review in response
to two congressional requests to
examine the cause of, and the
EPA's response to, the August 5,
2015, release of mine water from
the Gold King Mine near Silverton,
Colorado.
On August 5, 2015, the EPA was
conducting an investigation and
assessment of the mine, which
included excavation work. During
the excavation, collapsed mine
material gave way, opening the
mine portal and releasing an
estimated 3 million gallons of
water into Cement Creek. The
creek flows into the Animas
River—a source of drinking water
and recreation.
In this report, the OIG addresses
the issues raised regarding the
EPA's mine site work leading up
to the release, and the agency's
notification actions following
the release.
This report addresses the
following EPA goal or
cross-agency strategy:
• Cleaning up communities and
advancing sustainable
development.
Send all inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391
or visit www.epa.gov/oiq.
Gold King Mine Release: Inspector General
Response to Congressional Requests
What We Found
Brief compilations of our findings related to the
Gold King Mine release are summarized below.
• EPA work being done, the cause of the
release, and EPA expertise—The EPA
was conducting a removal evaluation to
find solutions to ongoing mine water
drainage. The August 5, 2015, release of
mine water was caused by the EPA's
excavation activities. The EPA's on-scene
coordinators had over 50 years of combined
experience as on-scene coordinators. They also directed an experienced
contractor crew. The EPA had identified concerns about the water level
and the potential blow-out of the blockage, had worked with experts to plan
the evaluation work, and was still early in the process of conducting an
evaluation of site conditions when the release happened.
• EPA criteria for approving a contractor and agency staff—The criteria
that the EPA used to approve (hire) a contractor would not apply to
agency staff.
• EPA policy on indemnification of contractors—The EPA has guidance
for providing indemnification for negligence at certain sites, but it does not
apply here because no indemnification was offered in the contract
solicitation, and the Emergency and Rapid Response Service contract
between the EPA and Environmental Restoration LLC does not contain
any indemnification provisions. As such, no impediments or obstacles with
the standard of care taken during the response activities have been
identified.
• Independence of the Bureau of Reclamation, and the basis for
material differences between the bureau's report and other EPA or
OIG information or reports—The bureau's review was conducted
independently of the EPA. The bureau's report gave the impression that
the EPA was intentionally opening the mine the day of the release. We
found that the EPA had no plan to open the mine on August 5, 2015.
• EPA legal requirements and policies for notification actions—The
EPA followed legal requirements, and current policies and guidelines in
reporting the release. We found no delays in required EPA notifications.
Since causing the
uncontrolled release
of 3 million gallons of
contaminated mine water,
the EPA has taken steps
to improve notification to
water consumers, and to
minimize the possibility
of similar incidents at
other mine sites.
Listing of OIG reports.
• Additional policies to safeguard against future releases—The OIG did
not identify any additional policies or safeguards beyond the actions the
EPA has already taken. There are no recommendations in this report.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
June 12,2017
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Gold King Mine Release: Inspector General Response to Congressional Requests
Report No. 17-P-0250
This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The project number for this evaluation was OPE-FY15-0059.
Because this report contains no recommendations, you are not required to respond to this report.
However, if you submit a response, it will be posted on the OIG's public website, along with our
memorandum commenting on your response. Your response should be provided as an Adobe PDF file
that complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended. The final response should not contain data that you do not want to be released to the public;
if your response contains such data, you should identify the data for redaction or removal along with
corresponding justification.
FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.
TO:
Barry Breen, Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Land and Emergency Management
Deb Thomas, Acting Regional Administrator
Region 8
We will post this report to our website at www.epa.gov/oig.
-------
Gold King Mine Release: Inspector General 17-P-0250
Response to Congressional Requests
Table of
Introduction 1
Why We Did This Review 1
Background 1
Responsible Offices 2
Scope and Methodology 2
Results of Review 4
Work EPA Was Conducting at the Mine Prior to the Release and the
Cause of the Release 4
Expertise of EPA Employees and Contractors Carrying Out the Work 9
Whether the EPA Took Appropriate Care to Determine Water Levels
and Pressure 11
Criteria That EPA Would Apply Before Approving a Contractor 15
EPA Policies Regarding Indemnification of Contractors 16
How EPA Defined and Assured Independence of External Review 16
Material Differences Between the Bureau of Reclamation Report
and Other Information Gathered on Factors That Led to the Release 17
EPA Legal Requirements, Current Policies and Guidelines on
Reporting a Release of a Hazardous Substance, Whether
EPA Followed Requirements, and Whether Any Reported
Delay in Providing Information Created Any Health Risks 20
Additional Polices to Safeguard Against Future Spills at
Abandoned Mine Sites During Remediation Projects 26
Appendices
A Issues Addressed 28
B Timeline of Actions and Communications 30
C Distribution 35
-------
Introduction
Why We Did This Review
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Inspector
General (OIG), conducted this review in response to two congressional requests to
examine the cause of, and the EPA's response to, the August 5, 2015, release of
mine water from the Gold King Mine site near Silverton, Colorado. Appendix A
contains a complete list of the 16 issues we addressed. Appendix B contains a
timeline of actions and communications.
Background
On August 5, 2015, while evaluating the ongoing discharge from the Gold King
Mine, an EPA-led team triggered a release of approximately 3 million gallons of
contaminated mine water that contained sediment and metals, such as lead,
copper, arsenic, zinc and cadmium. Since 2005, and up to the release on August 5,
2015, the Gold King Mine had been discharging approximately 200 gallons per
minute or more of contaminated mine water. Two hundred gallons per minute of
discharge equals a release of 3 million gallons about eveiy 10 days. Video footage
of the Gold King Mine release is available for viewing.
The released mine water flowed into Cement Creek, a tributary of the Animas River.
At Silverton, Colorado, the plume flowed into the Animas River. Near Farmington,
New Mexico, the release discharged from the Animas River to the San Juan River,
and from there the plume eventually flowed into Lake Powell. The release prompted
emergency action that was considered nationally significant or precedent setting.
Figure 1: Map of the Four Corners area of the United States
MnS£^" ^ Junction COLORADO
Fobs it
UTAH
igton
FRANCISCO PLATEAO-1 v { [_
Source: EPA OIG map.
Note: Gold King Mine and Lake Powell are identified with red markers. A blue line
follows the river path that the released mine water from Gold King Mine travelled.
Tribal lands are shown in orange.
17-P-0250
1
-------
The EPA conducted an internal review of the Gold King Mine release in
August 2015,1 and issued an addendum in December 2015.2 At the EPA's request,
the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation conducted a
technical evaluation of the Gold King Mine release, and the bureau issued its
report in October 2015.3 In December 2015, the EPA completed an After-Action
Review4 of its response to the release, and a 1-year after report was completed in
August 2016.5 These reports made a number of recommendations to safeguard
against future incidents.
Responsible Offices
The following EPA offices are responsible for the issues discussed in this report:
Office of Land and Emergency Management's Office of Emergency
Management, and Region 8's Office of Ecosystems Protection and Remediation.
Scope and Methodology
We performed our work from August 2015 through March 2017. We conducted
this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards, except for the preparation of Appendix B, which was prepared
by the EPA OIG's Office of Investigations using its professional judgment to
determine which communications were responsive to the request. Adding this
work does not change our findings and conclusions. Generally accepted
government auditing standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. We believe that the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objective.
We interviewed personnel from EPA headquarters and EPA Regions 6, 8, 9 and
10. We also interviewed personnel from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; the
U.S. Geological Survey; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the state of Colorado;
contractors on-site August 5, 2015; and those knowledgeable about mining issues.
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Summary Report: EPA Internal Review of the August 5. 2015 Gold King
Mine Blowout. August 24, 2015.
2 U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency, Addendum to EPA Internal Review of Gold King Mine Incident.
December 8, 2015.
3 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Technical Evaluation of the Gold King Mine Incident. San Juan County. Colorado.
October 22, 2015.
4 U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency, After-Action Review: EPA's Response to the Gold King Mine Release on
August 5, 2015 (Internal/Deliberative Process), December 21, 2015.
5 U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency, One Year After the Gold King Mine Incident—A Retrospective of EPA's
Efforts to Restore and Protect Impacted Communities. August 1, 2016.
