,^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.

-------