[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




 
    ABANDONED MINES IN THE UNITED STATES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR GOOD 
                           SAMARITAN CLEANUPS

=======================================================================

                                (114-29)

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                    WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

                                 OF THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                   TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            OCTOBER 21, 2015

                               __________

                       Printed for the use of the
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
             
             
             
             
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
            
             
             
             


         Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
        committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
        
                                 ____________
        
                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
  97-235 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2016       
_________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
      Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
     Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001        
        
        
        


             COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                  BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman

DON YOUNG, Alaska                    PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee,      ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 
  Vice Chair                         Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida                JERROLD NADLER, New York
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DUNCAN HUNTER, California            RICK LARSEN, Washington
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania           GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York           ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
JEFF DENHAM, California              JOHN GARAMENDI, California
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin            ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              JANICE HAHN, California
TOM RICE, South Carolina             RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            DINA TITUS, Nevada
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois               SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina         ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
ROB WOODALL, Georgia                 LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
TODD ROKITA, Indiana                 CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
JOHN KATKO, New York                 JARED HUFFMAN, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   JULIA BROWNLEY, California
CRESENT HARDY, Nevada
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
MIMI WALTERS, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
CARLOS CURBELO, Florida
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York

                                  (ii)

  


            Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment

                       BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
DUNCAN HUNTER, California            DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
JEFF DENHAM, California              JARED HUFFMAN, California
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin            EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
TOM RICE, South Carolina             DINA TITUS, Nevada
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois               SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina         ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
TODD ROKITA, Indiana                 ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 
JOHN KATKO, New York                 Columbia
BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
CRESENT HARDY, Nevada                PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex 
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana             Officio)
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex 
Officio)

                                 (iii)
                                 
                                 
                                 

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

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

                               TESTIMONY
                                Panel 1

Hon. Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid 
  Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection 
  Agency.........................................................     5

                                Panel 2

Eric E. Cavazza, P.E., Director, Bureau of Abandoned Mine 
  Reclamation, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
  Protection, on behalf of the Interstate Mining Compact 
  Commission and the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land 
  Programs.......................................................    34
Luke Russell, Vice President of External Affairs, Hecla Mining 
  Company, on behalf of the National Mining Association..........    34
Doug Young, Senior Policy Director, Keystone Policy Center.......    34
Chris Wood, President and CEO, Trout Unlimited...................    34
Lauren Pagel, Policy Director, Earthworks........................    34

               PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Hon. Mathy Stanislaus............................................    55
Eric E. Cavazza, P.E.............................................    60
Luke Russell.....................................................    80
Doug Young.......................................................    89
Chris Wood.......................................................    99
Lauren Pagel.....................................................   111

                       SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Hon. Bob Gibbs, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Ohio, request to submit the following:

    Letter of October 20, 2015, from Matt Mead, Governor, State 
      of Wyoming and Chairman, Western Governors' Association, 
      and Steve Bullock, Governor, State of Montana and Vice 
      Chair, Western Governors' Association, to Hon. Bill 
      Shuster, Chairman, and Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, Ranking 
      Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.....   115
    Joint comments of R. John Dawes, Executive Director, 
      Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds, and Branden S. 
      Diehl, CEO, Earth Wise Consulting, on behalf of Foundation 
      for Pennsylvania Watersheds................................   119
Hon. Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid 
  Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection 
  Agency, post-hearing responses to requests for information from 
  the following Representatives:

    Hon. Bob Gibbs of Ohio asked how many mines the EPA is 
      currently investigating....................................     8
    Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas requested the cost of 
      abandoned mine cleanup.....................................    18
    Hon. Cresent Hardy of Nevada asked how many contaminated 
      sites there are in Nevada..................................    19
    Hon. Bob Gibbs of Ohio asked if the EPA has mining engineers 
      on staff...................................................    20
    Hon. Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona requested information on 
      Superfund National Priorities List sites that are 
      construction complete......................................    22

                        ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD

Statement of John Gioia, Chair of the Board of Supervisors and 
  the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation 
  District, Contra Costa County, California......................   138
Statement of Laura Skaer, Executive Director, American 
  Exploration and Mining Association.............................   150
  
  
  
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 




    ABANDONED MINES IN THE UNITED STATES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR GOOD 
                           SAMARITAN CLEANUPS

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2015

                  House of Representatives,
   Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m. in 
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Gibbs 
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Mr. Gibbs. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment, a subcommittee of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure, will come to order. A couple pieces of 
housekeeping.
    First, I ask unanimous consent that the hearing record be 
kept open for 30 days after this hearing in order to accept 
written testimony for the hearing record. If there is any 
objection?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Gibbs. Without objection, so ordered.
    I will also ask unanimous consent that written testimony 
submitted on behalf of the following parties be included in 
this hearing's record: James Ogsbury, the executive director of 
the Western Governors' Association; and John Dawes, the 
executive director of the Foundation for Pennsylvania 
Watersheds.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Gibbs. Without objection, so ordered.
    I would like to welcome everybody. We are going to have two 
panels, and our hearing today is about abandoned mines and the 
opportunities for Good Samaritan cleanups.
    Past mining activities, far removed from the sophisticated 
mining practices we see today, disturbed hundreds of thousands 
of acres of land, altered drainage patterns, and generated 
substantial amounts of waste scattered around the Nation. Today 
it is estimated there are as many as 500,000 of these old 
abandoned mine sites in the United States. Many of these mines 
were abandoned by the owners or operators a long time ago, once 
the remaining minerals became too difficult or costly to 
extract.
    Although operated consistent with the laws at the time, 
many--but not all--of these abandoned mines now pose 
environmental and health threats to surrounding surface and 
groundwaters, nearby lands, and downstream communities. It is 
estimated that tens of thousands of miles of streams across the 
Nation are polluted by acid mine drainage and toxic loading of 
heavy metals leaching from many of these old mines, impacting 
fisheries and water supplies.
    State and Federal agencies have worked to remedy these 
problems, as have local governments and nongovernmental 
organizations, but the number of these sites and the expense 
involved has made progress very slow. Some of these old mines 
lack a viable owner or operator with the resources to remediate 
them. Many others are truly abandoned, with no identifiable 
owner or operator to hold responsible. As a result, few of 
these old mine sites are getting cleaned up.
    Public or private volunteers, otherwise known as Good 
Samaritans, are willing to carry out a partial or complete 
remediation at some of these sites. These Good Samaritans may 
be driven by a desire to improve the environment. Others may 
want to improve water quality at their water supply source. 
Still others may want to clean up an old mine site for the 
purpose of remining the area.
    However, most Good Samaritans have been deterred from 
carrying out these projects by the risk of becoming liable for 
complete cleanup required by various environmental laws. This 
is because Federal laws do not always allow for partial 
cleanups. For example, if a Good Samaritan steps in to 
partially clean up an abandoned mine site, the party could 
become liable under the Clean Water Act or Superfund for a 
greater level of cleanup and higher costs than the party 
initially volunteered for.
    In the end, most potential Good Samaritans refrain from 
attempting to address a site's pollution problems at all 
because they could face the legal consequences if they fall 
short of complete cleanup.
    While Superfund and the Clean Water Act have been 
successful in reducing pollution from commercial and industrial 
locations, these laws have also had the unforeseen consequence 
of deterring cleanup at the abandoned mine sites. In other 
words, laws that were designed to protect the environment may 
now be inadvertently harming or discouraging the cleanup of the 
environment. Our laws should encourage, rather than discourage, 
parties to volunteer themselves to clean up abandoned mine 
sites.
    We should consider whether, in some circumstances, 
environmental standards should be made more flexible in order 
to achieve at least a partial cleanup of these sites that 
otherwise would remain polluted. This is not about letting 
polluters off the hook. Those who pollute will remain legally 
responsible for the pollution they caused.
    I believe there is little disagreement that encouraging 
volunteers to clean up abandoned mine sites is a worthwhile 
policy, since some improvement is better than no improvement. 
However, in exploring the details of such a policy, a number of 
issues arise, such as who should be eligible, how should new 
standards be applied, and how should potential remining of 
these sites be addressed.
    To help us identify and address these and other issues, we 
have a panel of witnesses that have been actively involved in 
the debate over how to address the abandoned mines problem in 
this country. I hope our witnesses will bring forward ideas on 
how we can remove the impediments to abandoned mine cleanups 
and get more Good Samaritans to step forward.
    At this time I recognize Ranking Member Napolitano from 
California.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to 
the panelists and the people who are here to listen to this 
very important issue.
    There are numerous lessons that have been learned from the 
event that occurred in southwest Colorado. First and foremost 
is that, even in the absence of dramatic spills like that one 
at the Gold King Mine, abandoned mines across the United States 
have a significant negative impact on regional water quality 
and are a major source of water pollution to America's waters.
    As an example, prior to the spill in Colorado, Gold King 
Mine discharged pollutant-laden water at the rate of 200 
gallons per minute. Moreover, mines in the Animas River 
watershed have been polluting the Animas River at the rate of 
approximately 330 million gallons of acid mine drainage a year. 
These ongoing discharges disastrously affect plant and animal 
life in the Upper Animas Basin. So much so that the basin's 
river and streams were almost entirely--almost devoid of fish, 
even before the spill. This is a problem too big to ignore, not 
only here in the gold mine area, but also in other parts of the 
country.
    Most importantly, the spill reminded us of the scope of the 
problem that isn't unique to the Animas watershed. Abandoned 
mines are currently polluting rivers and streams across the 
country. By current estimates, approximately 500,000 abandoned 
hardrock mines are located throughout the United States. Sadly, 
the exact number and location of abandoned mine sites 
throughout the country is unknown.
    Let me repeat that: We do not know how many of these mines 
exist, or where they are. And I am asking that possibly we ask 
NACo [National Association of Counties], the BLM [Bureau of 
Land Management], and the Forest Service to do an assessment--
and especially the Conference of Mayors and the National 
Governors Association--to be able to report to us when, where, 
and how they are, so we can begin to at least understand where 
are the priorities that we may face in the future for some of 
these spills. It is a real disaster.
    And also, one of the factors we sometimes leave out is the 
American tribes and their lands, who are particularly 
vulnerable to this pollution. According to the United States 
Geological Survey, more than 40 percent of the watersheds in or 
west of the Rocky Mountains have streams in which impacts of 
mining represent a potential threat to human or ecosystem 
health. These mines and mines across the country carry a 
variety of pollutants, including zinc, cadmium, silver, copper, 
lead, and arsenic. When these mines inevitably leak, these 
heavy metals and pollutants travel into the nearby rivers and 
streams with disastrous water quality consequences.
    Furthermore, the cost of cleaning up the sites is enormous. 
Nongovernmental organizations, such as Earthworks, have 
estimated that it would cost anywhere from $32 billion to $72 
billion to reclaim abandoned hardrock mines located throughout 
the U.S. The size and scope of the problem posed by these 
mines, these abandoned mines, and the resources necessary to 
address it call for action.
    H.R. 963, the Hardrock Mining Reform and Reclamation Act of 
2015, introduced by my boss on the left, Ranking Member 
DeFazio, and the ranking member of the Committee on Natural 
Resources, Representative Raul Grijalva, is a step towards the 
right direction. I cosponsored the legislation because it 
recognizes that Good Samaritan legislation alone will not solve 
the problem. Without a dedicated fund to address abandoned 
hardrock mine sites, these mines will continue to pollute 
America's rivers and streams.
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you and look forward to the 
witnesses. Yield back.
    Mr. Gibbs. At this time, since the ranking member of the 
committee, the full Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, Mr. DeFazio, is here, I open the floor for any 
remarks he would like to make.
    Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I wish 
I could stay for the entire hearing and pose some questions. I 
have worked on this issue for many years. I have an abandoned 
mine in my district, Formosa Mine, which I have visited, which 
is producing 10 million gallons a year of acid drainage, and it 
has destroyed prime salmon habitat and has caused other 
downstream problems. It is yet another foreign bankrupt company 
with inadequate bonding. And, you know, the EPA [U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency] is looking at a cleanup. But 
again, we are depending upon the taxpayers.
    I think Good Samaritans can play a role. And, in fact, in 
the comprehensive mining reform bill which I filed as ranking 
member on the Committee on Natural Resources, I did include 
provisions for Good Samaritans to incorporate them. But the 
problem is much bigger than Good Samaritans could ever 
accomplish. As Mrs. Napolitano noted, we don't really even 
have, you know, a good listing of what the magnitude of the 
problem is. Many tens of billions of dollars for cleanup.
    So, we need a source of funds. Otherwise, you know, these 
cleanups aren't going to happen. And my comprehensive bill 
would--although it is not the jurisdiction of this committee, 
it would establish a royalty on hardrock mining which will be 
dedicated to cleanup.
    Now, everybody else in the world charges royalties. States 
charge royalties, Native American tribes charge royalties, 
private landowners charge royalties, foreign governments charge 
royalties. Only the United States of America, where we are 
going to run the Government like a business, do we not charge 
royalties. Oh, but those companies pay taxes. Yeah.
    You know, it is time to get real about the magnitude of 
this problem. And that would be one way to approach it--would 
be to have the royalty applied to dealing with it--and it would 
still take many, many, many years to do these cleanups.
    Secondly, I would give authority--again, under this bill, 
not under the jurisdiction of this committee--to Federal 
agencies to set aside particularly sensitive areas which, right 
now, under the 1872 mining law, they can't do.
    So that, and then, as I mentioned earlier, I have the Good 
Samaritan provisions. So I am very supportive of doing what we 
can to encourage Good Samaritan work, but the magnitude of the 
problem far exceeds what they are going to do.
    I understand also that the industry is going to propose 
remining dealing with tailings and that, and that can be 
appropriate in some instances. But some obligation should also 
come along with that activity, you know, and that would be 
something to be further discussed, if that were to be included 
in legislation.
    So, I really appreciate the chairman's attention to this 
issue. It is, as he knows, a really big deal in the Western 
United States. And I am sure there are sites affected in the 
East, too. But in the West it is a really big deal. So thank 
you for holding this hearing.
    Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Our first panel, we have the 
Honorable Mathy Stanislaus. He is the Assistant Administrator 
for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response at the 
U.S. EPA here in Washington. Welcome, Mr. Stanislaus, and the 
floor is yours.

