DERR-2024-007693

1-1

1-2
E-mail No. 03-1

From: [Chris Nelson]
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, Sep 9, 2003 8:50 AM
Subject: Kennecott water clean up.

Utah Department of Environmental Quality,

I understand that Kennecott has submitted a proposal to clean up the water
is contaminated by treating the least contaminated portion and dumping the
rest into the Jordan river to be carried to settling ponds on the Great Salt
Lake. This plan would dump toxic pollutants like lead, arsenic, zinc,
cadmium and selenium in to the river and end up in the settling ponds. This
puts these poisons dangerously close the the Great Salt Lake and to
communities near the lake. Settling ponds are not meant to be permanent
storage sites for toxins like these. When those ponds dry out, those poisons
will be blown by the wind on to homes, schools, and the lake causing many
serious problems. This proposal by Kennecott is not a clean up proposal, it
is a proposal that passes the buck on to the next generation. Postponing a
real clean up of these polluted waters will only cause many more serous
problems that we will be more difficult to clean up and Utah tax payers will
eventually be stuck with the bill.
Please allow more time for public meetings and public review of the
proposal by Kennecott so that the public voice can be heard and so
hopefully a better proposal can be agreed upon.

Sincerely,

Chris Nelson
____________________________________________________________
Send and receive larger attachments with Hotmail Extra Storage.
http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es

Response to E-mail No. 03-1

1-1: See the Response to Common Comment No. 5, No. 7, and No. 8.

1-2: See the Response to Common Comment No. 1.

2-1
E-mail No. 03-2

From: [kathy van dame]
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, Sep 18, 2003 6:51 PM
Subject: KUC & JVWCD ground water treatment proposal

Utah Department of Environmental Quality
NRD Trustee
PO Box 144810
SLC Utah 84114

Dear Dr. Nielson,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. The
consequences of the decision made now will have consequences for the
inhabitants of the Salt Lake Valley for generations. It is particularly
important to ensure in as far as possible that in remedying one problem, we
don't create or exacerbate another problem.

My comments relate to two areas: air quality and discharge of selenium into
the Jordan River. My comments are limited as I have been unable to spend
as much time with the documents as I would like, or query DAQ, and I will
be out of town for a significant part of the comment period.

AIR QUALITY

Under this proposal, acid plume water extracted from Zone A will be
treated by addition to the tailings pipeline, and neutralization will occur in
the pipe to the end point that metals and sulfates will precipitate as solids
and the water will have a pH of 6.7 or greater. Zone A sulfate plume will
be treated in a reverse osmosis plant and the by-product water delivered to
the tailings pipe.

The Magna Tailings impoundment has been a source of significant dust
emissions during high wind events. The characteristics of the tailings

Response to E-mail No. 03-02

2-1: See the Response to Common Comment No. 5 and No. 7.

2-1
2-2
E-mail No. 03-02 (cont.)

deposited in the impoundment have effects on the environment around the
tailings impoundment. The file does not seem to contain a clear comparison
of tailings discharged to the impoundment with and without the acid plume
and reverse osmosis by-product waters. There was no evidence in the file
of activity by the DAQ project manager for this project assessing the
impacts on local air quality from the change (or lack thereof) in tailings
composition due to this project.

DISCHARGE TO THE JORDAN RIVER

Future generations will wonder what we were thinking when we allowed
additional selenium to be discharged to the wetlands in Farmington Bay.

The Jordan River currently delivers large amounts of selenium to the GSL
wetlands, arguably mostly as a result of human caused geologic
disturbances. Selenium is widely known to bioaccumulate in wildlife with
bizarre birth defects in waterfowl and other severe effects. Efforts to reduce
selenium discharge to the GSL wetlands will be much cheaper and effective
than cleanup later. The proposal to discharge selenium laden water to the
Jordan moves a problem that is currently Kennecott's responsibility into the
laps of future taxpayers.