17-P-0250
2
-------
We reviewed the following documents relevant to the Gold King Mine release:
• The EPA's Internal Review, Addendum and attachments.
• The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Technical Evaluation, and peer
reviewers' comments on the draft.
• Site-specific documents guiding or documenting work the EPA was
conducting at Gold King Mine in 2014 and 2015, including work plans,
the health and safety plan, and work conducted in 2014.
• Agency emails, personnel records and documentation.
• Other current and historical documents related to mining and cleanup
operations at Gold King Mine and other nearby mines.
On March 24, 2017, we issued a discussion document to the agency. The agency
provided comments on the discussion document. We met with the agency to
discuss its comments, and made changes to the report as appropriate.
On March 28, 2017, we provided relevant excerpts of the discussion document to
the Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety (DRMS), and the
U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation. DRMS provided
comments on the discussion document. We met with DRMS to discuss its
comments, and made changes to the report as appropriate. The U.S. Department of
the Interior declined to comment on our discussion document.
17-P-0250
3
-------
Results of Review
This section addresses 16 issues regarding the EPA's work at the Gold King Mine
site leading up to the release, and the EPA's immediate response. Appendix B
contains a timeline of actions and communications.
Details on work the EPA was conducting at Gold King Mine prior to
the release on August 5, 2015, and the cause of the release of mine
water.
The EPA was performing a removal site evaluation at Gold King Mine to
investigate the possibility of opening the collapsed mine portal.6 The EPA was
seeking to find solutions to ongoing mine water drainage when excavation
activities caused the release of mine water.
Colorado's DRMS reported in 2009 that the portal was completely collapsed and
that future work may be needed "to alleviate the potential for an unstable increase
in mine pool head within the Gold King [Mine] workings."
The goal of the EPA's removal site evaluation at Gold King Mine was to identify
actions that may be taken to reduce the volume or improve the quality of water
released from the mine. A removal site evaluation includes a preliminary
assessment that identifies the source and nature of the release or threat of release;
and, if more information is needed, an on-site inspection. The removal site
evaluation and inspection are information-gathering activities conducted prior to
the EPA making a decision about whether to perform a removal action to address
the situation.
The EPA's evaluation activities at Gold King Mine were conducted in
conjunction with an EPA removal action at the nearby Red and Bonita Mine. The
EPA wanted to open the Gold King Mine to monitor any changes resulting from
the Red and Bonita Mine action.
The EPA started its removal evaluation at Gold King Mine in 2014. The EPA
used the services of contractors under EPA Superfund Technical Assessment and
Response Team (START) and EPA Emergency and Rapid Response Service
(ERRS) contracts. The ERRS contract task order identified the following risks at
the site:
Conditions may exist that could result in a blow-out of the
blockages and cause a release of large volumes of contaminated
mine waters and sediment from inside the mine, which contain
concentrated heavy metals.
6 In this report, we discuss only the portal where the release occurred on August 5, 2015. We do not discuss the other
portals into Gold King Mine.
17-P-0250
4
-------
The EPA further specified that the work was to serve the following
purpose:
[R]e-open the Gold King Mine portal and workings to investigate
the conditions to assess the on-going releases. This will require the
incremental de-watering and removal of such blockages to prevent
blowouts.
According to EPA records, the work that the agency and its contractors conducted
in 2014 was suspended, as they uncovered conditions that required them to plan to
treat a greater quantity of water potentially accumulated behind the blockage.
In 2015, the EPA used the services of its ERRS contractor. The ERRS response
manager stated that the purpose of the excavation activities on August 4-5, 2015,
was to investigate the rock conditions at Gold King Mine. Because so much of the
rock was fractured, the search was for competent rock. Excavation activities were
conducted so that a team of experts, who would be on-site August 14, 2015, could
assess conditions and discuss how to move forward.
The Colorado DRMS geological engineer, who also participated in planning
activities and was present at the Gold King Mine on August 4-5, 2015, told the
OIG that the objective of the work on those days was to clean away loose material
to expose something more useful to look at when the mining subcontractor arrived
the following week. The DRMS geological engineer also told the OIG that there
was no plan to open the mine portal or adit7 before the meeting of experts planned
for August 14, 2015.
Based on statements made by those present, the EPA-led team removed
unconsolidated material (loose rock and dirt) from around and above the portal.
The team conducted excavation activities by scraping away unconsolidated
material, hauling away collapsed material, and examining newly exposed areas
for conditions that would indicate they had reached material that the on-scene
coordinator (OSC) on-site considered to be the blockage.8 The excavation
activities exposed collapsed timbers and material filled in around those timbers.
According to the OSC on-site, the team stopped excavation in front of the
blockage on August 4, 2015, after they reached material that was compacted, well
consolidated, and considered by the OSC on-site to be the blockage.
7 An "adit" is a horizontal entry into a mine, with one opening to the surface, commonly and erroneously called a
tunnel (a tunnel is open on both ends). A "portal" is the surface entrance to a tunnel or adit.
8 Two OSCs were involved at the Gold King Mine site. One was the lead OSC who oversaw the planning and
overall work at Gold King. The other OSC served as a replacement or backup when the lead was on leave. On
August 4-5, 2015, the backup OSC was on-site, and the lead OSC was on leave.
17-P-0250
5
-------
Pictures taken at the end of the
workday on August 4, 2015,
show that the excavation
activities had exposed collapsed
timbers and material filled in
around those timbers.
Based on statements made by
those present, when activities
resumed on the morning of
August 5, 2015, excavation
focused on removing loose
material above the portal to
expose bedrock. The day
started with a safety briefing that
included crews for both the Red
and Bonita Mine and the Gold
King Mine.
Present at Gold King Mine on August 5, 2015, was the EPA OSC, the ERRS
contractor response manager, the ERRS contractor/excavator operator, and a
START contractor. Later in the morning, an ERRS contractor/loader operator was
brought from the Red and Bonita Mine to the Gold King Mine to assist with the
activities. In addition, two Colorado DRMS personnel were present for a short
period of time prior to the release. The Colorado DRMS personnel were in the
vicinity that week to work at the Red and Bonita Mine and to conduct water
sampling in the area.
According to the response manager, excavating activity at Gold King Mine was
directed by the EPA OSC. Both the START contractor and the response manager
stated that work did not proceed any differently because another EPA OSC was
filling in for the lead OSC. The excavator operator built a ramp to enable reaching
higher. The OSC directed the excavator operator to "scratch" above the portal.
This activity was intended to remove loose material and locate the rock above the
mine's portal. The OSC on-site told us that he approached Gold King Mine as he
approaches all "blind" adits (an adit you cannot see into), with the assumption that
it was full of water and under pressure. According to the excavator operator, all
activities at the site were "done as careful as possible "
Exposed, collapsed timbers and material filled in and around
the timbers at the Gold King Mine portal on the afternoon of
August 4, 2015. (EPA photo)
17-P-0250
6
-------
The excavator operator described
the August 5, 2015, activities in
detail:
• The OSC would direct the
excavator operator to
remove a "little" material
and stop.
• The OSC and others would
then examine the area from
which the material was
removed.
• After the examination, the
OSC would direct the
excavator to remove a little
more material.
• This process was repeated Photo of excavation activities on August 5, 2015.
approximately 12 times Image was taken about 1.5 hours before the
over a 2- to 3-hour period. release. (EPA photo)
• The excavator operator piled the material removed from above the adit in
front of the excavator.
• When excavation ceased, a loader was used to remove the excavated
material.
At the EPA's request, Colorado DRMS personnel were at the Gold King Mine on
August 5, 2015, to discuss future portal stabilization. Colorado DRMS personnel
told the OIG that they did not see any issues or have any concerns with the work
the EPA was conducting. The excavator operator estimated that only one removal
was made after Colorado DRMS personnel left the site.
The OSC on-site said they stopped excavation above the adit portal once bedrock
was exposed. According to the START contractor, they had finally found bedrock
through the work they were doing on August 5, 2015, but that was at the same
time the leak started. The loader operator said he moved two or three scoops of
dirt that the excavator had removed from the area around the mine. Then, both the
loader operator and the excavator operator noticed a "little bit of water coming
out of the rock face."