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

    Mr. Stanislaus. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member 
Napolitano and DeFazio. I am Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant 
Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 
Response.
    Former and abandoned mine sites can pose public safety and 
environmental hazards. These sites are located primarily in the 
Western States, but not limited to the Western States. They are 
among the largest sources of pollution degrading water quality 
in the United States. Acid mine drainage from these mines has 
polluted thousands of miles of streams and rivers as well as 
groundwater, posing risk to human health, wildlife, and the 
environment.
    This polluted drainage can also affect local communities 
and local economies by threatening drinking water and 
agricultural water supplies, and limiting recreational use of 
water resources.
    EPA addresses a small subset of these sites. We currently 
have about 137 sites that we are currently addressing from a 
long-term cleanup perspective through the Superfund cleanup 
program. The abandoned mine sites being addressed through EPA's 
Superfund program again represent a small fraction of the 
estimated number of former abandoned mines found throughout the 
country.
    From fiscal years 2010 through fiscal year 2014 EPA has 
expended $1 billion for cleanup at these sites. Of this amount, 
close to $600 million has come from taxpayer resources through 
the appropriations process, as well as about $470 million 
coming from responsible parties.
    Although the estimates vary, there are likely hundreds of 
thousands of former abandoned hardrock mines through the United 
States. In 2011 the U.S. Government Accountability Office 
testimony reported there were at least 161,000 abandoned 
hardrock mine sites in the 12 Western States and Alaska, and at 
least 33,000 of these sites had degraded the environment by 
contaminating surface water, groundwater, or leaving arsenic-
contaminated tailings piles. In Colorado alone the State has 
identified approximately 23,000 former mines.
    Former and abandoned mine lands exist across private, 
mixed, Federal, and State lands. This mixture of land ownership 
adds to the complexity of this issue. Federal programs that 
address former and abandoned mines are spread among a variety 
of Federal agencies with no one agency having overall statutory 
responsibility. Principally, five Federal agencies, including 
EPA, provide Federal funding for the cleanup of some of these 
hardrock mining sites.
    As to abandoned hardrock mining sites and Good Samaritan 
issues, over the years EPA has heard from stakeholders about 
liability concerns, principally under the Clean Water Act and 
the Superfund, or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act, that could deter voluntary 
efforts. To address these concerns, in 2007 EPA issued an 
administrative tool to provide strong protections for Good 
Samaritans regarding potential Superfund liability.
    The Agency's interim guidance and the model Good Samaritan 
Agreement and comfort/status letter can be used to provide 
greater legal certainty for volunteers to move forward to 
provide adequate measures to the Agency that a cleanup will be 
performed properly. These tools were intended to address the 
cleanup of relatively small projects by Good Samaritans at 
orphan mine sites to accelerate partial or complete cleanup of, 
again, relatively small projects to result in very good 
environmental improvements.
    Further, in 2012, EPA issued a memo to provide 
clarification that, in general, Good Samaritans would not be 
the entity responsible under the Clean Water Act to obtain a 
discharge permit after the completion of the cleanup work under 
a CERCLA [Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
and Liability Act] cleanup plan developed pursuant to an 
administrative settlement agreement. Thus, these administrative 
tools address many of the Good Samaritan issues raised to EPA 
by stakeholders over the years.
    In closing, there are, again, hundreds of thousands of 
former and abandoned hardrock mine sites located throughout the 
country, posing environmental hazards, and among the largest 
sources of pollution degrading water quality, particularly in 
the Western United States. The scope of the problem cannot be 
addressed solely by current Federal or State cleanup programs. 
Much more must be done to address the risk posed by former and 
abandoned hardrock mines. Encouraging Good Samaritan cleanups 
is just one of the many tools needed to address the complex and 
costly problems posed by polluting former and abandoned 
hardrock mines.
    Other tools, including additional resources for cleanup of 
these sites within the EPA's jurisdiction and financial 
assurance by mining companies to make sure that adequate 
financial resources are there when a mining site gets 
abandoned, could be addressed.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to your questions.
    Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, and I will start off some questions.
    You are talking about the EPA's administrative tools. I 
guess my first question is how effectively they have worked. I 
think the last one was put out in 2012. And it is my 
understanding is that, under the Good Samaritan kind of program 
through these administrative tools, there has only been--only 
one mine has been taken up, is that correct--since 2012 under 
Good Samaritan, only one mine?
    Mr. Stanislaus. I believe that is correct, one mine has 
been addressed. And there have been a number of other mines 
that various entities have approached EPA.
    Mr. Gibbs. So would you concur that the changes that EPA 
made in 2012 are taking effect, are working, or have they had a 
negligible effect?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, what we believe is that it addresses 
the issues of liability on a Superfund for being a responsible 
party, as well as responsibility for the discharged post the 
cleanup. And those are the big issues that have been raised----
    Mr. Gibbs. Well, then how come there aren't more Good 
Samaritans? I know on our second panel coming up, when we are 
through with this panel, in their testimony they are saying 
that there are lots of Good Samaritans out there, including a 
couple of people that are representing entities that are going 
to testify in the next panel. They say that they have had to 
back away because the tools aren't there giving liability 
protection--not the conflict in the law, you know, because you 
just said in the 2012 administrative rule you wouldn't have to 
get NPDES [National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System] 
permits under section 402. But apparently, it is not working if 
there has only been one taker.
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes. I really don't have any information as 
to what are the factors regarding whether there are a large 
number of Good Samaritans, and what are the factors they have 
decided to pursue or not pursue.
    What we believe we have done is we have addressed the 
liability concerns from the Superfund and Clean Water Act 
perspective, and we are open to further refinement.
    Mr. Gibbs. OK. Back in 2006 the EPA proposed legislation 
that would provide liability protections for Good Samaritans. 
Does EPA still support that proposal? If not, why not?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, you know, since that time we have, in 
fact, clarified the liability on Superfund and on the Clean 
Water Act. So I believe that we have addressed the concerns.
    Again, we continue to want to--if the chairman----
    Mr. Gibbs. I think it still goes back to the fact that we 
just don't have entities taking up the initiative to go and 
work on these cleanups, and that is evidenced by the testimony 
in our next panel. So I guess my message to you, as the EPA 
Assistant Administrator on this, is that those administrative 
tools, even though they were well intentioned, are not working, 
because we still have this issue of all these abandoned mines.
    Now, do you concur that there are over half-a-million 
abandoned mines in this country?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes. Actually, the only specific number I 
have in front of me is the GAO [Government Accountability 
Office] study. Your number of 500,000 is probably in the 
ballpark, so--yes.
    Mr. Gibbs. I am curious how many mines is the EPA 
investigating right now?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, investigating, I don't have the--we 
have 137 where EPA is involved in long-term cleanup.
    Mr. Gibbs. Are these primarily hardrock mines, or are they 
gold--what kind of mines are they?
    Mr. Stanislaus. I believe the 137 are hardrock mines----
    Mr. Gibbs. OK.
    Mr. Stanislaus. I can clarify that. In terms of other mines 
that we are investigating, I don't have that information in 
front of me, but I can get it to you.
    [The information follows:]

        Attached is a list of 139 mining related NPL sites in response 
        to a request from Chairman Gibbs. Mr. Stanislaus referenced 137 
        sites, but this list now includes the recently NPL proposed 
        sites Bonita Peak and Argonaut mines. The table provides 
        information about mining and mineral processing sites proposed 
        for, listed on, and deleted from the National Priorities List 
        (NPL) as well as mining sites being cleaned up using the 
        Superfund Alternative Approach (SAA). The table includes NPL 
        status (i.e., proposed [P], final [F], deleted [D], or not on 
        the NPL [N]). For those sites that have reached the 
        construction complete stage, the date when they reached the CC 
        status is provided.

                Mining and Mineral Processing National Priorities List Sites as of April 21, 2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Superfund
  Region           EPA Id                     Site Name              NPL Status    Alternative        CC Date
                                                                        Code      Agreement Flag
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01          MED980524128         CALLAHAN MINING CORP                F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01          VTD988366621         ELIZABETH MINE                      F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01          VTD988366571         ELY COPPER MINE                     F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01          VTD988366720         PIKE HILL COPPER MINE               F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
02          NJD980785646         GLEN RIDGE RADIUM SITE              D           N                9/15/2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
02          NYD986882660         LI TUNGSTEN CORP.                   F           N                9/25/2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
02          NJD980529762         MAYWOOD CHEMICAL CO.                F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
02          NJD980785653         MONTCLAIR/WEST ORANGE RADIUM SITE   D           N                9/15/2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
02          NJD002365930         SHIELDALLOY CORP.                   F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
02          NJD980654172         U.S. RADIUM CORP.                   F           N                9/28/2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
02          NJ1891837980         W.R. GRACE & CO., INC./WAYNE        D           N                9/16/2003
                                  INTERIM STORAGE SITE (USDOE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
03          PAD000436436         AMBLER ASBESTOS PILES               D           N                8/30/1993
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
03          PAD987341716         AUSTIN AVENUE RADIATION SITE        D           N                9/27/1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
03          PAD077087989         FOOTE MINERAL CO.                   F           N                10/28/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
03          PASFN0305549         FRANKLIN SLAG PILE (MDC)            F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
03          PAD980829493         JACKS CREEK/SITKIN SMELTING &       F           N                12/23/2004
                                  REFINING, INC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
03          PAD002395887         PALMERTON ZINC PILE                 F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
03          VAD980705404         U.S. TITANIUM                       F           N                8/25/1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
04          SCN000407714         BARITE HILL/NEVADA GOLDFIELDS       F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
04          SCD987577913         BREWER GOLD MINE                    F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
04          TND987768546         CHEMET CO.                          D           N                5/15/1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
04          TN0001890839         COPPER BASIN MINING DISTRICT        N           Y
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
04          SCN000407376         HENRY'S KNOB                        S           Y
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
04          SCD003360476         MACALLOY CORPORATION                F           N                9/26/2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
04          KYD049062375         NATIONAL SOUTHWIRE ALUMINUM CO.     D           N                9/24/2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
04          NCN000409895         ORE KNOB MINE                       F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
04          FLD010596013         STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO. (TARPON       F           N
                                  SPRINGS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
05          ILSFN0508010         ALCOA PROPERTIES                    N           Y
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
05          ILN000508170         ASARCO TAYLOR SPRINGS               F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
05          ILN000510407         BAUTSCH-GRAY MINE                   F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
05          ILD050231976         CIRCLE SMELTING CORP.               P           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
05          ILD062340641         DEPUE/NEW JERSEY ZINC/MOBIL         F           N
                                  CHEMICAL CORP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
05          ILD980606941         EAGLE ZINC CO DIV T L DIAMOND       F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
05          ILN000508134         HEGELER ZINC                        F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
05          IL0000064782         MATTHIESSEN AND HEGELER ZINC        F           N
                                  COMPANY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
05          IL0000034355         OLD AMERICAN ZINC PLANT             F           Y
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
05          OHD004379970         ORMET CORP.                         F           N                8/4/1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
05          ILD053980454         SANDOVAL ZINC COMPANY               F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
05          MID980901946         TORCH LAKE                          F           N                9/23/2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
05          IND047030226         U.S. SMELTER AND LEAD REFINERY,     F           N
                                  INC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06          NMD002899094         CHEVRON QUESTA MINE                 F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06          NMD980749378         CIMARRON MINING CORP.               F           N                9/24/1992
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06          NMD981155930         CLEVELAND MILL                      D           N                9/23/1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06          NMD007860935         HOMESTAKE MINING CO.                F           N                9/20/1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06          NMN000607033         JACKPILE-PAGUATE URANIUM MINE       F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06          OKD000829440         NATIONAL ZINC CORP.                 P           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06          OKD980629844         TAR CREEK (OTTAWA COUNTY)           F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06          TXD062113329         TEX-TIN CORP.                       F           N                9/20/2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06          OKD987096195         TULSA FUEL AND MANUFACTURING        F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06          NMD030443303         UNITED NUCLEAR CORP.                F           N                9/29/1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
07          MO0000958611         ANNAPOLIS LEAD MINE                 F           N                9/25/2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
07          MOD981126899         BIG RIVER MINE TAILINGS/ST. JOE     F           N
                                  MINERALS CORP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
07          KSD980741862         CHEROKEE COUNTY                     F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
07          KSN000705026         FORMER UNITED ZINC & ASSOCIATED     F           N
                                  SMELTERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
07          MOD098633415         MADISON COUNTY MINES                F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
07          MOD981507585         NEWTON COUNTY MINE TAILINGS         F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
07          NESFN0703481         OMAHA LEAD                          F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
07          MOD980686281         ORONOGO-DUENWEG MINING BELT         F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
07          MON000705443         SOUTHWEST JEFFERSON COUNTY MINING   F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
07          MON000705842         WASHINGTON COUNTY LEAD DISTRICT -   F           N
                                  FURNACE CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
07          MON000705027         WASHINGTON COUNTY LEAD DISTRICT -   F           N
                                  OLD MINES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
07          MON000705023         WASHINGTON COUNTY LEAD DISTRICT -   F           N
                                  POTOSI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
07          MON000705032         WASHINGTON COUNTY LEAD DISTRICT -   F           N
                                  RICHWOODS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          MTD093291599         ACM SMELTER AND REFINERY            F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          MTD057561763         ANACONDA ALUMINUM CO COLUMBIA       P           N
                                  FALLS REDUCTION PLANT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          MTD093291656         ANACONDA CO. SMELTER                F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          MT6122307485         BARKER HUGHESVILLE MINING DISTRICT  F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          MTD982572562         BASIN MINING AREA                   F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          CON000802497         BONITA PEAK MINING DISTRICT         P           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          COD980717938         CALIFORNIA GULCH                    F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          COD981551427         CAPTAIN JACK MILL                   F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          MT0001096353         CARPENTER SNOW CREEK MINING         F           N
                                  DISTRICT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          COD980717557         CENTRAL CITY, CLEAR CREEK           F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          CON000802700         COLORADO SMELTER                    F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          UTD988075719         DAVENPORT AND FLAGSTAFF SMELTERS    F           N                8/30/2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          COD980716955         DENVER RADIUM SITE                  F           N                9/27/2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          COD081961518         EAGLE MINE                          F           N                9/17/2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          MTD006230346         EAST HELENA SITE                    F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          UT0002240158         EUREKA MILLS                        F           N                9/21/2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          MT0012694970         FLAT CREEK IMM                      F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          SDD987673985         GILT EDGE MINE                      F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          UTD093120921         INTERNATIONAL SMELTING AND          D           N                9/27/2007
                                  REFINING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          UT0002391472         JACOBS SMELTER                      F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          UTD070926811         KENNECOTT (NORTH ZONE)              P           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          UTD000826404         KENNECOTT (SOUTH ZONE)              R           Y
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          MT0009083840         LIBBY ASBESTOS SITE                 F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          COD042167858         LINCOLN PARK                        F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          UTD081834277         MIDVALE SLAG                        D           N                9/29/2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          MTD980717565         MILLTOWN RESERVOIR SEDIMENTS        F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          UT3890090035         MONTICELLO MILL TAILINGS (USDOE)    F           N                9/29/2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          UTD980667208         MONTICELLO RADIOACTIVELY            D           N                9/2/1999
                                  CONTAMINATED PROPERTIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          MTD021997689         MOUAT INDUSTRIES                    F           N                9/27/1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          UTD980951420         MURRAY SMELTER                      P           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          CON000802630         NELSON TUNNEL/COMMODORE WASTE ROCK  F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          UTD980952840         RICHARDSON FLAT TAILINGS            P           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          UTD980951388         SHARON STEEL CORP. (MIDVALE         D           N                5/12/1999
                                  TAILINGS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          MTD980502777         SILVER BOW CREEK/BUTTE AREA         F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          COD983769738         SMELTERTOWN SITE                    P           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          COD980806277         SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN                   D           N                9/26/1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          CO0002378230         STANDARD MINE                       F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          COD983778432         SUMMITVILLE MINE                    F           N                9/30/2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          MTSFN7578012         UPPER TENMILE CREEK MINING AREA     F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          COD007063274         URAVAN URANIUM PROJECT (UNION       F           N                9/29/2008
                                  CARBIDE CORP.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          UTN000802704         US MAGNESIUM                        F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          CO0002259588         VASQUEZ BOULEVARD AND I-70          F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08          SDD980717136         WHITEWOOD CREEK                     D           N                9/25/1992
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09          CAD983650011         ARGONAUT MINE                       P           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09          AZD008397127         ASARCO HAYDEN PLANT                 N           Y
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09          CAD980496863         ATLAS ASBESTOS MINE                 F           N                9/2/1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09          CAN000906063         BLUE LEDGE MINE                     F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09          NVD980813646         CARSON RIVER MERCURY SITE           F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09          CAD980638860         CELTOR CHEMICAL WORKS               D           N                9/29/1989
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09          CAD980817217         COALINGA ASBESTOS MINE              D           N                3/14/1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09          AZD094524097         CYPRUS TOHONO MINE                  N           Y
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09          AZ0000309013         IRON KING MINE - HUMBOLDT SMELTER   F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09          CAD980498612         IRON MOUNTAIN MINE                  F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09          CA1141190578         KLAU/BUENA VISTA MINE               F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09          CAD983618893         LAVA CAP MINE                       F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09          CAD980673685         LEVIATHAN MINE                      F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09          CA0001900463         NEW IDRIA MERCURY MINE              F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09          NV3141190030         RIO TINTO COPPER MINE               N           Y
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09          CAD980893275         SULPHUR BANK MERCURY MINE           F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10          WAD009045279         ALCOA (VANCOUVER SMELTER)           D           N                7/30/1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10          OR0000515759         BLACK BUTTE MINE                    F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10          IDD980725832         BLACKBIRD MINE                      P           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10          IDD048340921         BUNKER HILL MINING & METALLURGICAL  F           N
                                  COMPLEX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10          WAD980726368         COMMENCEMENT BAY, NEAR SHORE/TIDE   F           N
                                  FLATS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10          IDD984666610         EASTERN MICHAUD FLATS               F           N
                                  CONTAMINATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10          ORN001002616         FORMOSA MINE                        F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10          OR7122307658         FREMONT NATIONAL FOREST/WHITE KING  F           N                9/28/2006
                                  AND LUCKY LASS URANIUM MINES
                                  (USDA)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10          WAD000065508         KAISER ALUMINUM (MEAD WORKS)        F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10          ORD052221025         MARTIN-MARIETTA ALUMINUM CO.        D           N                12/29/1994
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10          WAD980978753         MIDNITE MINE                        F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10          IDD081830994         MONSANTO CHEMICAL CO. (SODA         F           N                9/20/2000
                                  SPRINGS PLANT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10          ORD009412677         REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY             F           N                9/29/2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10          AK0001897602         SALT CHUCK MINE                     F           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10          WAD980722789         SILVER MOUNTAIN MINE                D           N                9/28/1992
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10          IDD980665459         STIBNITE/YELLOW PINE MINING AREA    P           N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10          ORD050955848         TELEDYNE WAH CHANG                  F           N                9/13/2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Mr. Gibbs. OK. Well, the next round of questions I want to 
get more. I have two goals here today: to figure out what we 
can do, legislatively, to improve the Good Samaritan. You, as 
the EPA, are you agreeable that that is an issue, that we 
should take a legislative proposal to try to fix some of these 
problems?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, you know, we will certainly 
participate with you and the committee on any legislative 
efforts. Frankly, we don't know whether it is a legal gap, or 
whether it is a perception gap that inhibits, or whether there 
is a cost issue that inhibits Good Samaritans working for us.
    Mr. Gibbs. And the second goal I want to get to too is the 
role of the EPA in these abandoned mines. And we will get to 
the spill in August, you know, what is happening there. But at 
this time I am going to turn the line of questions over to Mrs. 
Napolitano, and we will get to that in the next round.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you so very much, sir.
    Mr. Stanislaus, there are three different acts that most 
mines have to be able to help pay for the cleanup: the Oil 
Pollution Act; SMCRA [Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 
Act]; and Superfund. What about hardrock?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, within EPA's jurisdiction, hardrock 
mines that cause a significant enough risk to rivers and to 
public health----
    Mrs. Napolitano. And?
    Mr. Stanislaus. And then we address them. We have 137 sites 
that we are addressing through the Superfund program and our 
limited resources.
    Mrs. Napolitano. But do the miners of the hardrock pay into 
the fund, or--to be able to clean up like the others?
    Mr. Stanislaus. That is the taxpayer--that is the normal 
appropriations process.
    Mrs. Napolitano. That means the taxpayer.
    Mr. Stanislaus. That is right.
    Mrs. Napolitano. In 1972 there was a fee charged per acre. 
How much was that?
    Mr. Stanislaus. That I would not know.
    Mrs. Napolitano. $2 per acre.
    Mr. Stanislaus. OK.
    Mrs. Napolitano. A concern is, of course, is that some of 
these hardrock mines are creating problems, but--and we have 
folks that agree that there should be a way to be able to hold 
them accountable to--for the cleanup. So those are questions 
that I might have.
    Over the years there--the taxpayers have been left to clean 
up the mess. Is this concept similar in approach taken by the 
administration to propose a fee for hardrock mine operations to 
address this legacy?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, the administration has, in fact, 
proposed a fee to pay for the cleanup of these hardrock mines.
    Mrs. Napolitano. What is that fee being proposed?
    Mr. Stanislaus. I am sorry, when or----
    Mrs. Napolitano. How, how much?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Oh. That is brought by the Department of 
the Interior, and I don't know the specifics of that----
    Mrs. Napolitano. Oh, OK, that is fine. Would Good Samaritan 
legislation be more impactful if it appeared with increased 
funding?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, I think that the comprehensive 
solution to the hundreds of thousands of sites requires a 
comprehensive solution. So EPA has a sliver through additional 
Superfund resources. Other Federal agencies have 
responsibility, as well. Clearly, a dedicated pot of money to 
deal with the cleanup of that--and Good Samaritan does play a 
role, but it is only one of the many tools that are necessary 
to deal with the comprehensive problem.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Well, earlier this year the administration 
proposed to create the Abandoned Mine Lands program, the AML, 
through a new fee. How important is this, creation of this, to 
help clean up?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, clearly, the administration put 
forward that because there is a significant gap. We have 
hundreds of thousands of sites----
    Mrs. Napolitano. What are they basing it on? Because if 
there is--if they are finding out this is a need, what are they 
basing this need on?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Again, that specific information is 
probably best answered by Department of the Interior, how they 
calculated that, so----
    Mrs. Napolitano. Well, then, what are some of the tools 
that EPA has at its disposal to address these abandoned mines?
    Mr. Stanislaus. The tools that EPA has, again, it is a 
small subset, where it is high enough risk where it comes to 
our attention, we do investigation and then we develop a 
cleanup plan to clean up----
    Mrs. Napolitano. But only if it comes to your attention.
    Mr. Stanislaus. That is right.
    Mrs. Napolitano. You don't have something that outlines the 
priorities these mines might have.
    Mr. Stanislaus. No. We don't have a mine program, per se. 
It is abandoned mines, among other kinds of contaminated sites 
where----
    Mrs. Napolitano. Does the Conference of Mayors and National 
Governors Association ever relate to EPA any of their needs of 
prioritizing, and is part of that 137 that you are talking 
about included?
    Mr. Stanislaus. I have not had any exchange with the 
Governors or the mayors association regarding this topic, so--
--
    Mrs. Napolitano. Well, maybe we should start looking at 
that, because they are the ones who are going to have to be 
impacted by their pollution, or by their emergency--ability to 
clean it up.
    What steps has EPA taken under the existing regulatory 
framework to encourage more Good Samaritans to restore 
watersheds?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, again, going back to the issues that 
Good Samaritans have identified--that is the potential 
liability concerns--we have clarified that if a Good Samaritan 
goes in and does a cleanup, they would not be held liable under 
the Superfund program, and then, once they are done with the 
cleanup, they would not have to get a discharge permit under 
the Clean Water Act.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Well, does the use of the Superfund on 
abandoned mines impact your ability to remediate other 
nonmining toxic sites?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, clearly, we have a limited set of 
resources. Every year we have a backlog of sites. So, I mean--
--
    Mrs. Napolitano. So you do not have enough budget to be 
able to carry out the needs.
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes. The need is greater than the amount of 
resources that we have in the Superfund program.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Would then the inventory of these 
abandoned mines throughout the Nation--not just on Federal 
lands--including Native American lands, help the resource for--
be a helpful resource?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes. I mean it could be that there are 
other agencies probably in a better position for that. We do 
have an inventory of the highest risk Superfund sites. But, 
again, our role on mining sites is relatively small in those 
circumstances.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be able to 
have a list of those mines that are in the 137 list that you 
have, so we can help identify and maybe get further information 
from not only the Members of Congress, but also their 
Governors, to find out how they are going to be--should they 
have--how would I say--an unfortunately catastrophe on their 
hands.
    Mr. Stanislaus. Sure, we will get that.
    Mrs. Napolitano. And I would like to be able to put in more 
questions later. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Babin?
    Dr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Stanislaus, I 
had a couple of questions I wanted to talk to you, ask you 
about.
    In regards to the big spill into the Animas River, had a 
private-sector company spilled more than 3 million gallons of 
pollutants into a water body, how would the EPA have responded?
    For instance, in 2014, in the Elk River near Charleston, 
West Virginia, several thousand gallons of chemicals--not 3 
million, just several thousand gallons--were released. What 
happened to the company that was responsible? What happened to 
its executives? They faced strong enforcement and bankruptcy 
from the EPA. The executives faced criminal charges. How should 
the EPA be treated, in light of the fact that it spilled 400 
times as many gallons of pollutants into the water of the 
Animas River during the Gold King Mine disaster?
    Mr. Stanislaus. So, from a response perspective, the 
response is identical. In terms of responsibility for, and the 
facts surrounding that, we have done an internal review, and we 
have disclosed that. There is an independent review being done 
by the Department of the Interior, and we are going to wait to 
see the results of that, and whether proper procedures were 
followed or not.
    Dr. Babin. OK. Well, how will the EPA clean up the Gold 
Mine site? Will it use existing funds from its fiscal year 2015 
to 2016 budgets, or is the taxpayer going to have to foot the 
bill in the President's fiscal year 2017 budget that will be 
submitted next February?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, to put it in context, the Animas River 
and the mining complex, there was about 330 million gallons per 
year being released into the Animas River. The whole reason 
that the State of Colorado and stakeholders asked EPA to be 
involved was because of those releases. And we got involved to 
address the mining complex and the entire State of Colorado, 
which had the highest risk to river quality, so that is why we 
were involved, and we used Superfund resources to address the 
request of the State and stakeholders.
    Dr. Babin. OK. Well, you didn't answer my question about 
how it is going to be paid for. You said Superfund funds, but 
the--which budget is that going to come out of? And will it be 
new funds from the 2017 budget, or is it going to be from the 
2015 and 2016 budget?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, the cost incurred to date is based on 
our current budget. Clearly, there are--the stakeholders have 
asked, and we are engaged in the process of whether they should 
be designated a Superfund site. So we are going through that 
process right now.
    If it were to be designated a Superfund site, we would then 
pursue responsible parties, if they are around. If they are not 
around, then we would use the Superfund resources that are 
allocated, appropriated, on a yearly basis.
    Dr. Babin. So you don't know just yet. Is that what you are 
saying?
    Mr. Stanislaus. That is right.
    Dr. Babin. The EPA has admitted it took longer than 24 
hours to notify parties of a release, and that was the Navajo 
Tribe--including the Navajo Tribe. What is the law regarding 
this notification requirement, and why did the EPA not follow 
the law?
    Mr. Stanislaus. That is actually not entirely correct. 
Notification occurred approximately an hour, an hour-and-a-half 
from the incident. We have----
    Dr. Babin. You notified the Navajos in an hour-and-a-half?
    Mr. Stanislaus. No. If I can, notification to the immediate 
vicinity stakeholders, to the town of the city of Durango, that 
occurred within an hour, an hour-and-a-half. And we acknowledge 
that Navajo, New Mexico, there was a delayed notification. All 
notification occurred before the plume, before any of those 
downstream users of the river were impacted.
    And actually, the notification occurred to enable pre-
impact sampling, so we can compare that with, once the plume 
impacted those areas.
    Dr. Babin. Well, it is a mystery to me why the Governor of 
New Mexico did not hear about the EPA spill from the EPA and, 
instead, had to find out from the Navajos.
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes.
    Dr. Babin. That the spill had occurred.
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, that is a fair criticism. I mean I 
think that, we, working with the States, can do better. I 
issued a memo to really ramp up the broader notification. 
Incidents like this, which is multistate, a larger regional 
issue, we should do a better job. We are in the process of 
augmenting the notification process, which is done jointly with 
EPA and States.
    Dr. Babin. OK. While EPA has had years of experience in 
cleaning up Superfund sites, what expertise does EPA and its 
remediation contractors have in dealing with abandoned mine 
sites? Does EPA remediation contractors have particular 
expertise in mining engineering and abandoned mine cleanup 
technologies? And why should the EPA be the lead Federal agency 
in even cleaning up mine sites?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, with respect to this particular site 
and other mining sites like this, we bring together, both 
internally and externally, the kind of expertise that deal with 
the cleanup of abandoned mines.
    Dr. Babin. Thank you.
    Mr. Stanislaus. OK.
    Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Ms. Johnson, you are recognized.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In 2011 the 
Government Accountability Office, or the GAO, could not come to 
a definitive estimate on the number of hardrock mines on 
Federal or other lands. How critical is it, having this 
information, and determining the scope and nature of the 
abandoned mines across the country?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, I mean, I think more information on 
the number of mines is important. But equally, and probably 
more important, is the subset of mines that have the highest 
risk to river quality. So I would say it is not just a number, 
but also the data behind those mines.
    Ms. Johnson. And there are different statutes that are 
sometimes conflicting as to whose responsibility it is. I know 
that EPA is blamed for everything. But I am trying to determine 
at what point does EPA get the full responsibility after a mine 
is abandoned?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Again, EPA has an extremely small role in 
this situation. So EPA--again, we are currently involved in 137 
sites where we are doing long-term cleanup. There is a larger--
relatively small additional number where we do investigations.
    So, the small subset that have the highest risk, where we 
get involved--and those--the cleanups are fairly big. I mean 
there are hundreds of millions of dollars of cleanup for those 
kind of mining situations.
    Ms. Johnson. What would you estimate the budget needs to be 
to take the responsibility for all the abandoned mines?
    Mr. Stanislaus. You know, we don't really have a good 
estimate on that. I had an estimate done by somebody else, and 
I don't really have that in front of me.
    Ms. Johnson. But I would suspect it would be quite large.
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes. I can get you that--we have not done 
an estimate. I know there are estimates done by others, and we 
can get that to you.
    [The information follows:]