Thank you again for this comment period, and for your attention to this
matter. Thank you for your service to Utah.

Peace,
Kathy Van Dame
1148 East 6600 South #7
Salt Lake City, Utah 84121
[phone]

Response to E-mail No. 03-02 (cont.)

2-2: See the Response to Common Comment No. 8.

3-1
E-mail No. 03-3

From: [Glenn Rowe]
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, Sep 23, 2003 10:10 AM
Subject: Private Wells

Unless I am not understanding the legal terminology none of your online
information or recent news articles discuss the impact on private property
owner's wells. Back in 1993 and earlier at some of the public meetings, for
which we were notified by direct mailings, there was discussion of the
possible need to cap private wells for many years until the plume is cleaned.
We are in South Jordan in Zone B and do not use our well for culinary
purposes. Is this idea still alive? Are private well owners being notified?
Is there any recourse or compensation if this is the case?

Glenn N. Rowe
2427 Temple View Lane
South Jordan UT
84095
254-0274

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for
the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed.

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

Response to E-mail No. 03-3

3-1: See the Response to Common Comment No. 10.

4-1
Email No. E03-04

From: [FRANK ABEL]
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, Oct 11, 2003 4:52 AM
Subject: URGENT SUPPLY

FRANK ABEL
Plot 102 Rue 12 Kumassi 32
Abidjan Cote d'ivoire
Attn - Managing Director
Dear Sir,
I am writting this letter out of a genuine desperation to find a reliable
partner in the unfolding transaction.I have been unjustly treated by my
partner in a transaction so,
I seek your help, attention and genuine co-operation to our mutual benefit
and 1 believe that you will not let down the trust and confidence 1 am about
to repose on you.
MY NAME IS MR FRANK ABEL, I am 28 years old and for the past ten
years,I have been working in a puublic Relations firm that pays me about
two hundred dollars each month. On the 30th of june,our company made a
very big financial breakthrough when we made contact with Alhaji Duadu
Dasuki (xi)and began to supply him his cow medicines. Alhaji Duadu
Dansuki(xi) is THE PRESIDENT OF DASUKI AGRO ALLIED
FARMS)is a millionaire farmer with CATTLE FARMS in MALI,
SENEGAL,
GUINEA, BURKINA FASO, CHAD REP, and a new one located at
ZIMBABWE. Moreover, he is the greatest supplier of cattle beef and other
dairy products to the whole of West Africa.HE had informed us about the
huge amount of money he spends on the purchase of a particular but very
important cattle medicine. Precisely, he buys US$ 5,000 per carton. He
asked if our organisation can source for a cheaper supplier. We did market
research and discovered that we can buy these medicine in Europe for
US$2,000 per carton. We moved a proposal to DASUKI AGRO ALLIED
FARMS, to supply him at US$4,800 per carton which they accepted. As
these supplies progressed and our company is doing fine,I requested to my
boss for an increase in our salary.he was so upset that he sacked me without
benefits and ten years of dedicated workmanship.I was so desperate that I
Response to E-mail No. 03-4

4-1: The NRD Trust Fund is precluded from being used in the endeavor
suggested by Mr. Abel, by the Consent Decree.

4-1
E-mail No. 03-4 (cont.)

went to the Dasuki farms and infomed Alhaji Duadu Dansuki(XI),that I
have a foriegn contact that will be willing to supply him this sme products
at US$4,400. Per carton. ALhaji Daudu Dansuki in turn confided to me that
he is about to place order for one thousand cartons following a suspected
outbreak of disease in his farms.I asured Alhaji Duadu
Dansuki that my foriegn contact will be in the position to manufacture and
supply to him,infact I convinced him that my former boss usually buy from
my foriegn contact and that is why he sales to him at a higher
price.HOWEVER,I INFORMED ALHAJI DAUDU THAT HE WILL
HAVE TO PAY CASH IN ADVANCE BEFORE MY FORIEGN
CONTACT WILL SUPPLY TO HIM. For the moment he has stopped all
contact with my boss.Please consider on how to handle this profitable
project and kindly contact me immediately on my mail box
[e-mail] , for details and negotiations as regards my
commission.However,I will insist that my commission will be 20% of the
total profit. Note : We will buy one thousand carton at US$2,000,000. We
sell to them at US$4,400,000 Dollars, our client pays cash before lifting of
the goods. (They must not know our purchase point in Europe).
Thanks and God bless you.
Mr.FRANK ABEL
00225 07983068

Response to E-mail No. 03-4 (cont.)