According to the START contractor and the photographs he took on August 5,
2015, the initial leak was evident at 10:51 a.m. The response manager said it was
"way above where anyone expected." The OSC and the response manager said,
17-P-0250
7
-------
and the photos show, the leak started out clear and small, and within minutes
turned red or orange and increased in volume.
The initial spurt of water from the Gold King Mine is barely visible in this photo
taken at 10:51 a.m. on August 5, 2015. The OIG added the red arrow. (EPA photo)
All personnel were able to move away from the released water, so no one was
injured. The operators were able to move equipment out of the way. The START
contractor said it took about 10 minutes for the small leak to become a full
opening of the adit releasing the water. For about 30 minutes, large amounts of
water flowed from the mine, eroding adit blockage material and other material,
such as the earthen ramp that had been built. Materials were carried over the side
of the mine dump and into Cement Creek. After approximately 50 minutes, the
flow diminished enough for the crew to direct the water back into an already
existing concrete channel.
The OSC, along with the START contractor, response manager, excavator
operator, and Colorado DRMS geological engineer present at Gold King
Mine on August 5, 2015, all indicated that the work being done that day was
investi gative in nature. The purpose of the work was to find competent rock
above the adit, and there was no plan that day to open the adit. The OSC on-site
August 5, 2015, asserted that the team was not excavating the blockage, was not
attempting to open the adit, and had no plans to dewater the mine that day.
Although the OSC on-site did not intend to open the mine that day, due to a
misjudgment about the height of the adit, the OSC on-site reported inadvertently
excavating down to within a foot or two of the top of the adit portal, which
initiated an internal erosion failure that caused the release. This is consistent with
the Bureau of Reclamation conclusion. In its October 2015 review, the bureau
concluded that excavation-induced failure triggered internal erosion and resulted
in the uncontrolled release.
17-P-0250
8
-------
Issue 3:
Details on the expertise of EPA employees and contractors carrying
out the work at Gold King Mine.
The EPA had qualified, experienced individuals with relevant expertise
conducting the work at Gold King Mine. The EPA had two OSCs involved at the
mine, as well as ERRS and START contractors. The ERRS contractor had
secured the services of a mining subcontractor. In addition, the EPA received
technical advice from the Colorado DRMS.
EPA OSCs
The EPA requires OSCs to complete a core competency training program to
develop the advanced knowledge, skills and capabilities needed to address a wide
variety of environmental responses. This training is spread out over a 3-year
period, and includes the following requirements:
• 160 hours of health and safety courses.
• 54 hours of contracts training to attain certification as a Contracting
Officer's Representative.
• 300 hours (approximately) of general training in different types of
responses, use of equipment, response processes (e.g., the Stafford Act,
oil spills, incident command system, and spills of national significance),
and quality assurance/quality control.
• 85 hours of spill prevention, control, and Countermeasure and Facility
Response Plan Inspection training.
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (i.e., the
National Contingency Plan) sets forth requirements for response operations, and
tasks OSCs with directing response efforts and coordinating all other efforts at the
scene of a discharge or release. The OSC position description acknowledges that
the OSC must rely on experience and judgment to solve problems encountered.
The description further states that OSCs are given wide latitude in terms of
responsibility for planning, designing and implementing solutions for site
cleanup, and the alleviation of damage caused by the release of hazardous
substances.
According to EPA records, the two OSCs for Gold King Mine had over 5 decades
of experience as OSCs. EPA records show that the lead OSC for Gold King Mine
has a Bachelor of Science degree in environmental resource management, and the
OSC on-site for August 4-5, 2015, has a bachelor's degree in geological
engineering, as well as graduate-level credits in hydrology. EPA records indicate
that the OSC on-site also had prior work experience in the mining industry, where
17-P-0250
9
-------
his duties included exploration, mine investigations and evaluations. Each OSC
has completed removal actions and emergency response operations at numerous
mine sites. Both were recognized among their peers and colleagues as "some of
the most experienced people in these situations of anybody in the country," and
are considered "the top guys" for dealing with mines.
EPA Contractors and Subcontractors
The agency used the services of ERRS and START contractors to perform and
assist with Gold King Mine work. The ERRS contractor subcontracted with a
mining construction company for services at the mine.
The ERRS contractor is Environmental Restoration LLC, whose employees
were on-site at the time of the release from Gold King Mine. According to
Environmental Restoration, it is the largest provider of emergency response
services to the EPA, with contracts in seven of the 10 EPA regions.
Environmental Restoration provides hazardous waste materials management and
removal services that include emergency response, site and mine site remediation,
environmental construction, and specialty technical services.
According to EPA records, the Environmental Restoration response manager for
Gold King Mine has a bachelor's degree in natural resources and environmental
science, and a Master of Science in management. He became an EPA-approved
response manager in 1996, was a certified hazardous materials manager, and had
19 years of experience working in the environmental field. The Environmental
Restoration excavator operator told the OIG that he had over 30 years of
experience operating heavy equipment, including experience working at other
mine reclamation sites. The Environmental Restoration loader operator said he
had about 10 years of experience operating heavy equipment.
The START contractor is Weston Solutions. According to its website, Weston
Solutions specializes in a number of areas, including environmental investigation
and remediation, hazardous waste management, and emergency planning and
response. The START employee at Gold King Mine on August 5, 2015, said he
holds a bachelor's degree in civil engineering and a master's degree in
environmental science, and had been employed with Weston Solutions since
October 2011. He is also a licensed professional engineer in the state of Colorado.
Environmental Restoration subcontracted with Harrison Western for mining
services at Gold King Mine. According to Harrison Western's website, the
company has completed hundreds of complex civil and underground construction
projects, and it has more than 45 years of experience in construction, mine
development, engineering and process development. Harrison Western offers
services in civil construction, engineering, mine development, underground
construction, mining and excavation support. Harrison Western participated in
17-P-0250
10
-------
agency planning activities for 2015 and was scheduled to deploy to Gold King
Mine later in August 2015.
State Personnel
According to its website, the Colorado DRMS mission is to protect the public,
miners and the environment during current mining operations; restore abandoned
mines; and ensure that all mined land is reclaimed for beneficial use. Its programs
include the Office of Active and Inactive Mines, which reclaims and safeguards
abandoned mine sites that are dangerous and create environmental hazards.
The Program Director for Active and Inactive Mines, and one of his inactive mine
reclamation geological engineers, were at Gold King Mine on August 5, 2015, but
left prior to the release to visit a nearby mine. The Program Director told the OIG
that he received a master's degree in geology and has worked for the Colorado
DRMS for 30 years. The geological engineer said he holds a bachelor's degree in
geological engineering and has worked for Colorado DRMS for about 24 years.
We found that the EPA had qualified, experienced individuals with relevant
expertise conducting the work at Gold King Mine. In addition, the EPA
supplemented its in-house expertise with experienced contractors, subcontractors
and state consultants. We found that the OSC on-site had the experience and
authority to direct the removal site evaluation at Gold King Mine.
Issues
4 and 5:
Whether given known concerns that the work at the Red and Bonita
Mine could increase water in the Gold King Mine, the EPA took
appropriate care to determine water levels in the Gold King Mine
before removing rock from the portal. Whether the EPA should have
conducted pressure tests on the trapped water behind the mine pool
before attempting to open the Gold King Mine, as was done at the
Red and Bonita Mine.
We found no specific standards for the level of care to be taken or how to assess a
collapsed mine portal. The EPA had identified concerns about the water level and
the potential for blow-out of the blockage, had worked with experts to plan the
evaluation work, and was still early in the process of conducting an evaluation of
site conditions when the release happened. Based on interpretation of mine site
conditions, the lead OSC did not believe direct testing of water behind the
blockage was necessary. In addition, they considered drilling a well, but there
were safety risks, engineering challenges, unknown benefits, and high costs
associated with drilling at Gold King Mine.
The EPA's evaluation activities at Gold King Mine were conducted in
conjunction with the construction of a bulkhead in the nearby Red and Bonita
Mine. However, according to the Colorado DRMS geological engineer, when the
release occurred on August 5, 2015, the bulkhead at the Red and Bonita Mine had
not been fully constructed; therefore, it could not have caused any changes to the
17-P-0250
11
-------
water levels in Gold King Mine. Changes in the flow out of Gold King Mine and
other nearby mines due to the installation of other bulkheads was documented.