        Representative Johnson requested cost of mine cleanup--Mr. 
        Stanislaus was referring to a GAO study: ABANDONED MINES: 
        Information on the Number of Hardrock Mines, Cost of Cleanup, 
        and Value of Financial Assurances, GAO-11-834T: Published: Jul 
        14, 2011. Publicly Released: Jul 14, 2011. See: http://
        www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-834T.

    Ms. Johnson. Has the process been updated to determine at 
what point EPA takes on the full responsibility or at what 
point does the private mine lose its responsibility for 
cleanup?
    Mr. Stanislaus. So first, you know, EPA generally gets 
involved when a State--typically, in the mining situations, 
where the State asks us to be involved because of the magnitude 
of the mine and the risk. So that is how we typically get 
involved.
    Mr. Johnson. Is it a frequent thing that the private 
mines--owners or supervisors or whatever--go out of business, 
abandon or change their name so that they cannot be held 
responsible?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes. Well, again, let me answer the second 
part of your question first. So, EPA would pursue a viable 
responsible party, if they exist. And our experience is many of 
these sites don't have a viable responsible party who is there 
to pay for those resources. And I should note that is one of 
the reasons we are pursuing a financial assurance rule to 
partly address that issue.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Hardy?
    Mr. Hardy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I am from 
Mesquite, Nevada, which--Nevada--some would believe that, when 
they think of Nevada, they think of Las Vegas. But its roots 
are really in the field of mining. Literally, thousands of 
mines were opened up in Nevada before it even became a State. 
It was in a territory. So there's, literally, thousands of open 
mines out there, hardrock mines, small ones and some larger 
ones.
    With that being said, can you tell me how many contaminated 
sites there are in Nevada?
    Mr. Stanislaus. I can't tell you, no.
    Mr. Hardy. Could I get that information?
    Mr. Stanislaus. The information that the EPA has, sure.
    Mr. Hardy. Yes, that is all I am asking.
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes.
    [The information follows:]

        Representative Hardy requested a list of contaminated sites in 
        Nevada: Carson River Mercury Site and Rio Tinto Copper Mine.

    Mr. Hardy. All you have, not anything else.
    You know, Nevada's nickname was ``The Silver State,'' so it 
is a big issue in Nevada. It is still one of its better paying 
job commodities in Nevada.
    A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to sit and question 
Administrator McCarthy. And I am going to go along the same 
lines of questioning with you that I did with her. And I 
appreciate that you have a chemical engineering mind, so you 
know the value of having that background. Is that correct?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes.
    Mr. Hardy. How many archeological--or geological engineers 
do you have?
    Mr. Stanislaus. I don't know, but I can get that to you.
    Mr. Hardy. How many hydrological?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, similarly, I can give you a breakout 
of the various disciplines that we have----
    Mr. Hardy. Information we had from that meeting, none. We 
have more on this committee than you have in the EPA.
    And so, with that questioning, I ask myself, you are trying 
to move forward in implementing some kind of cleanup process, 
words of your testimony, the ``effort to reduce risks posed by 
contaminated land.'' Do you believe that this, what you come up 
with, is going to be one size fits all for every State?
    Mr. Stanislaus. I am sorry, are you referring to the Good 
Samaritan----
    Mr. Hardy. Yes.
    Mr. Stanislaus. I think so, because the issues of Superfund 
liability may arise around the country. So we think the issue 
of an innocent party, a Good Samaritan going in and wanting to 
go and do some really good work, and being protected from 
Superfund liability while they are doing their work and long-
term responsibility, it would apply wherever.
    Mr. Hardy. OK. What--I would like to go a little further 
with this. Is the--it may be--on the protection of legal 
issues, but without having the expertise to actually develop 
this through hydrological and geological sites, how do you plan 
on implementing that plan? I mean where do you get the 
expertise from that?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, the goal of the Good Samaritan 
administrative tools is for an outside entity to develop a plan 
that we would review, and that would be part of the agreement. 
But I am pretty confident that we have the expertise to review 
those plans.
    Mr. Hardy. OK. I guess one of the reasons I bring this up 
is I am introducing a bill that happens to have--it is H.R. 
3734, and it has to do with education and mining. Those funds 
have been cut over the last 20 years, and continue to be 
diverted somewhere else--even more than that. We are at a 
shortage of those type of engineers, mining engineers. So I am 
hoping that my colleagues will look at maybe endorsing this 
bill to help bring some of that expertise on that, it helps 
folks like you better manage your job and better fulfill your 
field in these aspects.
    But along with that being said, my frustration since Nevada 
has become a State, these mines--not only do they have to 
submit to the EPA and the administration, all administrations, 
the environmental side of issues, of how to open these mines, 
but they also have closure within that process.
    Why are we not--I mean does there seem to be a problem here 
in other States that I am missing? Because Nevada has--you can 
open the mine once you are approved, and you have to meet 
certain closure sites. Some of these came well before it was a 
State, I understand. But we don't have a lot of water, so we 
don't get a lot of water contamination in Nevada with these 
type of mines.
    But I guess I am just trying to understand why we are not 
forcing these closures the way they should be--when they submit 
the plan, you should be following through their plan, instead 
of having to redevelop that. And it shouldn't be--have to have 
some Superfund, in most cases, other than to protect that 
somebody doesn't go out of business, and shouldn't have to be 
able to protect these folks that want to do it as the--on their 
dollar. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, I think you are exactly right. 
Ideally, when you have a new mine opened up, you do have to 
have a closure plan, and have adequate financial assurances. 
And just to underscore, the large, overwhelming majority of 
these mining sites are managed by States. I know you are going 
to hear from a State witness later on. And that is, frankly, 
where it should be the lead, with the Federal Government 
providing a supplement.
    We are engaged with the States and other stakeholders, 
whether augmentation or financial assurances are necessary, 
because there are gaps between just closure and safe closure. 
That has arisen, and is a reason for our involvement from a 
Superfund perspective.
    Mr. Hardy. Thank you. I have another question, but my time 
is out.
    Mr. Gibbs. Before I move on to the next question, for a 
matter of clarification for the record, did I hear you say the 
EPA does not have a mining engineer or a hydrologic engineer on 
staff, but that you rely on the private-sector contractors?
    Mr. Stanislaus. No. I said we have a mixture. We have 
expertise in-house, engineering, and hydrogeological expertise, 
and then, on a side-by-side basis, we also bring to bear----
    Mr. Gibbs. So the EPA does have mining engineers on staff?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, we have folks involved experienced in 
mining and cleaning up mining sites.
    Mr. Gibbs. They are not engineers, though.
    Mr. Stanislaus. Mining engineers, I will have to get back 
to you.
    Mr. Gibbs. I believe you don't, but----
    Mr. Stanislaus. OK.
    [The information follows:]

        Chairman Gibbs' inquiry regarding EPA mining engineers: EPA 
        Region 8's mining coordinator has a Mining Engineering degree 
        from Colorado School of Mines. The EPA On Scene Coordinator 
        (OSC) on-site during the incident has a Geological Engineering 
        degree from Colorado School of Mines. Additionally, EPA 
        contractors include staff with science and engineering 
        backgrounds, and Region 8 consults with state partners at the 
        Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment and 
        Division of Reclamation and Mine Safety who have many years of 
        experience in mine site remediation. In conducting mining-
        related operations, the EPA uses private companies with mining 
        engineers to conduct mine remediation work.