5-1
E-mail No. 03-5

From: [Jay Gatten]
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, Oct 13, 2003 10:46 AM
Subject: Southwest Jordan Valley Ground Water Cleanup Project

I attended the Public Hearing that was held in West Jordan on September
10th , I am a Registered Geologist in Utah and I have reviewed much of the
data relating to the project. I strongly support the project and urge you to
move forward.

Much time and money has already been spent on this project. There will
always be a few dissenters but this ground water cleanup benfits the
majority of the residents in the area. The extra time and epenses to drag out
the process are not justified.

And what is the alternative? Just wait until the "plume" of high-sulfate
water contaminates the existing ground water supply? Let's move on now!
Sincerely, O. Jay Gatten

Response to E-mail No. 03-5

5-1: See the Response to Common Comment No. 3.

6-1
6-1
Email No. 03-6

From: [Terry Lee Thomas]
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, Oct 16, 2003 7:38 AM
Subject: Big Business-RTZ and Kennecott

To: Dianne Nielson
From: Terry Lee Thomas
Re: Corporate............??? Arrogance!!!

Dear Ms Nielson,

I was in attendance at the public hearing that you conducted at the West
Jordan City Hall, and must tell you that I was impressed with the way in
which you handled this affair. Your communication style and techniques
were impressive. Thank you for granting the time extension for public
comment. I am also aware and very disappointed at the power and control
that the Republican Party and companies like RTZ and Kennecott have here
in the State of Utah. Why do you suppose it was, at the hearing, that after
Paula presented Kennecotts cleanup plans and tried to paint a picture of
Kennecott as being some sort of heroic organization, that the greatest
portion of public comments were of mistrust?? It is my belief that you
know the answers to these very complex and volatile questions. My mind
also asks, "if she is very close to Governor Leavitt what are our real chances
of protecting the little people in this matter?"

I did notice that following the meeting that you approached Diane
Hemingway of the United Steelworkers of America, and explained to her
why certain things have happened the way they have in this long and drawn
out affair. I say this so that I can tell you that, while I am no expert in
environmental affairs, I did and do sense, that several troubling issues
remain unresolved, or heavily weighted to the well being of corporate RTZ
and Kennecott. In spite of this, there are very intelligent people, who do
understand the issues that are watching what is going on here. Is it not true
that it was a court ruling, resulting in a consent decree, that really forced
these cleanup efforts? Not some nice Kennecott exec sitting at a staff
Response to E-mail No. 03-6

6-1: See the Response to Common Comment No. 12.

6-2
Email No. 03-6 (cont.)

meeting saying, "Hey guys, lets clean up the water and other environmental
systems that we've ruined!!?"

It disturbs me, when I read that Kennecotts committment to this effort is 5
years when the proposed cleanup is much longer, what?, 40 to 45 years??
Are my tax dollars going to go, once more, to helping Kennecott and RTZ's
bottom line?? The property tax scam that this company has pulled off here
in Utah is shameful. Why should rebates from this project be given to
them, they created the problem while they profited and now want to pass
the cost of cleanup on to us, the citizens. It cost the organizations that took
them on in court $2 million or so, right? Have those court costs been
repaid? Will private well owners and other municipalities, be literally
"sucked dry" in this process and Kennecott escapes once more?? I think
that the interest bearing account earmarked for ground water cleanup should
remain intact until the job is done. I think that the legitmate concerns that
have been expressed by many people and organizations should be bargained
to acceptable solutions.

