Select Page

The EPA and the Gold King Mine Investigation

investigation

Earlier in December, the EPA published a document referencing the Gold King Mine disaster, saying that they intended to “clarify any misunderstandings about the incident.” The EPA had “recently interviewed two material witnesses to the EPA’s activities at Gold King Mine” and subsequently published its own narrative of the event.

The problem arises because the Office of Inspector General is conducting an ongoing investigation into how the EPA handled the toxic spill in Colorado, at the hand of federal workers. Some of the concerns raised by lawmakers include:

  • “The timing of the interview calls into question the EPA’s respect for the OIG’s ongoing investigation and commitment to ensuring the integrity of witness testimony.”
  • “The EPA’s own guidance states that ‘managers should not question staff about their interactions with the OIG.’”
  • “It appears likely that a regional supervisor and two officials from headquarters questioned [the on-scene coordinators] about matters central to an ongoing OIG investigation, and may have done so following their interactions with the OIG.”
  • “The interview was conducted not by independent investigators or technical experts from unaffected regions, but by three EPA employees with close ties to the agency’s public response to the Gold King Mine spill.”

What’s more, lawmakers claim that the EPA is suggesting they had planned to open the mine on August 14 — nine days after the mine spill actually occurred, and that their claim is demonstrably false and is one of multiple claims that diverge from the facts and conclusions presented in reports issued previously by EPA and the Interior Department.

The EPA caused a serious and utterly avoidable toxic spill into our rivers. The federal workers involved in this environmental disaster deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest — or at least the very same punishments the EPA seeks to impose on everyday citizens in America. And if, for any reason, EPA personnel are to be given special treatment as compared to private industry, that decision…..and the reasons for it….must be justified to the American people.

You can read more on the investigation from The Daily Caller

The EPA Used “Covert Propaganda” To Push Clean Water Rule


clean-water1
The Government Accounting Office (GAO) concluded that the EPA violated federal law and participated in “covert propaganda” through social media in order to encourage passage of Obama’s new and controversial “Clean Water Rule.”

From the report:
“The use of appropriated funds associated with implementing EPA’s Thunderclap campaign and establishing hyperlinks to the NRDC and to the Surfrider Foundation webpages violated prohibitions against publicity or propaganda and grassroots lobbying contained in appropriations acts for FYs 2014 and 2015. Because EPA obligated and expended appropriated funds in violation of specific prohibitions, we also conclude that EPA violated the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(A), as the agency’s appropriations were not available for these prohibited purposes.”

This is not the first time this year that the EPA has not followed law. Don’t forget, in July, the EPA “was accused of colluding with left wing environmental groups to push its new carbon regulations.” A month later, “the EPA was responsible for a toxic spill at an abandoned mine that polluted rivers in three states.” And in October, “a federal appeals court said the EPA broke the law when it illegally approved a pesticide.”

Let’s hope that the Clean Water Rule does not come to fruition.

EPA Knew About Potential Pollution Problem

In a Friday night document dump, internal EPA documents showed that in both 2014 and 2015, the EPA described how existing conditions at the mine set created the possibility of a blowout of contaminated waters. So EPA managers was certainly aware that the river could received massive amounts of mine sediment and wastewater laden with metals.

The EPA has been less-than-forthcoming with its responses and explanations of this catastrophe. The AP and other media outlets have been pressuring the EPA to release internal documents related to the Colorado mine; so far, the information put forth from the agency has been relatively scant.

From the AP:

–The internal documents that were released were amply redacted

–The EPA documents “do not include any account of what happened immediately before or after the spill.”

–”Among the items blacked out is the line in a 2013 safety plan for the Gold King job that specifies whether workers were required to have phones that could work at the remote site, which is more than 11,000 feet up a mountain.”

–“Among the unanswered questions is why it took the agency nearly a day to inform local officials in downstream communities that rely on the rivers for drinking water.”

–The EPA confirmed “its employees were present at the mine when the spill occurred. The company declined to provide more detail, saying that to do so would violate ‘contractual confidentiality obligations’.”

–“The EPA has not yet provided a copy of its contact with the firm. On the March 2015 cost estimate for the work released Friday, the agency blacked out all the dollar figures.”

–“EPA did not immediately respond Friday night to questions from the AP.”

In fact, the EPA has received a high volume of criticism for its lack of responsiveness and cooperation to any questions about the incident, but has been quick to assuage citizens that they are “very sorry.” Furthermore, the EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy spoke soothingly at a conference a week ago and described that waters are returning to “pre-incident conditions” — explaining “the very good news is that we see that this river is restoring itself.”