    Mr. Gibbs. OK. Mrs. Kirkpatrick?
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 
Member, for having this hearing. As you know, this spill 
impacted my district fairly directly. I represent the Navajo 
Nation, and also the city of Page, which is on Lake Powell. And 
we were in immediate contact with your department, and also 
with those communities, as this unfolded.
    And when I went to the city of Page for a meeting with 
their chamber, with their school superintendent, with community 
leaders, I learned that there is an overarching plan to do 
cleanup of these mines, but evidently there is a lack of 
funding. And I have since learned that about $300 million has 
been cut from the EPA's budget, which should be directed toward 
that cleanup.
    But you mentioned in your answer to my colleague's line of 
questioning about a safe closure of a mine. Would you just 
describe for the committee what that entails, and about what 
the cost would be? Because I know there are hundreds, maybe 
thousands of mines along the San Juan River that have not been 
safely closed. So just describe for us what that means, what 
that entails.
    Mr. Stanislaus. Sure, I will try to do my best. I may need 
to supplement that after the hearing, but we are looking at the 
need to have more comprehensive financial assurance, because 
our experience is that the mines that are being closed are 
being inadequately closed, from an environmental perspective. 
The most acute is acid mine drainage issues, which impact 
rivers, so that we want to make sure, with respect to the rule 
that we are pursuing, that enough financial assurance covers 
not just base reclamation, but comprehensive closure, and also 
addressing acid mine drainage.
    Does that answer your question?
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Not exactly. I would like to know a 
little more detail about--because my understanding, from 
talking to people in the area, is a lot of these mine shafts 
from various mines are connected. And so you might be dealing 
with--and I am just using a hypothetical at this point, but 10 
to 15 different mining operations that are directly connected, 
in terms of the cleanup.
    I am just trying to get an idea of the impact and the 
magnitude of trying to safely close these mines.
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes. I may need to get back to you more 
with more comprehensive----
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. That is fine.
    Mr. Stanislaus. And you are absolutely right. We need to 
separate long-term abandoned mines, which are interconnected 
complexes. So you have to deal with it from a whole-area 
perspective.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Right.
    Mr. Stanislaus. So----
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. And I guess my point is that this is 
fairly complicated.
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. It is not just simply, you know, putting 
up a door on an old abandoned mine shaft, that it is--but let's 
visit some more about that.
    My other question is have there been closures of abandoned 
mines and cleanups that you consider successful? And, if you 
can, give us an example of that.
    Mr. Stanislaus. Sure. Of the 137 or so--I can get back to 
you with a list, and----
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. OK.
    Mr. Stanislaus [continuing]. With the elements of the 
cleanup.
    [The information follows:]

        Representative Kirkpatrick requested information on Superfund 
        NPL sites that are construction complete: These are listed as 
        ``CC'' in the table on page 8.

