Waterbaby
Escalante-Class Member
http://dailysignal.com/2017/07/26/debunking-epas-fake-accounts-gold-king-mine-disaster/
Debunking the EPA’s Fake Accounts of the Gold King Mine Disaster
Commentary By
Rob Gordon
Rob Gordon is a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation and has researched, testified, and written on endangered species, property rights, the federal estate, and other environmental issues. He previously served as staff director for the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Natural Resources.
After almost two years, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Inspector General released its report on the Gold King Mine disaster that dumped over a million pounds of metals into the Animas River, turning dozens of miles of the river orange.
While inspectors general are tasked with finding out the truth and holding agencies accountable, this recently released report sheds no more light on the disaster than previous misleading reports.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has inherited not only an environmental mess, but also the mess created by an agency more interested in its narrow self-interests than truth. Pruitt now has an opportunity to send a message that would ripple far beyond the EPA.
The EPA Inspector General Report
The inspector general’s report lauds the expertise of the EPA officials (known as on-scene coordinators) and their crew, and essentially repeats the EPA’s earlier claims.
There were two on-scene coordinators for the Gold King Mine project: a main on-scene coordinator, and one who was on site at the time of the disaster while the main one vacationed.
The inspector general explains: “We were told by the on-scene coordinator and contractors on-site that they had no intention of opening the mine that day; rather, they were exposing the blockage and the bedrock to better assess conditions and determine next steps.”
The inspector general states that the on-scene coordinator who was on site “ … reported inadvertently excavating down to within a foot or two of the top of the [tunnel opening], which initiated an internal erosion failure that caused the release.”
There you have it: Experts “inadvertently … initiated an internal erosion failure.” It could have happened to anyone.
>>> Read Rob Gordon’s previous article, “Exposing the EPA’s Gold King Mine Cover-Up”
The line that the EPA crew never intended to breach the natural plug (blockage) is flatly contradicted by a recently released Interior Department email that includes an account that appears to have come from the main on-scene coordinator.
An attachment to the email states the “material catastrophically gave-way” when the EPA crew was “attempting to relieve hydrologic pressure” by “removing small portions of the natural plug.”
Important facts supporting this Interior Department account are omitted from the inspector general report. What the inspector general kept in is less important than what the he left out.
Here are few examples.
Inspector General Omits EPA’s Critical, Wrong, and Indefensible Assumption
First, the inspector general addresses several factors that reportedly contributed to the EPA’s assumption that the mine was partially full of water and not pressurized.
The inspector general argues these factors explain the EPA’s thinking “in part.” The phrase “in part” is most revealing as the inspector general omits reference to a critical and false assumption made the year before the disaster.
The EPA had wrongly assumed that the floor of the mine was 6 feet lower than the ground outside. Consequently, the EPA had assumed that water would have to be more than 6 feet deep in the mine before it could flow out.
The assumption that the tunnels’ floor was recessed 6 feet was contradicted by available information and by the fact that the very purpose of the tunnel—more appropriately called an “adit”—was to drain the mine.
This fact is critical as regards the EPA’s decision to forego hydrostatic pressure testing before digging into the plug.
Inspector General Omits That the EPA Crew Reburied the Natural Plug
Second, the inspector general omits any reference to the fact that after unearthing the natural plug in the mine tunnel’s opening, the EPA crew reburied it.
This is inconsistent with the EPA’s story that the crew exposed the plug so that experts could later determine next steps. It could make sense, though, if one actually planned to dig a hole into the plug and stand back to see what happens.
The inspector general report states:
The team conducted excavation activities by scraping away unconsolidated material, hauling away collapsed material, and examining newly exposed areas for conditions that would indicate they had reached material that the … [on-scene coordinator] … on-site considered to be the blockage … the team stopped excavation in front of the blockage… after they reached material that was compacted, well consolidated, and considered by the [on-scene coordinator] on-site to be the blockage.
In another account, the on-scene coordinator who was on site discussed what they did after removing all the rubble in front of the mine opening. Having reached the plug, he stated that:
The truth is we decided to avoid any contact with the blockage whatsoever and simply remove the loose dirt above the blockage for two reasons. First, to prevent it from falling down and covering what we had exposed and second, to reveal the bedrock above the blockage in order to better plan the next steps. [emphasis added]
He also stated: “ … we built a ramp of rock and soil up in front of and away from the blockage in order to work well above it to remove the dirt.” [emphasis added]
Evidence flatly contradicts these statements.
The inspector general report includes a photograph of the plug of compacted debris and rubble exposed on Aug. 4, 2015. A photo from Aug. 5 shows the mine site before the blowout. The plug can’t be seen in the latter photo.
Despite the on-site on-scene coordinator’s statements that they did not want dirt “falling down and covering” and that they built their ramp “away from” the plug, the plug can’t be seen because it was reburied.
By the time the EPA crew unearthed the plug, they likely realized the assumption about the recessed mine floor was wrong and, consequently, that their assumption that the mine was not full of pressurized water was baseless.