We found broad criteria for the work the EPA was conducting, but no standards
for the level of care to be taken or how to go about opening a collapsed mine
portal. Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA), the EPA responds to and addresses threatened or
actual releases of hazardous substances, and performs removal activities to protect
public health, welfare or the environment.9
The National Contingency Plan provides the organizational structure and
procedures to prepare for and respond to discharges of oil, and releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants. The EPA also has a National
Hardrock Mining Framework, and an Abandoned Mine Site Characterization and
Cleanup Handbook. Both the framework and handbook provide resources and
references on how to implement EPA legal and regulatory authorities for
addressing the environmental impacts of mining. However, neither document
establishes standards for how to assess a collapsed mine portal.
Colorado developed a "best management practices" manual for abandoned mine
land reclamation in 2002. The manual provides an overview of approaches to
address environmental and safety problems caused by past mining. The manual
states that actions must be designed and engineered to take into account the
volume of water, water chemistry, and mine configuration; however, the manual
does not provide standards for doing this site-specific work. A Colorado DRMS
geological engineer we spoke with indicated that each mine is unique, so having a
checklist or detailed criteria to follow would not be useful, but having evaluation
criteria with multiple options for inactive mines would be helpful.
Accumulation of water behind the Gold King Mine blockage was presumed, even
though drainage was ongoing. In its 2009 project summary, the Colorado DRMS
identified the potential for an unstable increase in the level of the water
accumulated within Gold King Mine. In a 2014 task order for work at Gold King,
the EPA acknowledged the risk when the agency required that its ERRS
contractor incrementally dewater and remove blockage so as to prevent blowouts.
In its 2015 work plan, the EPA identified that it was likely that the collapsed
portal condition caused impounding of water behind the collapse. The Gold King
Mine work plan contains the following warning:
Conditions may exist that could result in a blow-out of the
blockages and cause a release of large volumes of contaminated
mine waters and sediment from inside the mine, which contain
concentrated heavy metals.
9 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9604(a)(1).
17-P-0250
12
-------
The lead OSC told the OIG that the variation in flow from Gold King Mine
created some uncertainty as to how much water was behind the blockage. He
explained that when a mine is completely blocked, as was the case at Gold King
Mine, the quantity of water behind the blockage is unknown. However, he said
they were under the impression that Gold King Mine was not completely full. The
lead OSC said the assumption that the adit was not completely full was based, in
part, on the fact that they did not see any water seepage up high around the upper
portions of the adit blockage. The assumption was also based, in part, on their
observations and what they understood from the work that Colorado DRMS had
completed in 2009.
The lead OSC also said the interpretation—which was discussed with the ERRS
contractor, the START contractor, the mining subcontractor, and the Colorado
DRMS—was that the flow at Gold King Mine was still coming out of the
blockage where it was before, and it was still draining adequately. There was an
assumption that because the mine was draining, it was not under pressure. The
EPA's approach, as Colorado DRMS understood it, was to proceed with caution.
In conducting the removal evaluation at Gold King Mine, the EPA consulted with
the Colorado DRMS geological engineer about water levels in the mine and the
surrounding vicinity. The Colorado DRMS geological engineer told the OIG that
measurements obtained from monitoring the water emerging from the mine were
a good indication and an acceptable method of determining the level of water
behind the blockage. He also told the OIG that the Colorado DRMS was
comfortable with the EPA's estimates of chamber size, plus or minus a few feet,
and the amount of water expected behind the blockage.
According to the Colorado DRMS geological engineer, no mine maps identifying
the height and width of the adit were available. The EPA estimates were based on
publicly available information on the mine, and information obtained from
persons who had previously worked at or been in the mine. The estimates were
also based on information obtained from the Colorado DRMS regarding its
2007-2009 activities at Gold King Mine, monitoring and sampling results
obtained from the site, and observations from the 2014 EPA excavation activities
at the site.
Direct testing of water pressure in Gold King Mine would have involved drilling a
well, which presented safety, engineering and cost challenges. The EPA had not
made a decision about drilling into the adit to determine water level or pressure at
the time of the release. The lead OSC said drilling had not been ruled out and
"may have come out of' the planned meeting of experts on August 14, 2015.10 He
believed drilling was not necessary, because the interpretation of site conditions
was that the mine was not pressurized as the mine was still discharging water.
10 We concluded that based on the weight of the evidence we reviewed there was no prior decision to drill at the
mine on August 4-5, 2015. However, the lead OSC provided inconsistent statements to the OIG about whether the
decision to drill had been ruled out.
17-P-0250
13
-------
The lead OSC had drilled a monitoring well into the nearby Red and Bonita Mine
approximately 5 years earlier. At the Red and Bonita Mine, the road loops back
over the hillside on top of the portal. This allowed the EPA to get a drilling rig
safely positioned above the portal. However, the Gold King Mine portal is located
on a steeper and more unstable mountainside than the Red and Bonita Mine
portal. In addition, no road crosses above the adit that would have provided stable
drilling locations. These conditions at Gold King Mine meant that any drilling
attempt from above would have been more costly, required more time, and been
more uncertain to achieve success in comparison with what was done at the Red
and Bonita Mine.
Slope above Red & Bonita Slope above Gold King
Side-by-side comparison of Red & Bonita and Gold King mine slopes. (EPA photo)
Given the short construction season in the area due to long winter conditions,
drilling would take a full work season or potentially two. Thus, had the EPA
chosen to conduct drilling, the opportunity to observe conditions within Gold
King Mine prior to the installation of the Red and Bonita Mine bulkhead would
have been lost, and the ongoing discharge would have continued for another year
Some of the concerns associ ated with drilling at the Gold King Mine included
safety risks, engineering challenges, unknown benefits and high costs. From the
experts we spoke with, there were mixed opinions on whether drilling was
feasible or advisable at the site due to these risks. We asked whether horizontal
drilling could have been used to access the adit behind the blockage. One mining
engineer we spoke with said that horizontal drilling could be done from the
mountainside using standard mining exploration equipment. However, another
cautioned that specialized equipment and drilling techniques would be needed to
guard against creating a dangerous blowout through the drill hole.
17-P-0250
14
-------
In addition, Colorado DRMS told the OIG that pressure testing is not always a
good option for some mines unless it is done immediately prior to the planned
work and testing is done at multiple locations within the underground workings.
Colorado DRMS explained that mines are very dynamic, and the internal structure
can change within months. Therefore, even if the mine had been pressure tested,
the data collected could have been wrong by the time work started if significant
time passed between the pressure test and the commencement of work. According
to the lead OSC, his decision to approach the mine from the front end seemed the
most feasible and reasonable thing to do.
The lead OSC had arranged a meeting of experts for August 14, 2015. He told the
OIG that the purpose was to get agreement on whether to proceed with the plan to
open the mine given all they knew at that point, and that the option to drill into the
adit was something that may have "come out of' the meeting. The meeting was to
include experienced personnel from the EPA, Colorado DRMS, contractor and
subcontractor personnel, and a mining expert (a Supervisory Civil Engineer) from
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The lead OSC said that for any operation with
uncertainty (and that requires a lot of judgment), it is important to have an
opportunity to get together to see whether there is a path forward for everyone to
support or not support. He said bringing all parties together is something he has
done routinely on all projects throughout his career, and these kinds of meetings
allow all parties to change tactics and approach with very short notice.
We found the EPA was not required to conduct direct testing of the water level or
pressure, and given the interpretation of the site risks associated with drilling, it is
not clear the EPA should have conducted testing. We found it reasonable that the
EPA had not conducted direct testing of the water level or pressure during the
removal site evaluation at Gold King Mine by the time of the release on August 5,
2015. This was reasonable because of the interpretation of site conditions by the
team, and because of safety risks, engineering challenges, unknown benefits, and
high costs associated with drilling at the site.
Issue 6:
Criteria the EPA would apply before approving a contractor for a
similar cleanup performed by a private party, and whether the EPA
applied the same criteria to itself.