    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    And then, my last point is that, you know, 215 miles of the 
Navajo Nation are along the San Juan River, and that is 
agricultural land. So I was late getting to this committee, 
because I was in a Committee on Agriculture hearing. But we are 
really concerned about soil contamination. So I hope that you 
will continue to monitor that water, but also the soil, because 
we have reason to believe that this contamination has been 
going on for a long time.
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes. Clearly, it is a long-term issue. And 
so at least most immediately we are in discussions with the 
Navajo and all other stakeholders about a long-term monitoring 
plan. There are also separate conversations about potential 
Superfund listings. So that is all in the works.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Sure.
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Rice, any questions?
    Mr. Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me ask you this, since there is apparently no 
accountability in this administration. Was anybody fired over 
this 3-million-gallon spill of toxic chemicals into this river?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, again, as I answered earlier, from a 
response perspective, we have moved forward, we will continue 
to move forward. From an accountability perspective, we have 
done internal review and----
    Mr. Rice. Was anybody fired?
    Mr. Stanislaus. No.
    Mr. Rice. OK. Was anybody disciplined?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, again, we are waiting for independent 
investigations by the Department of the Interior and the Office 
of Inspector General----
    Mr. Rice. That is what I thought.
    Mr. Stanislaus [continuing]. To determine whether----
    Mr. Rice. How long----
    Mr. Stanislaus [continuing]. Were followed or not.
    Mr. Rice. This gold mine was closed, right?
    Mr. Stanislaus. I am sorry?
    Mr. Rice. This gold mine was closed?
    Mr. Stanislaus. It was abandoned, that is right.
    Mr. Rice. How long has it been abandoned?
    Mr. Stanislaus. I think the most recent activity was a 
couple of decades ago.
    Mr. Rice. OK. And so, the company that did it, it no longer 
exists, or it does exist?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, one of the companies does exist.
    Mr. Rice. OK. And do they bear some of the financial 
responsibility?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, they are clearly a responsible party, 
and EPA's plan is to pursue----
    Mr. Rice. Have they been paying for the maintenance of the 
mine?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Have they been paying for the maintenance 
of----
    Mr. Rice. You don't know?
    Mr. Stanislaus. I don't know the answer.
    Mr. Rice. OK. On new mines--you know, you raise some 
interesting issues. You said you are looking at additional 
financial assurance. I know there is the Haile Gold Mine in 
South Carolina they are looking at reopening right now. And I 
know the Army Corps of Engineers has been very involved in 
looking at remediation.
    There is apparently a Federal and a State permitting 
process, correct?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, depends on--yes, I don't know the 
particular situation, but it can depend on the mine.
    Mr. Rice. OK. Oh, it depends on the mine. So certain mines, 
there is no Federal permitting process for?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, I believe that is--some mines are on 
Federal property, some mines are mixed ownership, some mines 
are private.
    Mr. Rice. OK. So if there is a mine on private property 
that is going to produce some toxic material, there is no 
Federal permitting requirement for that?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, not from a--well, let me get back to 
you--because other Federal agencies have various other 
responsibilities on mining sites, so let me get back to you 
with where Federal authority would touch on mining sites.
    Mr. Rice. OK. If there--well then, let's just limit it to 
mines on Federal property. Is there some kind of a Federal 
permitting requirement for that? If I wanted to open a mine on 
Federal property, would I have to get a Federal permit to do 
that?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well----
    Mr. Rice. Would you guys review it? Would you approve it?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, there is a review process.
    Mr. Rice. All right. And I wouldn't have to give you clear 
bond or financial assurance that I had the capability to clean 
it up when I got through? Surely to God I would have to give 
you that.
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, yes. Some bonds are actually in 
place. State programs and some bonding or financial assurance 
are done through Federal programs, most notably BLM and Forest 
Service.
    Mr. Rice. OK. So we are talking about Federal property 
again. If I was going to do it on Federal property, I wouldn't 
have to give you very clear assurance that I had the capability 
and set aside the money to clean that site up?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes. So I think the question is whether 
that financial assurance, be it through a State program or a 
Federal program, is adequate. And what our experience has been, 
there have been enough mining sites where the closure and 
reclamation--there is a gap to deal with the environmental 
issues.
    Mr. Rice. All right. There is obviously State regulators, I 
would assume, in every State that deals with this. Right?
    Mr. Stanislaus. That is right.
    Mr. Rice. And I would assume that they all would require 
bonding and financial assurance also. Right?
    Mr. Stanislaus. That is right.
    Mr. Rice. So it is really not a problem for new mines, is 
it?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, that is currently what we are 
examining. We are looking at where there are gaps between 
financial assurance, whether it is done by State programs----
    Mr. Rice. OK.
    Mr. Stanislaus [continuing]. Or a Federal program.
    Mr. Rice. And this--and what about continuously operating 
mines? Let's say mines that were open--have been open for 
decades. There is a big copper mine out there in the West, 
Kennecott. Surely they are setting aside reclamation money. 
Surely they have set aside enough money to close the mine. Is 
that right?
    Mr. Stanislaus. I wouldn't know.
    Mr. Rice. Gosh, you are the EPA. You don't know that?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, again, EPA is not----
    Mr. Rice. What do you do from 9 to 5?
    Mr. Stanislaus. I am sorry? I am sorry? I couldn't hear 
you.
    Mr. Rice. Look----
    Mr. Stanislaus. No----
    Mr. Rice. What I want to----
    Mr. Stanislaus. No, sir. We are very much----
    Mr. Rice. I mean I want to avoid this problem happening 
again.
    Mr. Stanislaus. We are involved in dealing with the risk of 
these sites----
    Mr. Rice. I want to have--I want to avoid this problem 
happening again. And surely you are not going to let people--
the EPA is not going to let people open these mines and create 
these toxic situations without putting aside adequate reserves 
to close the mine. Is that true or is that not true?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, clearly, the shared responsibility 
across the Federal Government is for that to be the case. And 
that is--currently we are examining that, not only from a 
Federal perspective, but from a State perspective.
    Mr. Rice. Wow. OK. This Gold King Mine, you say it has been 
closed for decades. And you don't know who is paying for the 
monitoring of that site and the cleanup of that site. You don't 
know that.
    Mr. Stanislaus. [No response.]
    Mr. Rice. You don't know if--you said that there are some 
surviving companies from this Gold King Mine. They are not 
bearing the responsibility for this?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, again----
    Mr. Rice. I mean I know----
    Mr. Stanislaus. Immediately----
    Mr. Rice. I know if EPA went in there and busted out their 
dam and let all this toxic water loose, then I am sure that EPA 
or their contractors have some liability. But for the ongoing 
maintenance of this mine, if there are viable parties still 
existing that mine this ore, don't they bear the ultimate 
financial responsibility for this?
    Mr. Stanislaus. That is right, if financial resources are 
in existence.
    Just to be clear, over the past decades it has been at the 
lead of the State of Colorado dealing with the stabilization, 
dealing with the sites. We--EPA recently got involved at the 
request of the State and local stakeholders.
    Mr. Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Gibbs. A couple points of clarification. I think in the 
last round of questions there about the mines in Colorado, I 
believe there are three.
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, I believe that is----
    Mr. Gibbs. And one of them has been putting millions of 
dollars in helping to clean up, and the other two are--there's 
no owners. Is that correct? They are totally abandoned. I mean 
there is no responsible party. There is one party there, one of 
the----
    Mr. Stanislaus. For one of the mines, that is right.
    Mr. Gibbs. Has been investing dollars to try to do cleanup. 
For clarification.
    Also, for clarification on the question about financial 
assurance, is it true that the financial assurance only applies 
to active mines trying to do a closure? So the issue at these 
abandoned mines, where we got this--it is more than two 
decades, I think it is about a century--that are totally 
abandoned, that is--really, a moot discussion. There is no 
financial assurance.
    Mr. Stanislaus. That is correct.
    Mr. Gibbs. OK, thank you. Mr. Nolan?
    Mr. Nolan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of quick 
questions here that I have. And we have got about--I am told as 
many as 7 billion metric tons of waste rocks piled up all over 
Minnesota's iron range, up in northeastern Minnesota. Exposed 
rock. Much has potentially hazardous consequences as a result 
of some of the sulfuric content, and its impact on the lakes 
and the rivers and waters in the region.
    So--and there are some companies now that are moving in, 
and they are reprocessing a lot of that ore. The ore was so 
rich back in the day that anything that had anything less than 
40 percent iron content was just discarded.
    My question of you is have you seen any new technologies 
that we could potentially find some ways to incentivize to go 
in and reprocess and clean up in the process and take greater 
advantage of the mineral resources that remain in those 
potentially toxic piles all over our range?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, I have heard about some emerging 
technologies. I think it is probably--I would say right now 
there are some efforts to do a pilot in the fields. I do think 
that many of the researchers believe it is promising. So I 
don't really have a comprehensive assessment, but I do know 
that there is some research going on in this area.
    Mr. Nolan. You know, we--I say ``we''; I wasn't here--but, 
you know, the Bureau of Mines and Minerals was largely 
abandoned. I have seen reports from the National Mining 
Association, from the land grant universities, from a whole 
variety of other sources that say we need to fund, you know, a 
national research center to study and help facilitate the 
development of new mining technologies and environmental 
technologies associated with the mining and/or the cleanup. Do 
you see where something like that would be an enhancement to, 
you know, what we are trying to do here in the Good Samaritan, 
you know, mining and development cleanup initiatives?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, yes. I am not sure of the connection 
to the Good Samaritan. I think, clearly, the more and better 
technology----
    Mr. Nolan. You don't see the connection? What is the Good 
Samaritan all about?
    Mr. Stanislaus. I am sorry?
    Mr. Nolan. You don't see a connection between the Good 
Samaritan mining and cleanup activities----
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, so----
    Mr. Nolan [continuing]. And study and research on how to 
mine and how to clean up in a way that is----
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes. I mean I think research and technology 
is all good. And so I would say that, yes, that makes sense.
    Mr. Nolan. OK.
    Mr. Stanislaus. And the Good Samaritan projects are 
relatively small projects to kind of stabilize sites.
    Mr. Nolan. Yes.
    Mr. Stanislaus. You know, so----
    Mr. Nolan. Well, I mean, if we don't have $33 billion or 
$72 billion, or whatever the number is--then we better be 
looking at something. You know? And science often has a way of 
leading us to progress. I am glad that you do see the 
connection after reconsidering it. Thank you.
    Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Stanislaus, we checked on your roster of 
employees. You do not have any mining engineers listed. So you 
say that you have personnel that have expertise in cleanup. You 
know, cleaning up a spill compared to cleaning up some of the 
other sites that aren't mining sites, you know, when I talk to 
engineers, the complications and the details with the stuff 
that goes into mining are a lot different than some of those 
other cleanups. So, obviously, the EPA--I think, to be honest--
has to rely on the private sector expertise.
    Now, then the question goes further. My first question 
dealing with this Gold King Mine incident, that private 
contractor--I don't know anything about them. Do they have 
mining engineers? Or what was their expertise level?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, they had mining experience, but they 
also brought in subcontractors with specific mining expertise.
    Mr. Gibbs. Can you provide details for that?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Sure.
    Mr. Gibbs. Because I think that there is a big, big 
question of competency on this whole issue out there in 
Colorado.
    To give you an example, in 2008 the Tennessee Valley 
Authority had a major coal ash spill, and they brought in 
numerous independent investigators from the private sector, 
because they were fearful, they didn't want it to happen again, 
because they have other coal ash facilities. And in this case, 
the EPA, as you said, Department of the Interior is doing an 
investigation, which I think is through the Bureau of 
Reclamation. Is that correct?
    Mr. Stanislaus. That is right.
    Mr. Gibbs. What technical expertise does the Bureau of 
Reclamation have in this with mines? Because I--go ahead.
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, that is probably best answered by 
them, but the Bureau of Reclamation is very much involved in 
mining situations. They are also, as I understand it, also 
doing peer review with other experts.
    Mr. Gibbs. OK, because I would--you know, a little bit of 
research I did, the Bureau of Reclamation isn't really in the 
mining business. They are more in the water infrastructure 
business. Bureau of Land Management probably has a little bit 
more expertise.
    So I question, you know, why--and then why aren't--isn't 
the EPA bringing--like the Tennessee Valley Authority, who 
brought in independent, totally independent, not another 
Government agency, to do a full-fledged investigation. I mean 
you are not doing that, right?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, yes. I mean so there are two 
additional investigations going on right now.
    Mr. Gibbs. Who is doing them?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, Department of the Interior and the 
Office of Inspector General.
    Mr. Gibbs. Wait, what is that?
    Mr. Stanislaus. The Office of Inspector General.
    Mr. Gibbs. Oh, for the Department of--EPA, or----
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes.
    Mr. Gibbs. But there is no--there is going to be no 
contracted other private entities like the Tennessee Valley 
Authority did?
    Mr. Stanislaus. No.
    Mr. Gibbs. OK. Yes, just to go back on the Bureau of 
Reclamation issue, do they have a water quality lab? Do they do 
any water quality research, laboratory studies or analysis?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Again, this has been--the Bureau of 
Reclamation and Department of the Interior is leading this 
study, and----
    Mr. Gibbs. Well, I guess I am questioning their expertise 
to be the lead agency in that investigation, because I don't 
believe that they have expertise in heavy metal migration, 
water quality analysis capabilities, expertise in mine tunnels. 
That is what we need to have, expertise--people who are really 
experts in that, not self-declared experts.
    So I think that is a question of what is going on, 
because--I am going back to Mr. Rice's line of questioning. You 
know, nobody has been held accountable. And you are saying, 
well, the investigation goes on, and that is fair. But we have 
thousands of these mine sites where we could have more 
disasters, and we need to make sure it doesn't happen again. 
And so the EPA should do all they can do to make sure that the 
investigations are legit and carried out by people that are 
credible.
    And it is kind of like the fox and the henhouse regulating 
themselves, you know. Obviously, the EPA was in partnership or 
contract with this, and working hand in hand with this 
contractor on this spill when they opened up the mine.
    And we had leach issues coming out, but apparently nobody 
knew what was behind that closure from the sediment rocks and 
everything, and that is when it broke loose. And it didn't have 
the right things in process to--like a catch basin or anything 
to catch that. So they--is that clear, they were really caught 
by surprise?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, yes. In the--our own internal review 
that we have issued, it is clear that that risk was identified, 
and also concluded that, if it was capable to be done, going 
behind the mine to identify there was a pressurized situation 
would have been ideal. But also it identifies that it was not--
given the sheer grade of the mine below that--the contract 
actually did that, they were able to get behind the mine and 
actually look at those pressurized conditions--confirm it was 
not pressurized. In this situation they were not able to do 
that.
    And our internal review concluded that they are not sure it 
was possible to prevent a blowout.
    Mr. Gibbs. Your internal review, which are self-declared 
experts, not the mining engineer experts.
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, again, our role is cleanup. We were 
brought--the State of Colorado and stakeholders asked it to be 
addressed because of this very risk. We were brought to this 
situation because of the risk that stakeholders identified, the 
risk of----
    Mr. Gibbs. Well, I--OK, just----
    Mr. Stanislaus [continuing]. A blowout. That is why we were 
there----
    Mr. Gibbs. This all--I think this all goes back to what we 
are trying to do here with the Good Samaritan thing, you know. 
People that really are--have experience and expertise working 
to do that. And we need to get some protections, because 
obviously, they are not stepping up.
    And now, my question on the Good Samaritan concept, would 
the EPA be supportive of partial--if you got a Good Samaritan 
who wants to come in there, if we change the law to make it so 
that it encourages them to do that, and they want to come in 
and do a partial remediation, but maybe not a total 
remediation, would--let's use an example.
    Say you have a mine that is leaching, OK? And if they come 
in and do a partial remediation it is going to take care of 
that leaching process, but it might not take care of something 
further in the mine that might be--50 years away it might be 
another problem, but they just don't have the resources or 
capability to do that. Would the EPA be supportive of partial 
remediation?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Oh, absolutely. I mean under our existing 
guidance, partial cleanup is allowed, because, from our 
perspective and the Good Samaritan perspective, reducing the 
magnitude of risk is always a good thing.
    Mr. Gibbs. OK. Well, I guess I used up my time. Go ahead.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Well, along the same line, if the Good 
Samaritan is going to come in for the purposes of being a Good 
Samaritan, but if they are coming in to mine and leave a worse 
mess, what safeguards are there to be able to preclude that 
from happening?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, again, the Good Samaritan guidance is 
intended to be for a pure Good Samaritan.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Purely.
    Mr. Stanislaus. So meaning someone who is going there to 
address the risk from that site. If it is going to be mining, 
then there has got to be a separate process to deal with the 
mining situation and closure requirements and all of that. So 
it has to be done separately, if I understand your question.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Well, if we are going to allow the Good 
Samaritan to have an opportunity to go in and clean up, how are 
you going to build something separate to address anybody coming 
in, another mining company wanting to come in to reopen the 
mine, or be able to mine around the existing mine----
    Mr. Stanislaus. So----
    Mrs. Napolitano [continuing]. And create a problem for the 
future of leaching or leaking or being able to contaminate some 
of the streams and the rivers?
    Mr. Stanislaus. So just in terms of the Good Samaritan 
project itself, you would have an agreement and a workplan to 
deal with--it could be consolidation, it could be 
encapsulation. But if the entity were to separately do a mining 
operation, that would not be covered, and the protections would 
not be accorded for the mining activities.
    Mrs. Napolitano. How would you define Good Samaritan, then, 
somebody doing it out of their good will? Who is going to pay 
for it? Where is the Good Samaritan getting the funding to be 
able to go in and do that cleanup?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, a Good Samaritan--we identified 
factors in our--they have to be someone who is not responsible 
for that site, no affiliation with who was responsible for that 
mining site. OK? Did that answer your question?
    Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, but who is paying for that?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, the Good Samaritan would have to pay 
for that. That is why it is a relatively small project, as 
compared to some of the large projects that we have had, that 
EPA has had to step in with hundreds of millions of dollars.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Will this be defined in being able to 
determine how a Good Samaritan should act in cleaning up?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes. So the project would be defined, the 
activities would be defined----
    Mrs. Napolitano. Keeping it from making it worse is my 
point.
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes. So the activities to lessen the risk 
and to consolidate, that would be defined as part of the 
agreement process.
    Mrs. Napolitano. It would allow them to do mining?
    Mr. Stanislaus. No.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Just the cleanup?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Just the cleanup.
    Mrs. Napolitano. And that is going to be defined?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes.
    Mrs. Napolitano. OK. Well, are any of these companies 
foreign-owned, that we can go back to their origin of being 
able to be the PRPs [potentially responsible parties]?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Oh, for the abandoned mines?
    Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Stanislaus. Again, when we get involved, we would first 
look at responsible parties. But again, some of these mines 
have been abandoned as much as 100 years ago. So, you know, it 
is very likely that those entities are not around.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Well, that is probably very true. Now 
there are a couple of other questions I had, and it has to do--
and I think my colleague, the chairman, indicated about the 
contractors and their qualification. Since you may not have all 
the required mining engineers on staff, the contracts you have, 
you ensure that they are individuals who can deal--who have 
done it before, who will continue to be able to be responsible 
and reliable.
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, that is exactly right. I mean EPA is 
not doing mining activities. We are not engineering the conduct 
of mining operations. What we are doing is doing cleanup. So we 
clearly have expertise in cleanup, be it a mining site, or any 
other chemical waste management site, we have that expertise.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Yes. But the EPA is only the cleanup. But 
isn't it also true that the Governor of the State should be 
able to allow that specific mine to go on Superfund, to be able 
to effectively put funding into it, taxpayer funds?
    Mr. Stanislaus. I am not sure I fully understand your 
question. I mean with respect to----
    Mrs. Napolitano. This is not on Superfund list. The gold 
mine was not on the Superfund list.
    Mr. Stanislaus. That is right. There has been 
conversations--it was not on the national priorities list for a 
long-term cleanup. That is right, yes. And so there are ongoing 
discussions with the Governor and the local stakeholders about 
their perspectives on whether it should be listed or not.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Well, we want to be sure--or at least I 
would hope that we would try to protect the taxpayer from 
having to end up cleaning up abandoned mines, when there might 
be possibility of being able to find the potential responsible 
parties, PRPs, and ensure that you have enough funding to be 
able to carry out the cleanup, but with the cooperation of not 
only the State and the mining interests.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Hardy?
    Mr. Hardy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Gold King Mine, was 
it private or was it a BLM----
    Mr. Stanislaus. It is a private site.
    Mr. Hardy. Are you aware that, in Nevada, that almost--
there's numbers of 85 percent of our State is federally owned?
    Mr. Stanislaus. OK.
    Mr. Hardy. That is a fact.
    Mr. Stanislaus. OK.
    Mr. Hardy. OK. With that being said, I am going to guess--I 
am going to guess--that there's close to 95 percent of all the 
mines are on federally owned ground. Little befuddling to me 
that you don't know more about all this Federal ground in 
Nevada.
    The reason I go down this avenue, you talk about that you 
have the expertise to be able to evaluate these cleanups. But 
without the mining expertise that you folks require mines, 
before they open, to have this mining engineer, this geological 
engineer, this archeological engineer, every kind of engineer 
under the--expert to be able to open that mine, who evaluates 
that mine before it opens, then, and approves it, if you don't 
have that expertise yourself?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, again, there--the agencies who are 
responsible for that is not EPA. So we have lots of other 
agencies in the Federal Government that has--that lead the 
questions about opening of mines.
    Mr. Hardy. Then shouldn't we maybe have those other 
agencies involved in this new rule that we are trying to make 
it safe for these folks to be able to have these projects 
cleaned up, to make sure that they are doing the right thing 
the right way, instead of EPA taking the lead on this? 
Shouldn't that be some other direction?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Oh, I don't disagree.
    Mr. Hardy. Shouldn't the EPA let somebody else take the 
lead on the Gold King Mine?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes. I mean, from a cleanup perspective, 
clearly, EPA has a role and just to clarify, EPA, working with 
the State and the State's experts, approached it from a cleanup 
perspective, and we brought to bear contractors with specific 
mining expertise.
    With respect to the broader question of opening and closing 
mines, clearly there are other Federal agencies and State 
expertise that should take the lead on those issues.
    Mr. Hardy. OK. And I just want to make it very clear before 
this committee and this panel here that the closing of a mine 
doesn't necessarily have to do with always cleaning up 
contaminants, because the majority of the mines in Nevada don't 
have any contamination. The majority of the mines in Nevada and 
other States in the West were--they are small tunnels, shafts. 
And a closure of that mine might have to do with just a 
concrete cap or a gate or a door, which--somebody over there 
made the statement, but that is adequate for most mines. Mines 
that have chemicals in them have a different process, and they 
have to do that under the approval of the EPA before they can 
even open of how their closure is going to go.
    So why you are not following these issues kind of befuddles 
me. Why we are not having more responsibility, especially in 
the West, where 64 percent of all the West is held by the 
Federal Government, in making sure that these cleanups happen 
from the Superfund? And our own State, which--I sat on the 
State legislature. We fund a certain amount of dollars every 
year for the closure of mines, abandoned mines. So everybody 
has a stake in this thing.
    But it is frustrating to me that--just want to make sure 
that, as we go down this road, that we make it safe, for those 
people that want to try to help and do things, that we protect 
them legally. And also that they understand the obligation of 
what is going on so when--if they do have a challenge, that we 
don't have another Gold King spill. So----
    Mr. Stanislaus. Sure. I mean I would agree for Good 
Samaritans to move forward we absolutely want to make sure that 
we address their liability concerns. So----
    Mr. Hardy. And the Good Samaritans are probably some of our 
greatest assets out there. Well, let's let them do the work 
that they want to do, and help them do it the right way.
    Mr. Stanislaus. But I think, as you noted, the magnitude of 
the issue is pretty large. I think States have a fairly 
significant role, both in abandoned and new mines, and the 
Federal Government, so it is a comprehensive situation with the 
Good Samaritans playing a role as part of that.
    Mr. Hardy. I guess the direction I would like to go back to 
with the situation in Nevada, it doesn't seem to appear you 
know much about Nevada, but wouldn't that evaluation of each 
State be more empowering to that State to understand--because 
Nevada has some of the same processes to protect--leave that 
power in the State of Nevada rather than one over--one eye, 
single eye, looking over the whole Nation, so to speak?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, absolutely. I mean I think that 
cleanup has to be led by the States. And not only the cleanup, 
but the management of it, which is the case. EPA is brought on 
board in situations from a complexity and cost perspective, as 
it was in this situation.
    Mr. Hardy. And they should be compensated for that 
management, especially when it is Federal lands.
    Mr. Gibbs. I want to follow up a little bit. I think I just 
heard you advocating for States to lead in this effort to clean 
up these abandoned mines.
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, I think cleanup, generally, I mean, 
the States have a very----
    Mr. Gibbs. Yes. Let me ask you this question. Acid mine 
drainage and all that, which is part of the abandoned mine 
issue, is there a U.S. EPA site where they have actually been 
successful in cleaning up an abandoned mine site, or has it 
most primarily been States doing it?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Well, I would say it is always--I mean 
sites like this and other sites, there is always a partnership 
with the States. And I can get back to you in terms of specific 
situations.
    Mr. Gibbs. Yes. Also, get back to us with a detailed 
explanation of what experts are utilized in-house and 
contracted on these abandoned mine cleanups, so we can get our 
arms around what is really going on.
    Just a final question. Would you give us recommendations of 
what should be done? Because we had this discussion earlier 
about the administrative tools. Obviously--I don't know if you 
concur with me, but the effectiveness isn't all that great, 
because only one Good Samaritan has actually stepped up, and 
they actually had to pull back, from my understanding. But what 
recommendations could you give us that we could do through 
legislation and otherwise to encourage volunteers, Good 
Samaritans to step up? Because I think there is a lot of 
willingness out there to do it. But what would be your 
recommendations? And maybe you might have to get back to us 
with that, but----
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, let me get back to you specifically. 
But this reminds me of a parallel situation, the contaminated 
sites generally in the brownfield area. You know? So while EPA 
provides some initial liability clarification, both the 
financial sector and the development sector needed additional 
outreach and comfort to enable underwriting processes to move 
forward.
    So we did a lot of outreach to make sure that people 
understood that and actually did that. So I think maybe further 
outreach. So I will get back to you more specifically on the 
legal side.
    Mr. Gibbs. OK.
    Mr. Stanislaus. OK.
    Mr. Gibbs. OK. Thank you. Thank you for coming in today, 
and we will--I guess my ranking member has a quick question.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, just to kind of clarify the 
gentleman's--Nevada has dry weather, so they have a very 
different mine situation as we do in California and other 
States.
    And I certainly would want to ensure that the Good 
Samaritan is something that can move forward, because it is a 
necessity.
    But we also need to know what kind of contamination some of 
these mines might have, because I can bring up Moab, Utah. It 
still needs about another billion dollars' worth of cleanup, 
and it has been on the cleaning page now for, I don't know, a 
couple decades. And it was leaching contaminations into the 
Colorado River, which, downstream, the rest of us drink. And 
how--what kind of contamination there might be, other than the 
contaminants of lead and silver and other things, whether it 
is--the severity of it.
    And those are the things that we might want to hear, this 
panel to understand, in what areas we might start looking at 
prioritizing and be able to ensure that there's enough funds to 
be able to start looking at future blowouts. Does it make 
sense?
    Mr. Stanislaus. Yes.
    Mrs. Napolitano. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Gibbs. Thank you for coming in, Mr. Stanislaus, and we 
will just take a minute break here while the next panel gets 
situated.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Gibbs. Well, welcome, panel 2. Hopefully, some more 
Members will show up. But thank you for sitting through the 
first panel.
    On panel 2 we have Mr. Cavazza. He is the director of the 
Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation, Pennsylvania Department 
of Environmental Protection. He is speaking on behalf of the 
Interstate Mining Compact Commission and the National 
Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs.
    We have Mr. Luke Russell. He is vice president of external 
affairs, Hecla Mining Company, on behalf of the National Mining 
Association.
    Mr. Doug Young is senior policy director of Keystone Policy 
Center.
    Mr. Chris Wood, president and CEO of Trout Unlimited, and 
Ms. Lauren Pagel, policy director of Earthworks; welcome.
    And, Mr. Cavazza, go ahead. Welcome, and the floor is 
yours.