Which begs the question: if nature can restore itself after a man-made disaster, compounded by man-made government bureaucratic incompetence, why do we need the EPA at all?

The EPA Atrocity

Those responsible for the toxic EPA spill into the Animus River should be prosecuted to the fullest extent for their actions. Just as the EPA has gone after individuals and private companies for violating various EPA statutes, the EPA workers who released 3 million gallons should face the same fate.

Take the case of Lawrence Lewis, who, in 2007, was accused of violating the Clean Water Act, unknowingly, while executing accepted policy of relieving overflowing drain pipes into the street drainage system. Assisted by his long-time maintenance staff, Lewis “diverted a backed-up sewage system into an outside storm drain—one they long believed was connected to the city’s sewage-treatment system—to prevent flooding in an area where the sickest residents lived. In fact, the storm drain emptied into a creek that ultimately reaches the Potomac River.”

For this crime, Lewis was prosecuted; he pleaded guilty only in order to avoid jail time away from his family. Lewis was sentenced to one year’s probation and placed under court-ordered supervision, which included unannounced visits to his home and new place of employment.

The Wall Street Journal covered this atrocity:

In an interview [his lawyer said], “There was no fight to have. It was a strict liability case,” meaning the government didn’t have to prove Mr. Lewis knew he was doing anything wrong. “His good intentions did not matter.” The lawyer told Mr. Lewis that, to be found guilty, prosecutors needed only to prove that he was aware that sewage was being pumped into the storm drain that led to the creek.

In court documents, the government argued that Mr. Lewis didn’t ensure the storm drain fed into a waste-treatment facility rather than the creek. About 30% of the city’s storm drains flow to a treatment plant, according to the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority. Plus, the government argued, Mr. Lewis was responsible for several prior discharges during his time at Knollwood.

Certainly, dumping 3 million gallons of materials into a river is far more serious than diverting a storm drain into a creek accidentally. If Mr. Lewis can endure a harsh sentence for his accidental crime, the EPA should most certainly follow through with their employees who are “very sorry”, for their massive pollution and make sure they receive the same swift justice that Mr. Lewis received.

SCOTUS EPA Ruling is a Breath of Fresh Air

The SCOTUS ruling against the EPA was a breath of fresh air (see what I did there?). Before adjourning until October, the Supreme Court decided that recent EPA rules did not consider cost compliance. The Washington Examiner had a good overview of the ruling. This decision will likely affect other recent EPA rules.

“The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against Environmental Protection Agency pollution rules for power plants Monday, in a blow to President Obama’s environmental agenda.

The majority decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the EPA has to consider the costs of complying with the rules and sent the air pollution regulations back to the agency.

The EPA rules in question regulate hazardous air pollutants and mercury from coal- and oil-fired power plants, known as the MATS regulations. The regulations went into effect April 16. The utility industry had argued that the rules cost them billions of dollars to comply and that EPA ignored the cost issue in putting the regulations into effect.

“EPA must consider cost — including cost of compliance — before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary. It will be up to the agency to decide (as always, within the limits of reasonable interpretation) how to account for cost,” Scalia wrote in agreeing with the industry.

The decision will have repercussions for other EPA regulations that are key to Obama’s climate change agenda. The EPA will now have to examine the cost of compliance for the Clean Power Plan, which is at the heart of the president’s environmental agenda.

Many of the companies have either made the investments or closed power plants to comply. If the investments necessary to upgrade a plant to comply with the regulation aren’t justified when considering the operational costs, revenues earned and other factors, then the decision is made to retire it.

The D.C. Circuit Court Appeals favored the EPA in a previous lawsuit filed by the industry, attempting to overturn the rules, which is why they took it to the Supreme Court to decide the cost issue.

The D.C. Circuit was split in its decision, but the majority ruling prevailed. At the center of the case is the question of whether the regulation of hazardous air pollutants from electric utilities are “appropriate and necessary.” On that issue the court was split, but a two-judge majority agreed that the EPA could ignore costs in determining whether to regulate the utility sector.

The D.C. Circuit majority also agreed the EPA could focus solely on the utilities’ contribution to the pollutants of concern, rather than identifying any specific health hazards attributable only to utility emissions.

The EPA had argued that the rules are both appropriate and necessary regardless of the costs, and that it has the discretion under the law to act as it deems fit in regulating hazardous pollutants.”