The criteria that the EPA used to approve a contractor would not apply to agency
staff. The EPA used the Federal Acquisition Regulations as the criteria to evaluate
and approve its contractor. There is no requirement to use Federal Acquisition
Regulations to evaluate and approve EPA staff. However, a comparison of
specific technical job qualifications of the contractor and agency staff is
appropriate. We believe that the qualifications of the agency's OSCs working at
Gold King Mine were at least equal to the qualifications of the Environmental
Restoration Program Manager (contractor), and exceeded the requirements of the
Environmental Restoration Response Managers (contractors). Consequently, we
believe that the technical knowledge of the agency's OSCs was sufficient to meet
or exceed the technical requirements of the contract.
17-P-0250
15
-------
Issue 7:
The EPA's policies regarding indemnification of contractors, and
whether indemnification policies have created any impediments or
obstacles with the standard of care taken during response activities.
The EPA has guidance for providing indemnification for negligence at certain
sites, but it does not apply here because there was no indemnification offered in
the contract solicitation, and the ERRS contract between the EPA and
Environmental Restoration LLC does not contain any indemnification provisions.
Indemnification is defined as a provision in a contract under which one party
commits to compensate the other for any harm, liability or loss arising out of the
contract. As such, no impediments or obstacles with the standard of care taken
during the response activities have been identified.
How the EPA defined and assured the independence of Bureau of
Reclamation staff, officials, contractors or others involved in
conducting, supervising, reviewing or overseeing the EPA's
requested external assessment of factors that led to the Gold King
Mine release on August 5, 2015.
The EPA arranged for, but did not direct, Bureau of Reclamation staff and peer
reviewers conducting the external assessment that the EPA requested. The EPA
did not identify procedures for assuring independence. However, the EPA said it
applied the common definition of independence to the evaluation it requested
from the bureau: not being subject to control by others. EPA officials said they
ensured that the EPA did not control bureau staff or peer reviewers because the
EPA limited its interaction with them. In addition, the EPA engaged peer
reviewers to examine the report's findings. We found this approach to
safeguarding independence to be reasonable.
According to the EPA, the agency discussed the possibility of doing a review of
the Gold King Mine incident with the U.S. Department of the Interior and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Department of the Interior suggested that its
Bureau of Reclamation was the appropriate agency within the department to
conduct the review. Interior also proposed that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
serve as peer reviewers. After agreeing with this arrangement and finding other
peer reviewers, the EPA then set up funding for the Bureau of Reclamation team
and peer reviewers, and provided a broad statement of work with minimum
requirements. After funding was established, the EPA informed us that the only
contact they had with the review team and peer reviewers was a site visit and to
provide information, upon request.
17-P-0250
16
-------
Managing Water in the Wcxt
Technical Evaluation of the
Gold King Mine Incident
San Juan County. Colorado
Cover of the Bureau of Reclamation's
October 2015 technical review.
The Director of the Bureau of Reclamation Technical
Service Center said the expertise and experience of the
Supervisory Civil Engineer selected to lead the technical
evaluation made him uniquely qualified within the bureau.
The Supervisory Civil Engineer said he has extensive
professional experience in mining, both bachelor's and
master's degrees in mining engineering, and he is a
licensed professional engineer in Colorado and Montana.
The bureau's Supervisory Civil Engineer said he
maintained his independence during the review by sticking
to the facts, bringing other people in, and bringing peer
reviewers to the site to let them make their own
conclusions about the release.11 The bureau's Technical
Service Center Director said the independence of the
review was ensured partly by using a peer review system.
According to the bureau, its reviewers also followed the
Department of the Interior's Scientific Integrity Policy.
One of the requirements of that policy is that an employee
will not knowingly participate in a matter that causes a
conflict of interest.
The basis for material differences between the Bureau of
Reclamation report and other official EPA or EPA OIG information
collected on the factors that led to the Gold King Mine release.
We identified a material difference between the Bureau of Reclamation report and
information the OIG gathered on factors that led to the release from Gold King
Mine. Much of the bureau's report was consistent with information we collected
about the issues and activities at the mine, particularly in identifying the
excavation activities as the cause of the release. However, the bureau's report
states the following:
The [Bureau of Reclamation] report discusses field observations by
EPA (and why they continued digging), but does not describe why
a change in EPA field coordinators caused the urgency to start
11 The same Supervisory Civil Engineer had provided technical consultation services to the EPA on plans for the
Red and Bonita Mine bulkhead in May 2015, and was scheduled to provide consulting services at Gold King Mine
on August 14, 2015. After the release at Gold King Mine, he went on-site as planned, but spent his time assisting in
stabilizing the mine. According to EPA officials involved in arranging the external review, they were unaware of the
Bureau of Reclamation engineer's prior involvement. The participation of the bureau's Supervisory Civil Engineer
as lead reviewer created the appearance of a lack of independence because of his work with the EPA on another
mine, and his planned meeting on the Gold King Mine. However, we found that the Bureau of Reclamation review
was conducted independently from the EPA, as the EPA arranged the external review and then remained only
responsive to bureau's requests. Also, Bureau of Reclamation reviewers indicated they were able to do their work
without any interference.
17-P-0250
17
-------
digging out the plug rather than wait for [Bureau of Reclamation]
technical input as prescribed by the EPA project leader.
The OIG found that the EPA plan did not include opening the mine on August 5,
2015, and the EPA was not attempting to open the mine the day of the release
(i.e., "digging out the plug"). We were told by the OSC and contractors on-site
that they had no intention of opening the mine that day; rather, they were
exposing the blockage and the bedrock to better assess conditions and determine
next steps.
According to the lead OSC and EPA planning documents, attempting to reopen
the Gold King Mine was not scheduled for August 4-5, 2015. The activities on
August 4-5 were preparation steps for reopening the mine portal, but were not in
themselves steps to open the mine.
Contracting personnel on-site told the OIG that work on August 4-5, 2015, did
not proceed any differently with the replacement OSC directing the work. The
START contractor said he did not "have any reason to think the activities would
have proceeded differently that morning. They were following the plan." The
field schedule shows, and the replacement OSC confirmed, that the change in
OSC had been planned months in advance. The lead OSC said he took care to
select another OSC with the appropriate background and experience to take over
while he was away. As stated earlier in this report, we found that both OSCs were
qualified and had relevant expertise to conduct the work at Gold King Mine.
The Gold King Mine field schedule shows that the activities for the first week of
August included water treatment for the mine, documenting progress at the mine,
and the excavation of the adit. When we asked the lead OSC about the schedule,
he explained that the reference to the excavation of the adit did not mean
removing the blockage. He said the excavation activities for the first week of
August 2015 were an attempt to evaluate the ground above and around the
blockage, to allow for a more complete assessment of the ground and bedrock
above the adit and blockage the following week. The lead OSC said it was not a
certainty that the full operation to open the adit was in fact going to proceed as
conceived.
The lead OSC sent a July 29, 2015, email to the response manager setting forth
the priority and strategy, as had been discussed with others on the team, regarding
work to prepare for opening Gold King Mine. He also forwarded the email to the
OSC who would be on-site while he was away. The lead OSC's instructions
included steps to establish adit drainage control and to set up the water
management system before removing any adit blockage. The instructions also
included an option to excavate above the adit to investigate the slope. In his email,
the final step listed in preparation for opening the mine was the adit face
excavation. The lead OSC explained that this meant removing loose material;
it did not include excavating the blockage.
17-P-0250
18
-------
The work plans laid out many steps that were to be taken in preparation for
opening the mine. In particular, the portal was to be stabilized prior to opening the
mine. The Gold King Mine field schedule showed that the mining subcontractor
was to arrive in mid-August 2015 to stabilize the portal, and then open the mine
the last week of August 2015.
The lead OSC had arranged a meeting of experts for August 14, 2015, the purpose
of which was to get agreement on whether to proceed with the plan, given all that
they knew at that point. Based on these kinds of meetings, the lead OSC said they
can change tactics and approach with very short notice. The meeting was to
include the EPA, the Colorado DRMS, contractor and subcontractor personnel,
and a mining expert from the Bureau of Reclamation.
The OSC, the START contractor, response manager, excavator operator, and
Colorado DRMS geological engineer present at Gold King Mine on August 5,
2015, all indicated that the work being done that day was investigative in nature.
The purpose of the work was to find competent rock above the adit, and there was
no plan that day to open the adit. The response manager told the OIG that the
activities on August 5, 2015, did not include an attempt to install a stinger to
remove water from the mine, and no decision had been made as to when or
whether the installation of the stinger would occur. (A stinger is a metal pipe that
would have been inserted past the blockage into the void behind the blockage,
allowing drainage and controlled pumping out of mine water, as had been done at
the nearby Red and Bonita Mine.)