    TESTIMONY OF ERIC E. CAVAZZA, P.E., DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF 
    ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF 
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, ON BEHALF OF THE INTERSTATE MINING 
 COMPACT COMMISSION AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ABANDONED 
 MINE LAND PROGRAMS; LUKE RUSSELL, VICE PRESIDENT OF EXTERNAL 
AFFAIRS, HECLA MINING COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL MINING 
   ASSOCIATION; DOUG YOUNG, SENIOR POLICY DIRECTOR, KEYSTONE 
POLICY CENTER; CHRIS WOOD, PRESIDENT AND CEO, TROUT UNLIMITED; 
         AND LAUREN PAGEL, POLICY DIRECTOR, EARTHWORKS

    Mr. Cavazza. OK. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is 
Eric Cavazza, and I am the director of Pennsylvania's abandoned 
mine land program, and I am the outgoing president of the 
National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs. I am 
appearing here today on behalf of the Association and the 
Interstate Mining Compact Commission. We appreciate the 
opportunity to address the important issue of abandoned mine 
lands and the potential for a Good Samaritan program.
    There are a myriad of reasons why a Federal Good Samaritan 
program is needed, but the most important is to remove the 
potential for incurring liability under Federal environmental 
protection statutes, such as the Clean Water Act. These 
liabilities deter motivated, well-intentioned volunteers from 
undertaking projects to clean up or improve abandoned sites, 
thereby prolonging the harm to the environment and to the 
health and welfare of our citizens. The universe of abandoned 
mine lands is so large, and the existing governmental resources 
so limited that, without the assistance of Good Samaritan 
volunteers, it will be impossible to clean up all of these 
lands.
    We commend you and your colleagues for continuing efforts 
in pursing Good Samaritan protections. Despite the 
extraordinary dedication of those involved in the AML arena, 
there remains a substantial amount of work to be done. This is 
not due to a lack of will, but primarily to insufficient 
funding. Our efforts need a substantial boost, and the 
potential Good Samaritan solution before the subcommittee today 
will propel us toward our goal.
    We have seen the remarkable results from the Good Samaritan 
approach in States such as mine, which enacted its own Good 
Samaritan law to provide protections and immunities related to 
State clean water requirements. Over 50 Good Samaritan projects 
have been completed to date, and participants have included 
local governments, individuals, watershed associations, 
corporations, municipal authorities, and conservancies.
    I would now like to discuss two specific examples of water 
treatment projects in Pennsylvania, one of which was successful 
and another that was never implemented as a result of liability 
concerns.
    Over the last 15 years, many partners worked to restore 
water quality and reclaim abandoned mine lands in the Indian 
Creek watershed in southwestern Pennsylvania. Indian Creek is 
an important tributary which eventually flows into the Ohio 
River in downtown Pittsburgh. An assessment of the watershed 
revealed that drainage from abandoned mines was the biggest 
source of impairment, degrading the quality of 17.4 miles of 
Indian Creek and its tributaries. A watershed restoration plan 
was developed to address the most severe discharges and restore 
water quality.
    Since that time, six passive mine drainage treatment 
systems have been constructed, some on private property. The 
private landowners and the watershed association were both 
extremely concerned about liability. The parties applied for 
and received approval for Pennsylvania Good Samaritan 
protections. Without this protection, this project would likely 
never have been completed. As a result of remediation work, the 
stream has made a dramatic recovery, and now supports a healthy 
fish community and is a source of community pride.
    The Gladden discharge was a similar story with a different 
outcome. The discharge dumps an average of about 900 gallons 
per minute of iron-laden water into Millers Run, a tributary to 
Chartiers Creek and the Ohio River. Within one-half mile, 
Millers Run changes from a clear stream with trout to an orange 
stream with virtually no life. Two local conservation groups 
worked with the Pennsylvania AML program and several other 
Government agencies, private landowners, and businesses for 
over a decade to develop and implement a plan to treat the 
Gladden discharge and restore Lower Chartiers Creek.
    In 2009 a private business approached the group with a 
concept to construct a treatment facility for the discharge, 
and to establish a long-term O&M [operation and maintenance] 
trust fund for the facility in exchange for the right to use 
some of the treated water. Both the private landowner and the 
private business were happy to learn of our environmental Good 
Samaritan Act and the protections it afforded, but were 
disappointed to learn that no equivalent such law existed to 
protect them from third-party lawsuits and liability under the 
Federal Clean Water Act.
    After further review, both the private landowner and the 
private business withdrew from the project. No subsequent 
treatment plan has been implemented for the discharge, and it 
continues to spew AMD [acid mine drainage] into the stream 
today.
    Over the course of the past 15 years, several bills have 
been introduced in the U.S. Congress to enhance the cleanup of 
inactive and abandoned mines by emulating the Pennsylvania Good 
Samaritan program. From the State's perspective we have several 
recommendations that we believe should be considered in any 
Good Samaritan legislative effort, and these recommendations 
are discussed in our written statement.
    Mr. Chairman, the legacy of abandoned mine lands still 
looms large in many of our Nation's communities. It is time for 
Congress to act to enable Good Samaritans to help conquer the 
monumental task of cleaning up our abandoned mine lands. Thank 
you for the opportunity to testify.
    Mr. Gibbs. Now, Mr. Russell, welcome. The floor is yours.
    Mr. Russell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. My 
name is Luke Russell. I am vice president of external affairs 
with Hecla Mining Company. I have been involved in 
environmental compliance, reclamation, and remediation of mine 
sites for over 30 years, including time worked as remediation 
manager with the State of Idaho at the Coeur d'Alene Basin 
Superfund site in northern Idaho.
    Hecla Mining Company is the oldest precious metals mining 
company in North America, and the United States largest primary 
silver producer. Today I am testifying on behalf of the 
National Mining Association, who represents the miners, 
vendors, and suppliers of America's mining industry. National 
Mining and its member companies have long been interested in 
promoting the voluntary cleanup of legacy mines through the 
development of Good Samaritan legislation.
    When we speak about abandoned mines, it is important to 
note that we are talking about sites with no viable owner that 
were created due to mining practices of 100 to 150 years ago, 
well before the enactment of modern environmental laws, 
regulations, and reclamation requirements. We are not talking 
about mines of today.
    Today's operators must provide financial assurance to 
guarantee their sites will be properly reclaimed, and billions 
of dollars have been posted with the State and Federal 
Governments for exactly this purpose. Thus, the abandoned mine 
land problem is a finite and historical problem, not one that 
will grow in the future.
    Industry wants to see legacy sites reclaimed, and safety 
and environmental conditions improved as much as anyone. After 
all, they are incorrectly portrayed as being our dirty 
pictures, when, in fact, they represent results of historic 
practices. The mining industry has the desire, the experience, 
the equipment, and the technology to mitigate and reclaim 
abandoned mine lands.
    Any Good Samaritan faces the risk of perpetual liability 
under provisions of the Clean Water Act and the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or 
CERCLA. For example, under the Clean Water Act, a Good 
Samaritan that affects a discharge, even if working to improve 
site conditions, becomes fully responsible in perpetuity, even 
if they had no role in creating the conditions that originally 
caused the adverse water quality. Consequently, remediation 
measures that could result in incremental and, in some cases, 
significant water quality improvements are not undertaken for 
fear of the resulting liability.
    Furthermore, a Good Samaritan who begins to clean up, or 
even just investigates an abandoned mine site, runs the risk of 
becoming an operator under CERCLA. CERCLA liability is joint, 
several, strict, and retroactive. Such potential liability is 
chilling to any voluntary cleanup effort.
    If a goal of Good Samaritan legislation is to improve water 
quality, the environment, and public safety, then such 
legislation must encourage cleanups by reducing the legal 
impediments. To remove the legal barriers discussed previously, 
regulators should be given discretion to adjust environmental 
requirements, standards, and liabilities for Good Samaritan 
projects. Mining companies should be allowed to qualify as Good 
Samaritans. Mining companies that did not create the identified 
environmental problems at a legacy site should be allowed to 
qualify.
    EPA or States must permit Good Samaritan projects. Projects 
should be authorized on a site-by-site basis, with discretion 
to allow important environmental improvements that may fall 
short of addressing all contaminants at a site, so long as they 
are--a net improvement is achieved.
    Good Samaritan legislation should also allow remedial 
actions that include the reuse or reprocessing of materials 
from legacy sites. At some abandoned mine sites the best way to 
partially or wholly remediate the environment may be to collect 
the various materials located at the site, utilize them in 
construction of a new mining operation, or process those 
materials to remove any valuable minerals, and then to dispose 
of those wastes in an environmentally sound manner. Such 
projects would be subject to appropriate Federal or State 
assessment and approval through a Good Samaritan permit 
program.
    Protecting the public interest and ensuring more effective 
and efficient cleanup of legacy sites created in the distant 
past is possible, and should include Good Samaritan legislation 
that embodies the elements discussed above. The mining industry 
stands ready to be a part of this solution.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today.
    Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
    Mr. Young, welcome, the floor is yours.
    Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, Representative Napolitano, thank 
you very much for inviting me here to be at this panel, and 
also for actually holding this discussion. My name is Doug 
Young. I am a senior policy director at the Keystone Policy 
Center that is headquartered in Keystone, Colorado.
    And my name is Young, but I am not young to this topic. I 
actually have been working on this particular specific topic 
for 20 years. I started out working on it in the Western 
Governors' Association as staff counsel for Governor Roy Romer, 
then worked for 12 years with then-Representative--and later 
Senator--Mark Udall on this very topic. So I was the lead 
staffer for him on the various pieces of legislation that he 
had introduced on this very topic.
    And this is a mixed blessing for me because it is 
unfortunate that we are still talking about it, and it is 
unfortunate that a spill like the Gold King spill precipitates 
a need for this discussion. But I am glad it is happening, and 
I am glad we are continuing to have the conversation. The 
unfortunate part about it is that I wish we had fixed this a 
long time ago.
    To give you a little flavor of the difficulty--you have 
heard some of it here today, your questions have been very, 
very good, because they have hit on the topics that we have 
been experiencing on this particular issue over the 20 years I 
have worked on it.
    In my experience, we gathered together various disparate 
interests, just the whole range of folks who are interested in 
solving this over the 20-year period that I worked on specific 
legislation. And we all wrestled with the very topics that you 
have raised and that have been raised in this very hearing.
    We brought together the States, the EPA, the mining 
industry, the environmental community, anybody who would have 
an interest in this. And we haggled over all of the topics you 
have raised. And the focus that we did at the time was over the 
Clean Water Act, specifically. The efforts back then were to 
try to come up with a new permit, a brand-new permit program 
under EPA so that--or, excuse me, under the Clean Water Act, so 
that it would deal with the discharging issues.
    I should tell you that there are plenty of Good Samaritans. 
You have heard today that the people are actually doing work at 
these sites. What hampers them is the discharge problem. So 
they are doing good work and resolving safety issues, other 
kinds of issues that exist at these sites, but it is the 
draining, ongoing, perpetual, forever releases that are 
hampering, the big stumbling block, which is why we focused on 
the Clean Water Act liability question.
    I will quickly say that the--and we--the problem is we 
couldn't get--we got consensus on some of these topics and we 
wrestled with the remaining question, the standards to apply, 
who could be a Good Samaritan, how to deal with sites on 
Federal property versus non-Federal property, how to include 
the tribes. We dealt with all of that. So--but the trouble is 
we tried to thread the needle on getting consensus on that, but 
we never got complete agreement, where everybody would come to 
the table in front of a hearing, like in front of all of you, 
and say, ``We support this program.''
    So I worry that we are going to go back over old ground in 
using the Clean Water Act as the mechanism. I personally 
believe that we now are at a place where we can look at this 
anew, and look at other programs that we could tack on to or 
make some refinements to, instead of the Clean Water Act, being 
specifically CERCLA as a potential, brownfields as a potential.
    And what you can do, I think, is that you can make 
amendments to those statutes, where you capture the concern of 
all of the issues, but specifically related to discharging 
releases, and not have to go back over the old ground of coming 
up with a whole new permit program within the Clean Water Act. 
That still is a potential avenue, I think, so I don't want to 
discount that. But we are going to end up having to go 
through--we will still go through those same issues and still 
try to refine them and get consensus around them.
    But the big concern I have is that the Clean Water Act is a 
very special act, it is a very important one, and I know there 
are concerns from some folks about opening it up. And I believe 
that you can deal with the discharge issue, the ongoing 
discharge issue, without having to actually amend the Clean 
Water Act, and do it through other authorities, like CERCLA.
    So I just--I am just saying that I think we ought to be 
able to use this opportunity to get at the very issues you have 
raised--I am not suggesting those same issues don't need to be 
wrestled with again, they do. But there might be a way we can 
address some of the other issues that have stymied this through 
other mechanisms, so we do not end up facing those roadblocks 
again under this new thinking, and try again.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Mr. Wood, welcome.
    Mr. Wood. Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member Napolitano, thank 
you for having me here today. My name is Chris Wood, and I am 
the president and CEO of Trout Unlimited. I want to offer the 
following testimony on behalf of TU and our 155,000 members. 
And my testimony will focus on the cleanup of abandoned mine 
lands, specifically the need to facilitate more abandoned mine 
cleanups by Good Samaritans--namely, those who don't have a 
legal obligation to take on such work, but do it just to 
improve water quality.
    Our mission is to conserve, protect, and restore North 
America's coldwater fisheries and the watersheds that they 
depend on. In pursuit of that mission, we have worked to 
restore streams and rivers that have been damaged by abandoned 
mines from the coal fields of Appalachia to the Rocky Mountain 
West, and many places in between.
    If you could, move the first slide.
    [Slide]
    Mr. Wood. By now, this image is familiar to everyone. The 
3-million-gallon spill in August of polluted water from the 
Gold King Mine near Silverton drew national media attention.
    The next slide, please.
    [Slide]
    Mr. Wood. But less well-known is the fact that there are 
thousands of similar, smaller scale abandoned mines that flow 
through people's backyards all around--all across America. The 
lesson from Gold King is not so much that an EPA contractor 
screwed up, as it is that we need to have a much greater sense 
of urgency about addressing the problem of pollution from 
abandoned mines all over the Nation.
    Abandoned hardrock mines affect about 40 percent of the 
headwater streams in the Western United States. This is 
particularly important for us, because that happens to be where 
all the native trout are holed up. The lack of a dedicated 
funding source, and the burdensome liability risk for would-be 
Good Samaritans stalls efforts to clean up these abandoned 
mines.
    In the East we have pollution from abandoned coal mines 
that damages over 10,000 miles of streams in Pennsylvania and 
West Virginia alone. The East, however, should actually 
consider itself fortunate, because the production of coal is 
taxed in this country, and part of that funding supports an 
abandoned mine land fund. Since 1977, more than $8 billion has 
been put to good use on the ground, cleaning up abandoned coal 
mines and making them safer in Appalachia. Unfortunately, no 
similar fund exists to clean up the legacy of hardrock mining, 
particularly in the Western United States.
    In Pennsylvania, as was mentioned earlier, aided by a 
State-based Good Samaritan policy, TU is working with State 
agencies, watershed groups, and other partners to conduct more 
than 250 abandoned coal mine pollution abatement projects.
    If you could show slide 3, please.
    [Slide]
    Mr. Wood. In places such as Kerber Creek, Colorado, 
pictured here, TU and its partners have restored over 80 acres 
of mine tailings, improved 8 miles of stream, and installed 
over 340 in-stream structures that are now home to naturally 
reproducing wild trout. Volunteers logged over 13,000 hours of 
work in the watershed over the past few years alone, and the 
project has received awards from the BLM, the State of 
Colorado, the Forest Service, and the Public Lands Foundation.
    Notwithstanding what happened at Gold King, we know how to 
clean up abandoned mines in the East and the West. Two things 
would dramatically accelerate the scope and scale of our 
efforts to make our water cleaner and our rivers more fishable 
and swimmable.
    First, as is the case with coal, a dedicated funding source 
is needed for cleaning up abandoned hardrock mines. Almost 
every commodity developed off public lands--coal, wood fiber, 
oil, gas, and forage--all have dedicated funding for 
restoration and mitigation. The only commodity that lacks such 
a dedicated fund is hardrock minerals. That needs to change.
    Second, local communities, private interests, and groups 
such as TU need protection from the liability associated with 
cleaning up abandoned mines. The Clean Water Act and CERCLA 
have been tremendously effective at cleaning up our rivers and 
holding polluters accountable for their actions. They do not, 
however, lend themselves to permitting cleaning up abandoned 
mines. My written testimony provides recommendations for 
tailored changes that we think would fix the problem.
    We strongly urge you to work together to introduce and 
develop a strong bipartisan bill to help us clean up abandoned 
mines, and we stand ready to work with Congress to get such a 
bill through Congress, so that affected communities around the 
country will once again have clean and fishable waters.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
    Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Mr. Pagel, welcome.
    Ms. Pagel. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member 
Napolitano, and members of the subcommittee, for the 
opportunity to speak to you today about reclaiming abandoned 
hardrock mines and Good Samaritan policies. My name is Lauren 
Pagel, I am the policy director for Earthworks.
    For over a quarter century, Earthworks has worked closely 
with a broad coalition of local governments, Native Americans, 
citizens groups, and other conservation organizations to 
improve the policies governing hardrock mining, including 
abandoned mine reclamation. As the orange rivers in Colorado--