Perhaps they reburied the plug to reinforce it prior to digging into its top, but whatever the reason, the plug from the prior image was buried.
part 2 next page
Debunking the EPA’s Fake Accounts of the Gold King Mine Disaster
Commentary By
Rob Gordon
Rob Gordon is a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation and has researched, testified, and written on endangered species, property rights, the federal estate, and other environmental issues. He previously served as staff director for the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Natural Resources.
After almost two years, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Inspector General released its report on the Gold King Mine disaster that dumped over a million pounds of metals into the Animas River, turning dozens of miles of the river orange.
While inspectors general are tasked with finding out the truth and holding agencies accountable, this recently released report sheds no more light on the disaster than previous misleading reports.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has inherited not only an environmental mess, but also the mess created by an agency more interested in its narrow self-interests than truth. Pruitt now has an opportunity to send a message that would ripple far beyond the EPA.
The EPA Inspector General Report
The inspector general’s report lauds the expertise of the EPA officials (known as on-scene coordinators) and their crew, and essentially repeats the EPA’s earlier claims.
There were two on-scene coordinators for the Gold King Mine project: a main on-scene coordinator, and one who was on site at the time of the disaster while the main one vacationed.
The inspector general explains: “We were told by the on-scene coordinator and contractors on-site that they had no intention of opening the mine that day; rather, they were exposing the blockage and the bedrock to better assess conditions and determine next steps.”
The inspector general states that the on-scene coordinator who was on site “ … reported inadvertently excavating down to within a foot or two of the top of the [tunnel opening], which initiated an internal erosion failure that caused the release.”
There you have it: Experts “inadvertently … initiated an internal erosion failure.” It could have happened to anyone.
>>> Read Rob Gordon’s previous article, “Exposing the EPA’s Gold King Mine Cover-Up”
The line that the EPA crew never intended to breach the natural plug (blockage) is flatly contradicted by a recently released Interior Department email that includes an account that appears to have come from the main on-scene coordinator.
An attachment to the email states the “material catastrophically gave-way” when the EPA crew was “attempting to relieve hydrologic pressure” by “removing small portions of the natural plug.”
Important facts supporting this Interior Department account are omitted from the inspector general report. What the inspector general kept in is less important than what the he left out.
Here are few examples.
Inspector General Omits EPA’s Critical, Wrong, and Indefensible Assumption
First, the inspector general addresses several factors that reportedly contributed to the EPA’s assumption that the mine was partially full of water and not pressurized.
The inspector general argues these factors explain the EPA’s thinking “in part.” The phrase “in part” is most revealing as the inspector general omits reference to a critical and false assumption made the year before the disaster.
The EPA had wrongly assumed that the floor of the mine was 6 feet lower than the ground outside. Consequently, the EPA had assumed that water would have to be more than 6 feet deep in the mine before it could flow out.
The assumption that the tunnels’ floor was recessed 6 feet was contradicted by available information and by the fact that the very purpose of the tunnel—more appropriately called an “adit”—was to drain the mine.
This fact is critical as regards the EPA’s decision to forego hydrostatic pressure testing before digging into the plug.
Inspector General Omits That the EPA Crew Reburied the Natural Plug
Second, the inspector general omits any reference to the fact that after unearthing the natural plug in the mine tunnel’s opening, the EPA crew reburied it.
This is inconsistent with the EPA’s story that the crew exposed the plug so that experts could later determine next steps. It could make sense, though, if one actually planned to dig a hole into the plug and stand back to see what happens.
The inspector general report states:
The team conducted excavation activities by scraping away unconsolidated material, hauling away collapsed material, and examining newly exposed areas for conditions that would indicate they had reached material that the … [on-scene coordinator] … on-site considered to be the blockage … the team stopped excavation in front of the blockage… after they reached material that was compacted, well consolidated, and considered by the [on-scene coordinator] on-site to be the blockage.
In another account, the on-scene coordinator who was on site discussed what they did after removing all the rubble in front of the mine opening. Having reached the plug, he stated that:
The truth is we decided to avoid any contact with the blockage whatsoever and simply remove the loose dirt above the blockage for two reasons. First, to prevent it from falling down and covering what we had exposed and second, to reveal the bedrock above the blockage in order to better plan the next steps. [emphasis added]
He also stated: “ … we built a ramp of rock and soil up in front of and away from the blockage in order to work well above it to remove the dirt.” [emphasis added]
Evidence flatly contradicts these statements.
The inspector general report includes a photograph of the plug of compacted debris and rubble exposed on Aug. 4, 2015. A photo from Aug. 5 shows the mine site before the blowout. The plug can’t be seen in the latter photo.
Despite the on-site on-scene coordinator’s statements that they did not want dirt “falling down and covering” and that they built their ramp “away from” the plug, the plug can’t be seen because it was reburied.
By the time the EPA crew unearthed the plug, they likely realized the assumption about the recessed mine floor was wrong and, consequently, that their assumption that the mine was not full of pressurized water was baseless.
Perhaps they reburied the plug to reinforce it prior to digging into its top, but whatever the reason, the plug from the prior image was buried.
part 2 next page