The lead OSC told the OIG that the site was not yet ready for installing a stinger,
the water management system and other equipment, and that the mining
contractors all needed to be present at the site. The OSC on-site asserted that the
stinger was not on-site on August 5, 2015, and that the system to convey water
from Gold King Mine to the treatment plant at the Red and Bonita Mine was not
completed. The OSC on-site August 5, 2015, also asserted that the team was not
attempting to open the adit and had no plans to dewater the mine on August 5,
2015.
The Bureau of Reclamation report stated that there was an "urgency to start
digging out the plug," which implied the EPA was intentionally opening the mine
on August 5, 2015. Our work shows the EPA was not attempting to open the mine
the day of the release.
17-P-0250
19
-------
Issues
10,11,
12,13,
14 and
15:
The EPA's legal requirements, current policies and guidelines on
reporting a release of a hazardous substance, and contacting tribal,
state and local government agencies. The EPA's response12 to the
Gold King Mine release and whether EPA followed its legal
requirements, current policies and guidelines in how the agency
notified tribal, state and local agencies regarding the release;
whether the policies and guidelines were designed to ensure
compliance with legal requirements; and whether any reported
delays in notification created any health risks.
We reviewed CERCLA, which controls the cleanup of hazardous waste sites, the
National Contingency Plan, and EPA Region 8's Regional Contingency Plan.13
Because the relevant requirements in these documents use terms such as
"immediately" and "promptly," we used professional judgment in determining
compliance. The EPA's policies and guidelines were designed and implemented
in a manner to ensure that the agency complies with legal requirements. The EPA
ensured notification to the National Response Center as required by CERCLA and
the National Contingency Plan. As described in the Region 8 Regional
Contingency Plan, the states are responsible for notifying their downstream water
users. In the Gold King Mine release, where the potentially affected areas crossed
jurisdictional boundaries, multiple EPA regions worked with relevant states and
tribes to notify downstream water users prior to the plume reaching their borders.
Initial Notification
CERCLA14 and the National Contingency Plan15 require that any person in charge
of a facility, as soon as they have knowledge of a release of a hazardous substance
from the facility in a reportable quantity, immediately notify the National
Response Center.16 EPA Region 8's Regional Contingency Plan explains that
anyone who identifies or observes a discharge or release should report the spill to
the National Response Center; however, it is the spiller's legal responsibility to
report all spills.
After the Gold King Mine release began at 10:51 a.m. on August 5, 2015, the
EPA's OSC and contractors on-site reacted to get out of the way of the rushing
water. There is no cell phone service at the site, and the satellite phone was
12 For purposes of this review, the "response" to the release was the EPA's initial communication about the release
to affected parties; it does not include data sharing or other aspects of the EPA's cleanup efforts. This differs with
other uses of the term "response" within this document and by the EPA. Under CERCLA and the National
Contingency Plan, "response" means remove, removal, remedy or remedial action, including enforcement activities
related thereto.
13 EPA Region 8 covers Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, and 27 tribal nations.
14 Comprehensive Enviromnental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9603(a).
15 National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR § 300.125(c).
16 The National Response Center is located at U.S. Coast Guard headquarters and is the national communications
center continuously manned for handling activities related to response actions. The National Response Center acts as
the single point of contact for all pollution incident reporting, and as the National Response Team's communications
center.
17-P-0250
20
-------
reported to have unreliable service in that area. In addition, the surging water
washed out the access road to the mine. As a result, the OSC and the Response
Manager began initial notifications by two-way radio.
The OSC and the Response Manager radioed to contractors further down the
mountain at the Red and Bonita Mine, and to the Colorado DRMS personnel who
were at another mine site on the same mountain. They requested that the
contractors secure the road crossings and that the Colorado DRMS personnel
provide notification.
After receiving radio communication of the release, the Colorado DRMS
personnel drove toward Silverton, Colorado, and made the notification to the
National Response Center at 12:27 p.m. (NRC Report #1124824), after cell phone
service had been established. The remaining workers on-site worked into the night
to secure the area and rebuild the road to allow access for the cleanup activities
that would begin.
Figure 2: National Response Center Notification
Legal requirement
Did the EPA meet this requirement?
A release of a hazardous substance
must be immediatelv reported to the
National Response Center.
(CERCLA 42 U.S.C. § 9603(a);
NCP 40 CFR§ 300.125(c))
Yes. The EPA met this requirement by
having the state personnel travel to
establish cell phone communication to
call the National Response Center as
soon as possible.
Source: OIG-generated table.
After the National Response Center receives notice of a release, CERCLA17
requires that the center "convey the notification expeditiously to all appropriate
Government agencies, including the Governor of any affected State."
The National Contingency Plan says that "[a]ll notices of discharges or releases
received at the [National Response Center] will be relayed immediately by
telephone to the OSC."18 EPA Region 8's Regional Contingency Plan explains
that the National Response Center will notify a federal OSC through Region 8's
Emergency Operations Center—the regional site for notification, communication
and interagency coordination during a pollution incident.
17 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9603(a).
18 Title 40 CFR§ 300.125(c).
17-P-0250
21
-------
In the Gold King Mine incident, the National Response Center notified the
following entities at 12:37 p.m.:
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
• U.S. Coast Guard Investigative Service.
• Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
• Colorado Information Analysis Center.
• U.S. Department of Transportation, Crisis Management Center.
• National Infrastructure Coordinating Center.
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
• Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Committee.
• U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and
Compliance.
• U.S. Coast Guard, District 8.
The National Response Center notified EPA Region 8's Emergency Operations
Center at 12:39 p.m.
Figure 3: Natural Resource Trustee Notification
Legal requirement
Did the EPA meet this requirement?
The OSC shall ensure that the
trustees for natural resources are
promptly notified of discharaes or
releases.
(NCP 40 CFR § 300.135(j)(1))
Yes. The EPA met this requirement through the
NRC notifications, and through multiple EPA
regions notifying relevant states and tribes.
Source: OIG-generated table.
Notification to Downstream Water Users
According to EPA Region 8's Regional Contingency Plan, upon notification from
the National Response Center, the OSC will investigate the report to determine
the threat posed to public health, welfare or the environment. National Response
Center notifications, distributed as described above, are the initial way natural
resource trustees and other stakeholders learn about a release or discharge.
For purposes of the National Contingency Plan, the term "state" includes Indian
tribes. In addition, the tribal chairmen, or their designee, act as natural resource
trustees for their tribe.
EPA Region 8's Regional Contingency Plan directs the state member of the
Regional Response Team to notify downstream water users of a release
potentially impacting them.
17-P-0250
22
-------
Figure 4: Map of the Animas River, San Juan River, and Lake Powell area affected
by the Gold King Mine release
Cement
Creek)
Iverton
Ute Moifjitain lite
Tribe Reserv ation
Tacoma
Durango
Aneth\ lite Mountain Southern Lite Indian
Slltc Tribe Rcsvl "Wrvation £
] [ > Cedar Hill
c. u • ,i/rAztec
Shiprock^^~»_i(^ n'"'
Mexican
Hat
Navajo Nation
Farmington
Fruitland
110° w
107J W
-39° N
-38° N
-37° N
-36° N
Legend
* Gold King Mine
• City
Stream
Impacted Stream
I I Indian Land
I [ State Boundary
I I Hydrologic Boundary
39° N-
38" N-
36° N-
Source:
EPA.
Utah
Colorado
Arizona
vIicarilla
Apache
Nation
0 30 60 km
1 » ¦ i »
New Mexico
Colorado
The Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment provides a
representative to the Regional Response Team for Colorado. As previously noted,
the department was notified by the National Response Center at 12:37 p.m. on
August 5, 2015. The Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment
informed EPA Region 8 that it had completed notifications to Colorado
downstream water users by 1:39 p.m. the same day. The plume passed through the
city of Durango, Colorado, which relies on the Animas River as one of its
drinking water sources, late in the afternoon on August 6, 2015, hours after EPA
officials told city officials to close water system intakes.