both from the Gold King Mine spill and the recent acid mine 
drainage into the Uncompahgre River illustrate, we have a 
problem with pollution from inactive and old hardrock mines in 
this country. This pollution harms Western waters and the 
communities that rely on them for recreation, tourism, and 
drinking water.
    These orange rivers are stark reminders, but do not 
adequately represent the hundreds of thousands of abandoned 
mines that litter the West, polluting water in more subtle yet 
no less destructive ways. We have the solution to the problem 
of perpetual pollution from inactive and abandoned hardrock 
mines. We must reform the 1872 mining law and institute a 
reclamation fee similar to the one paid by the coal industry in 
order to stop the next mine disaster before it happens. If the 
hardrock mining industry had been subject to a reclamation fee, 
the Gold King Mine spill likely would never have happened.
    Good Samaritan initiatives that don't include a dedicated 
and significant funding source won't solve the problem facing 
Western communities and water resources. The EPA has created a 
process, which you heard about earlier, through which qualified 
projects can receive what is effectively a Good Samaritan 
permit. Applicants receive an administrative order from the EPA 
to become Good Samaritans and earn liability relief from CERCLA 
and the Clean Water Act.
    Earthworks supports this process, and we have supported 
several legislative proposals in past Congresses that create a 
narrow exemption from the Clean Water Act for truly Good 
Samaritans.
    The pollution from many abandoned mines persists despite 
well-intentioned efforts by Good Samaritans to clean up these 
mines, and the reason is lack of funding. There are many other 
ticking time bombs like the Gold King Mine, messy, complicated, 
incredibly expensive to clean up, that cannot be solved by Good 
Samaritans alone. According to the EPA, estimated cleanup costs 
for abandoned hardrock mines totals approximately $50 billion. 
This is a large-scale problem, and it requires a large-scale 
solution, which comes in the form of a reclamation fee.
    Cleaning up abandoned mines can be a win-win for our 
economy and for clean water. According to data from the State 
of Montana Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, each million 
dollars spent on cleanup creates 81 jobs. In addition to job 
creation, these restoration activities put degraded lands into 
productive use and grant relief to communities that are 
currently shackled with excessive costs for water treatment.
    The Obama administration has proposed a reclamation fee on 
all hardrock mining, similar to what the coal mining industry 
pays. This fee would generate an estimated $180 million per 
year to fund abandoned mine reclamation, and that would create 
an estimated 14,000 jobs for those in the mining industry.
    Congressmen DeFazio, Grijalva, Lowenthal, and others have 
introduced legislation that would bring us closer to ensuring 
that the Gold King Mine disaster does not happen again. H.R. 
963, the Hardrock Mining Reform and Reclamation Act, would 
facilitate the cleanup of abandoned hardrock mines, while 
creating tens of thousands of reclamation jobs across the West, 
far into the future. This bill modernizes the antiquated 1872 
mining law by balancing mining with other uses of public lands, 
while ensuring a fair royalty to the taxpayer and creating a 
reclamation fee.
    Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of 
Earthworks on this important topic, and we look forward to 
working with the committee to address the real problem of 
abandoned mines--that abandoned mines pose to water and public 
safety in the West.
    Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. I will start out. Mr. Russell, thanks 
for all of your testimony, it is all great and helpful. But, 
Mr. Russell, you talk about mining companies needing to qualify 
for Good Samaritan works, OK? And I would agree with that, 
because that is where the expertise is, and I think we had 
discussion on the first panel about questioning the expertise 
of that panel.
    I guess my first question is what issues are you facing 
that you haven't been able to qualify? And then also, would 
remining an abandoned site--is that an issue? Because we are 
talking about how we need more resources.
    Now, it seems to me one of the ways that we get resources, 
if some of these abandoned mines can be reopened when they are 
reclaimed and--or maybe areas in the mine can be remined. You 
are the expert, you would have to tell me. But I will just give 
you an example. I know in the oil and gas fields, you know, we 
have got wells that were put in in the 1920s and 1930s and now 
we have seen--until the price dropped, anyways--coming back in 
with a new technology, they can strip those walls and get oil 
and gas they couldn't get, you know, 50, 60 years ago. It is 
the technology.
    So with improved technology, remining efforts, is this one 
way to go? And if so, what are the regulatory challenges to be 
able to get there? As you say, mining companies need to be 
qualified.
    Mr. Russell. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. Let me give you an 
example. I worked at a mine that--it was first mined in the 
late 1860s, the competing mining camps were called Leesburg and 
Grantsville on the heels of the U.S. Civil War. One hundred 
years later, I was there permitting a new mine, new technology, 
able to come back into that same area and mine again.
    The historic mining had left placer sediments in the 
downstream area. As a part of the modern mine, we were able to 
come in, clean that material up, use some of that material as 
part of the construction, so it was a win-win for the 
environment, a win for us. So we did not reprocess that 
material, but we were able to utilize it as construction 
material.
    So, yes, there is great opportunity. And, as testified 
earlier, that under a Good Samaritan program there would be a 
bright line between what would be that type of remediation and 
cleanup and what would be a renewed mining operation. That 
renewed mining operation would be subject to all State and 
Federal permitting. It would be required to post a financial 
assurance, which would be different than that first piece, 
which could be remediation----
    Mr. Gibbs. Now, are you seeing roadblocks put up by the 
regulatory agencies to do that? What have your challenges been?
    Mr. Russell. Sir, the biggest challenge was mentioned 
earlier. If there is a discharge, the wheels fall off. The 
liability, potential liability of having to be responsible for 
that in perpetuity essentially is a chilling----
    Mr. Gibbs. So, essentially, you are buying the liability 
that was from 100 years ago.
    Mr. Russell. Exactly right.
    Mr. Gibbs. And so they call that a tail. You know, it goes 
on forever.
    Mr. Russell. It is a long tail.
    Mr. Gibbs. A long tail. OK. Mr. Young, you talked about not 
doing this through the CWA [Clean Water Act], but maybe 
brownfields or Superfund. Can you just expound on it a little 
bit more?
    Mr. Young. Sure, most certainly. I was going to just make a 
real quick observation on remining, if it is OK.
    Mr. Gibbs. Yes.
    Mr. Young. We did deal with this quite a bit, historically, 
including in previous legislation that would use the Clean 
Water Act permit. One way we worked this through was that any 
remining that occurred--I mean the effort has to be to clean up 
the site. So it is not--the purpose of remining would not be to 
actually remine and develop the resource. The purpose would be 
to do the cleanup. And, as you are doing that cleanup, if you 
run across recoverable assets, minerals, you can develop those.
    But the way we did it was that any of the revenue that you 
received for that mineral, recovered mineral, would have to be 
plowed back into the site itself you are cleaning up, or future 
abandoned mine sites. So that was--I just throw that out there 
as a solution, as a potential thing to look at, because that is 
the way we dealt with that.
    I will say, though, again, that I think I am a little 
concerned that if we go back to the Clean Water Act and try to 
establish a new permit program, we are going to go through 
these same debates and issues again. That, again, can be a good 
or bad thing. But it----
    Mr. Gibbs. Well, let me just----
    Mr. Young. Go ahead.
    Mr. Gibbs. That takes us back to, I think, what Mr. 
Stanislaus was talking about. They did this administrative 
stuff in, I think, 2007 and 2012, and I was arguing--trying to 
debate--about that. It must not be effective, because only one 
entity took it up, and I don't think they were successful.
    So you know, I guess the question is whether the 
administrative action the U.S. EPA has taken is or is not 
working. You would concur with that, right?
    Mr. Young. I would agree. I will, though--I will applaud 
the EPA for doing that. I think it is primarily, from my 
perspective, focused on the CERCLA aspects of cleaning it up. 
There is already a CERCLA Good Samaritan provision under the 
CERCLA statute.
    The question becomes when you have got a release after a 
CERCLA removal action is complete, and you have got an ongoing 
release. You are still subject to citizen lawsuit provisions. 
In other words, there still has to be some statutory fixes that 
would give legal assurances, real assurances, to Good 
Samaritans.
    Again, I think the EPA program is great. But if I were an 
attorney advising a Good Samaritan under that EPA 
administrative program, I would tell them you are still----
    Mr. Gibbs. Because it doesn't protect you from third-party 
lawsuits.
    Mr. Young. Correct.
    Mr. Gibbs. So that is a big issue.
    Mr. Young. Correct.
    Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Cavazza, I know Pennsylvania has done really 
well in cleaning up and really, I guess, has a Good Samaritan 
law, State law. Correct? I guess it has been successful. But, 
you know, what is the conflict with Federal law? I mean, when 
an entity is coming in to do a cleanup, they get protection 
under State law for State lawsuits or third-party lawsuits, but 
they have no protection if it is taken to a Federal court. What 
have been the issues there for you?
    Mr. Cavazza. Yes. You are correct. The Pennsylvania Good 
Samaritan Environmental Good Samaritan Act protects Good 
Samaritans, people cleaning up these sites, from all State and 
clean water liability. However, there is no protection under 
the Federal laws, primarily the Clean Water Act and also 
potentially under CERCLA. And, in my time in Pennsylvania, we 
have worked with a lot of partners on projects that I think 
would have had significant improvement in cleaning up abandoned 
mine sites and abandoned mine drainage. However, that fear of 
that Federal liability has caused some of the partners to walk 
away from the project.
    Mr. Gibbs. So it is very challenging. OK. I will turn it 
over to----
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On a yes or no 
answer, please, because I have other questions I would like to 
get to the panel, one of the lessons learned from the Gold King 
Mine is that, despite the best intentions of the parties, 
cleanup attempts can fail, and can have significant 
consequences to downstream communities. However, I understand 
the Good Samaritan concept.
    The costs of such failure at a Good Samaritan site are not 
all borne by the Good Samaritan, but are passed along to 
others, including the taxpayers. If we ultimately really want 
to solve the problem of abandoned hardrock mines, would you 
agree that concepts of these Good Samaritan cleanups and a 
dedicated fund for hardrock mine cleanup are inseparably bound 
together? Yes or no. Panel?
    Mr. Russell. Yes.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Yes.
    Mr. Cavazza. My microphone is not working. Yes. I would say 
yes.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, OK.
    Mr. Young. Yes.
    Mr. Wood. Yes.
    Ms. Pagel. Yes.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. And to Mr. Cavazza, does the 
National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs or the 
States have an inventory of abandoned mine sites? And who do 
they share it with? And what does the information contain?
    Mr. Cavazza. Well, there is a--there are inventories, 
partial inventories of hardrock sites. They are not maintained 
by the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs. 
They are maintained by individual States and some of the 
Federal agencies that--Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest 
Service, National Park Service, they have partial inventories.
    The Federal Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
Enforcement, who administers all the abandoned mine land 
programs for coal across the country, does maintain a national 
inventory of abandoned coal sites. It is known as AMLIS, 
Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System. It is--just like the 
hardrock inventories, it is not 100 percent complete and 
comprehensive. It does not identify every mine--coal mine site 
and the problems associated with them across the country.
    However, most of the highest priority sites have been 
captured there. And I think the State inventories of hardrock 
sites, along with the Federal agency hardrock inventories, have 
identified a significant number of high-priority sites. And 
probably the effort to try to make the inventories 100 percent 
complete and comprehensive may not be worth the cost and effort 
to do so because the magnitude of the problem is so great, and 
the number of sites we have already identified that are of 
priority is already very large, that any money that we would be 
able to allocate toward the problem would probably best be 
spent on the high-priority sites we have already identified.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Are you saying that all the high-
priority--that every one of them that should be looked at is a 
high priority? In other words you have identified the high 
priority. The ones that you have not identified would not 
qualify to be prioritized?
    Mr. Cavazza. No, I do think some of the mine sites that are 
not included on any of the inventories, whether they be coal or 
hardrock, would be high-priority sites. But I think that would 
be a minority of the unidentified sites. I think most of the 
high-priority sites have been identified and are already on an 
inventory. There just is not a comprehensive national inventory 
of those sites.
    Mrs. Napolitano. And why is that?
    Mr. Cavazza. I think there are a number of factors. I think 
the cost and difficulty of creating such an inventory has been 
a deterrent to having that be completed. Many of these sites 
are very remote. Many of them were mined several hundred years 
ago, so there aren't very good records to even locate them. It 
takes a lot of field reconnaissance or some type of remote 
sensing to find these sites.
    And then, the problems associated with them are--can be 
very diverse. There can be mine subsidence issues, water 
problems, and those are all very difficult to quantify and put 
a cost to.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Well, I would hope that maybe the 
Conference of Mayors or other organizations would start looking 
at what is in the backyard in order to prevent any kind of 
impact they might have on their environment and on their 
fishing and other tourism--tourist impacts.
    Mr. Wood, your testimony suggests that you believe Good 
Samaritan protections should only be extended to Good 
Samaritans, not companies or communities.
    Mr. Wood. I am sorry, did you say do I believe that?
    Mrs. Napolitano. Yes. Why?
    Mr. Wood. I----
    Mrs. Napolitano. It suggests that you believe that it only 
be extended to them. Why?
    Mr. Wood. I don't believe that. I think Good Samaritan 
protections should apply to anyone that doesn't have a historic 
legal interest in the pollution. So we work very close--mining 
companies are some of the best restoration practitioners out 
there when it comes to cleaning up abandoned mines. And so long 
as they don't have an historic legal connection to the 
abandoned mine site, I think we should be encouraging them to 
get involved.
    Mrs. Napolitano. But who would make that determination?
    Mr. Wood. Who would make the----
    Mrs. Napolitano. That there is no inherent conflict.
    Mr. Wood. Well, I mean, it should be fairly easy to 
determine if an abandoned mine was at one point owned by the 
company that is--now owns it.
    Mrs. Napolitano. OK. One of the concerns I might have is 
whether or not some of the folks who might want to remine a 
mine--not necessarily the one who originally mined it--that 
they may be doing it for profit and leave a worse situation 
than was there before.
    Mr. Wood. No, but I think Mr. Russell put it well. I mean, 
you know, there is going to be areas where you can remine for 
the sake of processing materials. They should go through the 
full Federal permitting process for that kind of a project. But 
for other areas, where they are truly acting as a Good 
Samaritan--meaning that there is a neighboring property that 
they don't even own that they can do some good work on and help 
make things better--by all means I think we should encourage 
that.
    Mrs. Napolitano. But asking Good Samaritans to clean up the 
old mines either through administrative process or via 
legislation will not--and cannot--fully address the hundreds of 
thousands of old mines that currently threaten our safety and 
clean water. Why?
    Mr. Wood. I am sorry. Say that one more time.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Well, Ms. Pagel, this is for Ms.--this is 
asking the Good Samaritans to clean up old mines. It will not 
fully address the hundreds of thousands of mines that are 
currently threatening our waters and our safety.
    Ms. Pagel. Yes, Good Samaritans have a role to play in 
cleaning up abandoned mines. But without an adequate funding 
source, you are only going to have a small number of mines that 
are cleaned up. And so, if we really want to address the full 
scope of the problem, we need a dedicated funding source, we 
need a hardrock abandoned mine reclamation program that can be 
used by States, local governments, et cetera, to clean up those 
sites.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Would this dedicated fund be able to help 
move the programs forward faster?
    Ms. Pagel. Yes.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Include more?
    Ms. Pagel. Yes.
    Mrs. Napolitano. And where would that funding come from?
    Ms. Pagel. The funding would come from a reclamation fee 
charged on the hardrock mining industry, similar to what the 
coal mining industry has paid since the late 1970s.
    Mrs. Napolitano. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Rokita?
    Mr. Rokita. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you 
organizing us this morning, and I appreciate the witnesses' 
testimony so far. My apologies for being late. I was, 
ironically, at another hearing discussing coal mines, et 
cetera. So I appreciate everyone's leadership in their field.
    Ms.--is it Pagel or Pagel, I am sorry.
    Ms. Pagel. Pagel.
    Mr. Rokita. Pagel. Thank you. So I understand--and I will 
probably have to zoom out a little bit from the detail that you 
are probably used to, but would Good Samaritan projects improve 
the environment or not? Should we encourage Good Samaritans to 
perform cleanups at mine sites?
    Ms. Pagel. We should. And I would hope we could also get 
Good Samaritans additional funding from a reclamation fund to 
do those cleanups.
    Mr. Rokita. At the end of the day, funds are not--would you 
prefer having no cleanup be performed at an abandoned mine 
site, or having a Good Samaritan perform a cleanup?
    Ms. Pagel. A Good Samaritan. I mean we have supported Good 
Samaritan cleanups in the past, and we continue to encourage 
Good Samaritans to clean up any sites they are able to.
    Mr. Rokita. Your remarks about reclamation fees and royalty 
payments focus on issues that, if I understand the jurisdiction 
correctly, are not part of this committee's jurisdiction and, 
further, do not address the ongoing liability concerns that 
innocent parties, including States and local government, face 
if they want to clean up a mine site, large or small.
    So, do you believe that the fear of exposure to strict 
liability under Federal laws is causing many potential parties 
to shy away from performing the cleanup activities?
    Ms. Pagel. I think that the lack of funding and potential 
legal liability issues are causing Good Samaritans and others 
to shy away. I do note there are jurisdictional issues. But I 
think that the reclamation fee and the Good Samaritan issue are 
inextricably linked, and I think that there is agreement on 
that issue.
    Mr. Rokita. So your organization is on record that we need 
to address these liability concerns?
    Ms. Pagel. Yes.
    Mr. Rokita. All right. OK. Anyone else want to comment on 
the line of questioning I just gave to Ms. Pagel? Mr. Young?
    Mr. Young. I would observe that in the first bill I worked 
on with Representative Udall at the time, we had a Good 
Samaritan permit provision in the Clean Water Act, and we also 