Souther)/ Ute Tribe
A Southern Ute Indian Tribe council member testified that the tribe first learned
of the Gold King Mine release when the Deputy Director of the Colorado
Department of Natural Resources notified the tribe's Wildlife Resources Division
17-P-0250
23
-------
on Wednesday afternoon, August 5, 2015. The tribe immediately responded by
implementing its emergency management plan. By August 7, 2015, the EPA had
been coordinating with the Southern Ute Tribe. The plume reached the borders of
the Southern Ute Tribe Territory in the early morning on August 7, 2015.
New Mexico
The EPA Region 6 Deputy Regional Administrator contacted New Mexico on the
afternoon of August 6, 2015, before 2:00 p.m. The New Mexico Environment
Department informed the EPA on August 6, 2015, that the compliance officer was
working with New Mexico water systems that use the Animas River for drinking
water. By August 7, 2015, the EPA and the department were providing assistance
to community water systems and closely monitoring the situation. According to
the EPA, the leading edge of the plume reached New Mexico on August 7, 2015.
Navajo Nation
EPA Region 9 notified the Navajo Nation via email on the evening of August 6,
2015, and began in-person work with Navajo Nation staff on August 7, 2015,
including the sampling of the San Juan River. The President of the Navajo Nation
issued a "Precautionary Notice" related to the San Juan River on August 7, 2015.
According to the EPA, the plume reached the Navajo Nation on August 8, 2015,
in the afternoon.
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
The EPA reported that on August 8, 2015, the Southern Ute Tribe notified the
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe about the release. According to the EPA, the plume was
not visible, but the agency estimated the plume would pass a Four Corners
sampling location at 12:00 p.m. on August 9, 2015. The Four Corners sampling
location is the closest sampling point to the tribal lands of the Ute Mountain Ute
Tribe. On August 11, 2015, EPA Region 8 participated in discussions with the
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe regarding communication and coordination activities.
Utah
On August 6, 2015, EPA Region 8 notified its Regional Response Team members
via email about the Gold King Mine release and provided the first situation report
on the release. Regional Response Team members include Utah and other EPA
Region 8 states, as well as other federal agencies. On August 10, 2015, the Utah
Department of Environmental Quality reported that its Division of Drinking
Water had assessed the drinking water sources and systems regulated by the state
of Utah, and determined that the state should not be affected by the San Juan
River contamination. The Utah Division of Drinking Water had also been in
touch with the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority about drinking water systems not
regulated by state of Utah, which could be impacted by the release. Utah
17-P-0250
24
-------
Department of Environmental Quality scientists estimated the plume first arrived
in Utah during the night of August 9, 2015.
Arizona
EPA Region 9 contacted the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality about
the Gold King Mine release on August 7, 2015. The state contact indicated no
impacts were expected in Arizona. By August 10, 2015, the department reported
that available information suggested that the Gold King Mine release had not
affected Arizona's surface, ground or drinking water.
Public Notification
The National Contingency Plan states the following:
When an incident occurs, it is imperative to give the public
prompt, accurate information on the nature of the incident and the
actions underway to mitigate the damage. OSCs/RPMs [Remedial
Project Managers] and community relations personnel should
ensure that all appropriate public and private interests are kept
informed and that their concerns are considered throughout a
response. They should coordinate with available public
affairs/community relations resources to carry out this
responsibility by establishing, as appropriate, a Joint Information
Center bringing together resources from federal and state agencies
and the responsible party.19
By August 7, 2015, the EPA began issuing press releases and holding public
meetings, and the agency continued them throughout the cleanup. The EPA's
Press Releases and Updates for Gold King Mine Response website provides the
latest updates on the agency's work at the mine site.
By August 11, 2015, the EPA had helped to establish a Joint Information Center
in Durango, Colorado, to provide information about state, regional, tribal and
federal responses to the Gold King Mine release. In addition, the EPA created and
continues to maintain the Emergency Response to August 2015 Release From
Gold King Mine website to house data and documentation regarding the release,
and to make information easily accessible to those interested or affected.
19 Title 40 CFR§ 300.155(a).
17-P-0250
25
-------
Issue
16:
What additional policies should be in place to safeguard against
future spills at abandoned mine sites during remediation projects.
During our work, the EPA and others have reviewed aspects of, and conducted
lessons learned about, the Gold King Mine release. As a result, the EPA has taken
steps to minimize the potential for uncontrolled releases resulting from initiating
or conducting response activities at mine sites. The EPA also has taken actions
designed to improve the notification and communication processes when a release
occurs.
We did not identify any additional policies or safeguards that should be in place
beyond those recently identified by others. Examples of policies/safeguards
provided by others include the following:
• August 2015. The EPA's 2015 internal review report recommended that
the agency (1) develop guidance to minimize the risks of adit blow-outs;
(2) develop a tool box for investigating mines; and (3) where there is
concern of an adit blow-out, information and rationale developed by a site
team should be critically reviewed. The EPA is creating a document, titled
"Planning for Response Actions at Abandoned Mines with Underground
Workings: Best Practices for Preventing Sudden, Uncontrolled Fluid
Mining Waste Releases," which it expects to complete by June 16, 2017.
• September 2015. The EPA's Assistant Administrator for Land and
Emergency Management asked EPA Regional Administrators to ensure
that Regional Response Team representatives work to strengthen their
Regional Contingency Plans, particularly regarding the need to alert and
coordinate with responders in downstream jurisdictions. The Assistant
Administrator asked Regional Response Teams to conduct an exercise that
tests strengthened alert mechanisms. The EPA said this was completed by
March 31, 2016.
• October 2015. The Bureau of Reclamation recommended that a failure
modes analysis be incorporated into project planning, various sources of
information should be checked, considerations of how to handle mine
water should be taken, water conditions in the mine should be directly
measured, and independent expertise should be brought in where
significant consequences of failure are possible for projects. The EPA
expects to complete this June 16, 2017.
• March 2016. The EPA's Assistant Administrator for Land and
Emergency Management sent a memo to all EPA regional offices about
planning for removal and remedial activities at hardrock mining and
mineral processing sites with fluid hazards, and to share the agency's
expectations for the work that is done at those sites. The EPA defined a
17-P-0250
26
-------
fluid hazard as an accumulation of mine-related water that could be
uncontrollably released and thereby create a potential or actual emergency.
To minimize the possibility of future releases, cleanup activities at those
sites will include consultation with headquarters, management oversight,
and contingency planning. In April 2017, the EPA issued a revised memo
to streamline the consultation process. The memo was based on
experience gained conducting fiscal year 2016 consultations and
developing the "best practices" document discussed above. The memo
updated and superseded the March 2016 memo.
June 2016. EPA Region 8's Regional Contingency Plan was updated to
add a step in the notification process. The step involves contacting other
Regional Emergency Operations Centers if the incident could cross
regional boundaries.
August 2016. The EPA addressed preparedness for any future incidents
that have potential multistate and regional impacts by improving
stakeholder notifications through the review and strengthening of Regional
Contingency Plans and emergency response planning documents. The
EPA also planned to increase its capacity for rapid data collection and
dissemination by creating a National Data Playbook. The EPA completed
this in February 2017.
September 2016. The EPA's Office of Land and Emergency Management
requested that each EPA region develop a plan to maintain updated
information for tribal emergency response contacts. The Office of Land
and Emergency Management has worked closely with the EPA's Office of
International and Tribal Affairs, and the Office of Public Affairs, to
develop a sustainable approach for maintaining tribal emergency contact
plans. This was completed by September 30, 2016. During the summer of
2016, the EPA reached out to tribes to educate them on the automated
National Response Center, and to encourage tribes to participate. This will
help ensure that tribes get timely automatic notification of a spill that
impacts their geographic area. The EPA said 24 tribes have signed up for
the notification as of November 2, 2016. This is three times the number
that had previously been in the system.
27
-------
Appendix A
Issues Addressed
We issued two notification memorandums to the EPA regarding this work.20 We addressed the
following issues:
1. Details on the work the EPA was conducting at the Gold King Mine prior to the
release on August 5, 2015.
2. The cause of the August 5, 2015, release from the Gold King Mine in Colorado.
3. Details on the expertise of the EPA employees and contractors carrying out that work.
4. Whether given known concerns that work at the Red and Bonita Mine could increase
water in the Gold King Mine, the EPA took appropriate care to determine water levels
in the Gold King Mine before removing rock from the portal.
5. Whether the EPA should have conducted pressure tests on the trapped water behind
the mine pool before attempting to open the Gold King Mine, as was done at the Red
and Bonita Mine in 2010.
6. Criteria the EPA would apply before approving a contractor for a similar cleanup
performed by a private party, and whether the EPA applied the same criteria to the
EPA.
7. The EPA's policies regarding indemnification of contractors, and whether
indemnification policies have created any impediments or obstacles on the standard of
care taken during response activities.
8. How the EPA defined and assured the independence of Bureau of Reclamation staff,
officials, contractors or others involved in conducting, supervising, reviewing or
overseeing the EPA's requested external assessment of the factors that led to the Gold
King Mine release on August 5, 2015.
9. The basis for material differences between the Bureau of Reclamation report and other
official EPA or EPA OIG information collected on the factors that led to the Gold
King Mine release.
10. The EPA's legal requirements and current policies and guidelines on reporting a
release of a hazardous substance.
20 EPA OIG, Gold King Mine Release Notification Memorandum—August 17. 2015: and EPA OIG, Gold King
Mine Release 2nd Notification Memorandum—November 4. 2015.
17-P-0250
28
-------
11. The EPA's legal requirements and current policies and guidelines on contacting
tribal, state and local government agencies when the agency creates a release of a
hazardous substance.
12. The EPA's response to the August 5, 2015, release from the Gold King Mine.
13. Whether the EPA followed its legal requirements, current policies and guidelines in
this particular release at Gold King Mine.
14. How the EPA's current policies and guidelines are designed to ensure compliance
with legal requirements, and to keep tribal, state and local agencies adequately
informed regarding a release of hazardous substances.
15. Whether any reported delay in providing information to tribal, state and local
agencies created any reported health risks or delayed emergency responses from
those agencies.
16. What additional policies should be in place to safeguard against future spills at
abandoned mine sites during remediation projects.
17-P-0250
29
-------
Appendix B
Timeline of Actions and Communications
The EPA OIG's Office of Investigations created the following timeline in response to the August 19, 2015, congressional request to
depict the EPA's actions, and its internal and external communications, in the hours and days immediately following the release of
mine water from the Gold King Mine on August 5, 2015. The Office of Investigations prepared this timeline using its professional
judgment to determine which communications were responsive to the request.
17-P-0250
30
-------
Flow diminished enough for crew to direct
water back into engineered channel
8/5/2015,11:51 am
Water flow had been routed back toward
the half-round pipe
8/5/2015,12:06 pm
A Geologist from DRMS telephonically
contacted the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment regarding
^ release noted under Case Number 2015-
0492
8/5/2015, 12:40 pm
Spurt of water noted
' 8/5/2015, 10:51 am
Email from an EPA Remedial Project
Manager (internal) regarding the Colorado
Department of Public Health and
Environment notification
8/5/2015, 3:02 pm
Email from an EPA On-Scene Coordinator
(internal) regarding the Colorado
Department of Public Health and
Environment notification
8/5/2015, 3:33 pm
Uncontrolled release had passed and the
flow rate was decreasing
8/5/2015,11:33 am
Email from an EPA Public Affairs Specialist
(internal) regarding a draft statement on
the GKM release
8/5/2015, 3:38 pm
Email from an EPA Public Affairs Specialist
(internal) detailing the statement provided
to the Mayor of Silverton and the local
newspaper
8/5/2015, 9:03 pm
A Project Manager from DRMS Email from an EPA On-Scene Coordinator
telephonically contacted the National (internal) relating information on press
J:- Response Center regarding the release release and phone call to the Mayor of
noted under Incident Report #1124824 Silverton, Colorado
8/5/2015,12:27 pm 8/5/2015,4:05 pm
Email from a Project
Manager at Weston
Solutions to an EPA
On-Scene Coordinator
discussing photo log
8/5/2015,11:53 pm
Aug 5
17-P-0250
31
-------
Email from an EPA Public Affairs Specialist
(internal) detailing current EPA statement
Jv regarding the release
8/6/2015, 12:11
pm
Email from an EPA Environmental Scientist
(internal) regarding a Denver Post article on
the release
8/6/2015,
12:59 pm
Email from an EPA Assistant Regional
Administrator (internal) detailing the
possibility of the EPA Region 8
Administrator and an EPA On-Scene
Coordinator traveling to Durango and
Silverton for a potential public meeting
8/6/2015,
5:53 pm
Email from a Response Manager of
Environmental Restoration to an EPA
On-Scene Coordinator discussing the
photos that exposed the damage caused
by the GKM release
8/6/2015, 6:03 am
Email from an EPA Public Affairs
Community Involvement Unit Supervisor
(internal) detailing the possibility of
notifying the Durango Herald of the release
8/6/2015, 7:33
Email from an EPA Remedial Project
Manager (internal) regarding a 5-day
Incident Spill Report from the state of
Colorado
8/6/2015, 3:05
pm
Email from an EPA Public Affairs Specialist
(internal) regarding whether cadmium was
in the released GKM water
8/6/2015, 3:20
pm
Email from an EPA Public Affairs Specialist
(internal) detailing pending press calls
8/6/2015,10:51 am
Email from an EPA Public Affairs Specialist
(internal) regarding a news release of the
Sheriff's Order to close the Animas River
8/6/2015,4:33 pm
Email from a Response Manager
of Environmental Restoration to
an EPA On-Scene Coordinator
regarding the GKM Draft Work
Plan
8/6/2015, 7:55
pm
Email from a
Project Team
Lead of Weston
Solutions
regarding a GKM
photo log and
water quality
readings
8/6/2015, 9:24
pm
r
6 am
L.
7 am
8 am
9 am
10 am
11 am
12 pm 1 pm
2 pm
3 pm
4 pm 5 pm
6 pm
7 pm
8 pm
9 pm
Aug 6
17-P-0250
32
-------
Email from a Response Manager of
Environmental Restoration regarding an
update on settling ponds and treatment of
released water
8/7/2015,
9:55 am
Email from an EPA Senior Chemist
(internal) regarding preliminary Dissolved
Metals results
8/7/2015,11:16 am
9 am 10 am 11am 12 pm 1pm 2 pm
Email from the Director of the Utah
Division of Water Quality detailing their
assistance in collecting water samples and
performing water quality testing
8/8/2015,10:51 am
r
10 am 11am
12 pm 1 pm
17-P-0250
Email from an EPA Climate
Change/International Coordinator
(internal) regarding Situational Report #2
on the GKM release
8/7/2015, 2:55 pm
Email from an EPA
Senior Chemist
(internal) regarding
Metals and Mercury
results
8/7/2015, 6:17 pm
Aug 7
Email from an EPA On-
Scene Coordinator
(internal) regarding GKM
Level 7 Operations
8/8/2015, 4:19 pm
Aug 8
33
-------
Email from an EPA Supervisory
Environmental Protection Specialist
(internal) regarding the GKM release -
Claims Process Released
8/9/2015, 6:23 pm
r
6 pm
7 pm
Email from an EPA On-Scene Coordinator
(internal) detailing the opening of the
Public Viewer
8/10/2015, 8:35 am
Email from an EPA On-Scene Coordinator
(internal) detailing steps to release data
within 1 hour
8/10/2015, 6:59 am
Email from a Project Manager of Weston
Solutions detailing the Red & Bonita and
GKM Statements of Work
8/10/2015,10:53 am
6 am 7 am 8 am 9 am 10 am 11am 12 pm 1pm 2 pm
17-P-0250
Email from an EPA
On-Scene
Coordinator
(internal) regarding
the establishment of
the public website
related to the GKM
release
8/9/2015, 7:53 pm
ft Aug 9
Email from an
EPA
Emergency
Response &
Planning
Coordinator
(internal)
detailing a
GKM Incident
Update
8/10/2015, 7:54
pm
Aug 10
34
-------
Appendix C
Distribution
The Administrator
Chief of Staff
Assistant Administrator for Land and Emergency Management
Regional Administrator, Region 8
Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency Management
Director, Office of Emergency Management, Office of Land and Emergency Management
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 8
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of the Administrator
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Land and Emergency Management
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Region 8
17-P-0250
35
------- |