had a funding source included. It was two titles. And the 
funding provision became so controversial that we ended up 
having to split that out. The funding----
    Mr. Rokita. Controversial because people around here fought 
on turf lines?
    Mr. Young. It was----
    Mr. Rokita. Or was it a tax issue?
    Mr. Young. Taxing issue, ideological, political. I will 
tell you that the provision that we had was we borrowed the fee 
structure that Nevada currently has. Nevada has a fee system 
for mining currently, and we just picked that up and borrowed 
it and used it and we proposed it as a Federal fee-type system.
    So--but we--I worry that, if we deal with that 
specifically--I know it is not the committee's jurisdiction, 
but I worry--I agree with every panelist who has said that this 
is a major funding issue. I just think there is a way we can do 
this without having to directly assess a fee or a royalty, in 
that if you incentive more Good Samaritans, they bring their 
resources to the table.
    If the mining industry was a Good Samaritan and didn't have 
to worry about the liability questions, they would bring their 
resources to the table. Not just the mining industry, but the 
States are ready, willing, and able to be Good Samaritans, as 
well. The States themselves are thwarted because of this long-
term liability, perpetual liability question. So the more that 
we can establish this program and have it working, the more I 
think we can attract those resources without having to deal 
with the political headwind of doing a fee or a royalty. That 
is my opinion.
    Mr. Rokita. And do you have a model State program in this 
area?
    Mr. Young. For?
    Mr. Rokita. Good Samaritans or other programs, or anything 
like that?
    Mr. Young. Well, there are Good Samaritans that are doing 
work as long as they don't touch the draining water. So there 
are Good Samaritans doing work out there right now, but they 
are just not touching the water, the draining water, the acid 
mine drainage.
    Mr. Rokita. Anyone else? Yes, Mr.--they always do this to 
me. Staff brings witnesses in whose names I can't pronounce.
    Mr. Cavazza. Cavazza.
    Mr. Rokita. Thank you.
    Mr. Cavazza. In Pennsylvania we have dozens of watershed 
groups who I will call Good Samaritans for purpose of this 
quick response. And they have undertaken dozens of restoration 
projects at abandoned mine sites across the State of 
Pennsylvania. And most of those cleanups were not done to 
Federal Clean Water Act standards. However, they addressed a 
significant portion of the pollution that came from these mine 
sites, and they have made significant improvements in water 
quality, such that many streams that were dead now support 
healthy, aquatic life populations and fish populations.
    And, you know, Pennsylvania does have a State Good 
Samaritan program, and I think many of the features of that 
program could serve to help develop a Federal--a similar 
program at the Federal level.
    Mr. Rokita. Let me quickly ask--my time has already 
expired, but such is the tradition of this committee to go just 
a little bit over.
    I want the record to reflect Mr. Young was talking about 
the fact that even mine operators could be Good Samaritans if 
there were significant liability protections. Let the record 
reflect that the questioner, Mr. Rokita, was nodding his head 
in affirmation of that. Is there anyone who disagrees with that 
concept on the panel? Anyone on the panel who disagrees?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Rokita. And let the record reflect that no--that all of 
the panelists are nodding their head negatively, meaning they 
don't disagree.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for the hearing. 
I yield back.
    Mr. Gibbs. OK. A couple questions. I think maybe for Mr. 
Young and Mr.--the person from Pennsylvania, I am sorry--you 
know, there has been some talk maybe--well, first of all, the 
Good Samaritans, how many are out there? I mean is it a lot, or 
is it just a couple? I mean what would be the potential?
    And I think, Mr. Young, you made a good comment there, that 
for remining and resources there could be a lot. Can you give 
us some idea? I mean we have got thousands of these abandoned 
mines. What is the interest out there? Is it mining companies, 
mostly, or is it Trout Unlimited?
    Mr. Young. Well, I can tell you, just from doing a little 
bit of research in my State of Colorado, that we have about 30 
watershed groups that have been created and established for the 
sole purpose of looking at addressing the impacts to their 
watersheds, which is primarily coming from abandoned hardrock 
mines.
    So there are 30 folks right there. Then you add in the 
State itself, and you add in groups like Trout Unlimited, who 
has actually been doing great work in mines in Colorado, 
specifically. Then you add the mining companies, you add the 
tribes. I mean potentially you could have tribal folks, if they 
have the wherewithal and could subcontract, as well.
    So, I mean, the idea--if you see in my written testimony, 
my definition of a Good Samaritan is a very broad definition. 
Just anybody that wants to aid and make improvements, but 
didn't have any past connections, it could be quite a few.
    Mr. Gibbs. The point that I am trying to get clarified, 
that is it significant? Because I think there are some out 
there who say, ``Well, not really. We got to have all these 
other resources coming in,'' and sometimes, if you tax too 
much, you end up with less. So you know, I have a whole theory. 
If you want more of something, tax it less. You want less of 
something, tax it more. That might apply, if you get to a 
certain level. Just editorialize there a little bit.
    Anybody want to speak up about who should administer a Good 
Samaritan program? Should it be the U.S. EPA? Should it be the 
States or how should that be structured?
    Mr. Young. Well, I would say that what we looked at in the 
past would be thinking about having it be a delegated State 
program. You do have to have somebody that would be looking at 
the plans and proposals, and it could easily be the States.
    But you are right. Whatever program, whatever mechanism you 
choose to try to house this within, whether it is CERCLA, 
brownfields, Clean Water Act, you would have to have somebody 
that these Good Samaritans would go and get approval. So you 
would have to work through those. But it is up to what makes 
the most sense, and where you can get the most support.
    Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Cavazza, you had a comment?
    Mr. Cavazza. I will agree with what Mr. Young said. I mean 
we feel strongly that the States are in the best position to 
have primacy delegated to them to implement a Good Samaritan 
program for, you know, Federal Clean Water Act liability 
protection, and possibly CERCLA liability protection. We have a 
lot of experience with delegated programs like the mining 
program and already some delegation under the Clean Water Act. 
So we would know the Good Samaritans and partners involved, and 
also, I think, have a better handle on the problems, and what 
the potential solutions are.
    Mr. Gibbs. OK. Another question, I think probably for Mr. 
Russell and Mr. Young, potentially, because you are in that 
locale, I think. On the Gold King spill out there, we had a lot 
of discussion with the first panelist about questioning the 
expertise and their hiring of private contractors and an 
investigation.
    Does anybody want to comment on what your feelings are 
about what is going on? Is the investigation significant? I 
mean is it credible enough, the way they are going about it, or 
should they go about it like the Tennessee Valley Authority 
did? You know, what are your thoughts, being out there in the 
area? What are you seeing? Not to put you too much on the spot, 
but----
    Mr. Russell. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I really am not that 
knowledgeable about what EPA is doing on that investigation. It 
is a tragedy that it happened, and I think it could have been 
prevented by having the right expertise working on it at the 
beginning.
    Mr. Young. And I think you also heard that this particular 
mine, the drainage adit, was part of a larger complex of 
different mine tunnels. And the reason why I think we need a 
Good Samaritan program is because it also protects people who 
would go in and do investigations, thorough investigations.
    Right now, that--because of liability exposure potential, 
there is a discouragement to even go and really do thorough 
investigations of just how the Gold King Mine connects with 
Sunnyside or some other mines that are in that complex. And if 
you do ``solution X'' on one adit, it might have some 
implications in other structures underground. And I think this 
may be an example--I don't know too much about the 
investigation, so I can't answer your question specifically. 
However, I am trying to use the Gold King as an example of why 
we really need Good Samaritan program in Federal statute, so 
that we can incentivize more people to do thorough 
investigations to see how the underground hydrology works, and 
not have to worry about even investigating being then saddled--
--
    Mr. Gibbs. So what you just said to me, what--being a 
novice, and, you know, not an expert in mining, we got an 
interconnectivity issue in this mine, or this spill, and the 
Bureau of Reclamation doesn't have the experts. We know the EPA 
doesn't have the experts. We already, I think, came to that 
consensus at the first panel. And if they don't bring in the 
right people, we probably won't get the real determination of 
what the investigation--what really happened, or--to have 
another one.
    Mr. Young. Correct. I think if you can--if we can find a 
way to prevent or reduce the exposure of liability to folks who 
would go in and poke around just to see what is there----
    Mr. Gibbs. Got you.
    Mr. Young [continuing]. Then, you know, I think we could 
have more capability brought to the attention of these sites as 
a complex, and potentially avoid a Gold King.
    Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Wood, since you have got some experience out 
there with Good Samaritan work, how many have actually carried 
out and resulted in--you know, from this guidance that they put 
out in 2012, have we got some positive results? What is your 
experience?
    Mr. Wood. So there is actually two sets of guidance that 
EPA put out. One was as a result of a project that we did at a 
place called American Fork Canyon in Utah, where we were trying 
to protect a Bonneville cutthroat trout population from some 
historic mine waste that was leaching into the stream. And we 
negotiated an agreement with the EPA that became the basis for 
what they call the Good Samaritan policy, which we think 
provides an effective protection from CERCLA liability.
    So we were able to use that. To my knowledge, I think we 
are the only entity that has ever used the 2007 Good Samaritan 
policy. We have used it three or four times to--basically, we 
come up with a plan of operation, we have engineers that do 
this for us. They then get that approved by the EPA, and we are 
protected from liability, so long as we are not negligent.
    As far as the 2012 EPA guidance, that was targeted at the 
Clean Water Act. And frankly, we didn't feel that that 
provided--that provides us enough protection to get involved in 
issues of draining adits. So we will not be utilizing that.
    Mr. Gibbs. OK. Just one last quick question in regard to 
partial remediation and not going in and doing a complete 
cleanup--because under the CWA right now it is potentially a 
liability for Good Samaritans to have to go the whole route, 
and that is one of the hurdles.
    Is there anybody on the panel that doesn't support partial 
remediation?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Gibbs. We are all good on that, right? I would hope so. 
I just wanted to make sure, because of all the issues there.
    So, Mrs. Napolitano, you have any final questions?
    Mrs. Napolitano. Well, I would like to ask probably of Mr. 
Russell, what is the process of a mine, when it is closed, a 
hardrock mine when it is closed? What do they do to the mine?
    Mr. Russell. That would--it is, obviously, a site-specific 
response. But in general, at the end, at the latter stages of 
the mining process today, mines are designed to be closed. So 
at the latter stages of the active mining, activities are being 
taken to recontour and regrade the site. To address any 
residual chemicals, covering materials that could have 
potential----
    Mrs. Napolitano. How do they do that? How do they do that? 
They put water in it? Do they fill it with water?
    Mr. Russell. Well, if it is an open pit or an underground, 
some may fill with water at closure. Some are dry closures. It 
just depends on the geography of the--geology of the site.
    Mrs. Napolitano. OK. And if there is a watershed coming 
through, will that fill up that water--potential leak problems 
in the future?
    Mr. Russell. It is, again, site-specific. In many cases, 
no. In some cases, that is a concern. But that would have been 
identified in the initial baseline environmental study that 
would have done exactly what Mr. Young was saying on some of 
these abandoned sites that can't be done. But for an active or 
a new mining operation that is thoroughly investigated prior to 
the start of mining operations, so we know at the time of 
closure if that would be an issue that needed to be addressed, 
and we would try to address it as a part of the act of mining 
operation, not leave it to the final stages of closure.
    Mrs. Napolitano. But in the mines that have not been 
covered through the mining law, it was prior to, the old 
abandoned, what happens to them? I mean they are graded? Does 
somebody go back and reassess them and be able to say these are 
possibly--mines that are--possibly might be leaking 
contaminants into the nearby streams or the rivers or the 
aquifers?
    Mr. Russell. You are talking about abandoned lands at this 
point?
    Mrs. Napolitano. Correct.
    Mr. Russell. Yes. So abandoned mines that have been 
identified and resources brought to bear, such as Trout 
Unlimited and others through a Good Samaritan effort, or State 
programs like in Pennsylvania, they are being addressed by 
either removal actions, cover actions, et cetera, to address 
whatever that source of contaminant is to reduce or remove it.
    Mrs. Napolitano. But it depends on the size of the problem, 
too, so that the Good Samaritans would not be able to go in and 
clean up a major site. So what happens to those mines that are 
not going to be considered doable for a Good Sam to go in and 
work with?
    Mr. Russell. There may be limits to what a Good Sam would 
be interested and willing to do. But I think if the goal is 
improvement in the environment, or reduction in risk to human 
health or public safety, then there is a lot that can be done. 
A big bang for a small amount of dollars can be achieved by 
partial remediation at those sites.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Right. But there are still going to be 
some that are going to fall through the cracks, and how do we 
protect the communities and the environment and all the other 
things that are impacted with those that are not going to fall 
into that let's look at them and find out where they are at, or 
they are on the list, or their potential--what about those 
mines?
    Mr. Russell. Well, those sites, again, by making some 
measured gains that we have seen through collaborative efforts 
and through the State programs that Mr. Cavazza has talked 
about, we are addressing those. But there--and not all the 
sites. I mean you talk about--you heard half-a-million sites. 
There is just a subset of those that pose any environmental 
issue whatsoever. Some are a small pit, some might be a shaft.
    But there are--in that universe it is only a subset of 
sites that actually are posing environmental issues. Not to 
undermine that--those impacts on those sites, but it is not all 
of those sites.
    Mrs. Napolitano. And to Mr. Wood, Ms. Pagel, is there some 
aspect of this that we need to start maybe recognizing that 
there is an impact, going to be a future impact on those that 
are not being addressed, that are falling through the cracks, 
if you will?
    Ms. Pagel. Yes. While Good Samaritans can take on some of 
these sites, and hopefully will, the--you know, the issue of--
you know, that the chairman brought up of taxing too much and 
et cetera, you know, the hardrock mining industry in this 
country has been able to take minerals from public lands 
without paying a royalty--so for free--since 1872. They have 
not paid a reclamation fee. They have significant tax breaks. 
And it is the--in order to get those sites cleaned up that are 
not going to be cleaned up by a Good Samaritan, we need 
resources from a reclamation fee to do that. And it is long 
overdue to have that type of reclamation fund.
    Mr. Wood. I will simply add that, you know, I hope we can 
get to a point that we are concerned about the mines that are 
falling through the cracks. Because right now, the situation we 
have is that EPA is worrying about 127 or so Superfund sites, 
the worst of the worst. And then everybody else is running 
around, trying to cobble together nickels and dimes, and 
partnering with great fear of exposure and risk of liability to 
get what we can done.
    But the game is not about what is falling through the 
cracks, because the cracks are defining the game right now.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Well, what would you suggest is an 
adequate and a fair way of dealing with it? Anybody.
    Mr. Wood. Well, I mean, I think--you know, as I think you 
have--this may be a rare hearing, where you have unanimity on 
the panel, but I think we need to have Good Sam protection, 
particularly relative to the Clean Water Act. And I think we 
need to have a dedicated funding source. Now, whether that 
comes from a tax or something else, you know, there are many 
paths to the top of the mountain. But once you get there, the 
view is the same.
    The fact is we have to find a dedicated funding source, 
wherever it comes from, because the magnitude of the problem is 
too great to not.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
    Mr. Young. I would submit that it is conceivable, if we had 
a Good Samaritan program, that we wouldn't have any fall 
through the cracks. I think there is enough--I just gave you 
the number that we have, 30 watershed groups in Colorado. They 
would be more than willing to take the initiative to find the 
resources and the technologies to do the cleanup on anything 
that is affecting their watershed.
    And you know, clearly, because you asked, there are 
techniques you can employ. They don't have to all be active, 
meaning you don't have to create a wastewater treatment 
facility that is expensive and that has to be operated 
continuously. You can do passive systems, or you could even put 
bulkheads in these draining adits to actually prevent any 
future releases at all.
    So, there is a range of technologies and techniques that 
each have their own expenses associated and effectiveness. And 
so I think--I mean I am just trying to suggest that I think if 
we can get a Good Samaritan program going, and in place, that 
the resources will come, and we may be able to capture all of 
it, potentially. I mean that is the hope.
    Mrs. Napolitano. And that also would bring to mind--in my 
mind--the issue of recycling that water, reclaiming that water, 
cleaning that water for potential use.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Gibbs. Just a quick question comes to mind. We talk 
about the funding source, and I know Ms. Pagel says and Mr. 
Wood says how necessary it is. I am assuming States do have 
some fees attached to that hardrock mining. Anybody want to----
    Mr. Young. Yes, some States do. I know Nevada has a State 
fee.
    Mr. Gibbs. OK. It is on hardrock mining----
    Mr. Young. It is on hardrock.
    Mr. Gibbs [continuing]. In Pennsylvania, I guess, but you 
have probably got some fees----
    Mr. Cavazza. We do have some small fees that noncoal 
operators pay, but it is a very small fee, and it generates a 
very small pot of money to deal with noncoal reclamation. But 
the only fee Pennsylvania has for coal reclamation and 
treatment of mine drainage from those abandoned mines is the 
Federal abandoned mine land grants----
    Mr. Gibbs. OK.
    Mr. Cavazza [continuing]. That we receive, just like Ohio. 
And as you know probably, the authorization to collect that fee 
runs out in 2021. And just like funding needs for hardrock, I 
think that fee needs to be extended, because there is a lot of 
work left to do, and that--it has certainly gone a long way to 
help solve the problem.
    Mr. Gibbs. OK. Well, I want to thank all the panelists for 
coming in today. It has been helpful as we work forward. I 
think there is definitely a need, a consensus that we need to 
do something to help the Good Samaritan policy, and to make it 
work, because currently it isn't working very well.
    So thank you very much, and this adjourns the hearing.
    [Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]