There are so many questions to be decided here. If there are ways in which
you can mitigate the real concerns of the common citizen I strongly, urge
you, to do so. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Terry Lee Thomas

CC: [kcbc]

Response to E-mail No. 03-6 (cont.)

6-2: See the Response to Common Comment No. 12.

As part of the original settlement between the District, Kennecott, and the
State Trustee, each party bore its own costs and attorneys’ fees. The 3-
Party Agreement includes a provision that the State Trustee will retain
$815,000 of the State Trust Fund for assessment costs and oversight and
management of the projects. This funding is from monies paid to the State
Trustee by Kennecott, not from taxpayer funds.

6-1
7-1
7-2
E-mail No. 03-7

From: [mikeandcindy]
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, Oct 21, 2003 8:41 PM
Subject: Kennecott's remediation project for contaminated
groundwater

Trustee: October 17, 2003

I write to you today to express my concerns regarding the cleanup and use
of contaminated groundwater by Kennecott Copper Corp. (RTZ).

I was present at the initial presentation of the plan in West Jordan in
September, where their (Kennecott's) presentation was made. There were
many concerns by local citizens which Kennecott had no answers for. Diane
Heminway, and Rodney Dansie's testimony were particularly telling. Also I
have been employed by Kennecott for the past 27 years myself and have
witnessed numerous environmental abuses which were covered up and
never reported.

Of particular concern to me, Kennecott is responsible for the contaminated
groundwater, some of which was willfully contaminated by the dumping of
sulfuric acid and other materials directly onto the soil. As was brought up in
testimony RTZ the parent company needs to be tied to this to insure that if
Kennecott were to go bankrupt the cleanup will proceed. To reward
Kennecott for willfully causing this catastrophe is ridiculous. Not a penny
should be returned to Kennecott ever.

Great Salt Lake:

If I understand the proposed plan correctly concentrates from both Zones A
and B could be directly disposed of to the Great Salt Lake after mine
closure or if the proper permits can not be obtained. These concentrates will
be composed of toxic metals such as arsenic, cadmium, lead and selenium
which are known carcinogens and are toxic to humans and wildlife. What
could be the effect to this ecosystem?

Response to E-mail No. 03-7

7-1: See the Response to Common Comment No. 12.

7-2: See the Response to Common Comment No. 9.

7-3
7-4
7-5
7-2
E-mail No. 03-7 (cont.)

Jordan River:

I worry about the dumping of trace materials into the Jordan River and to
the effect on the wildlife. I wonder if this is being allowed because it saves
money, lowering the cost of disposal.

Liquid Mining:

This is an option I recently heard about and should considered as it would
help to cleanup the soil and water as well as recycle these materials for
future use.

Residential Wells:

It was expected the aquifer could be pumped down 40 feet or possibly
more. This much change to the water table will likely cause many wells to
go dry or become contaminated. There must be a plan to compensate these
property owners. Who will determine if Kennecott is responsible? This
must be high on the priority list. These people must be compensated if
problems arise!

In closing I would like to state that. I appreciate the extension period given
but feel in is inadequate. Please further extend this for another 30-60 days.

Respectfully,

Mike Lund
896 W. 400 N.
West Bountiful, Utah 84087

Response to E-mail No. 03-7 (cont.)

7-3: See the Response to Common Comment No.’s 4 and 5.

7-4: See the Response to Common Comment No. 10.

7-5: See the Response to Common Comment No. 1.

8-1
E-mail No. E03-8

From: [Chris Dewey]
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 2003 10:32 AM
Subject: Cleanup of Contaminated South Jordan Groundwater

Hello.,
I^m a South Jordan resident that is very concerned about the proposed
cleanup of the South Jordan aquifer and the dumping of selenium and other
salts in the Jordan River. South Jordan is experiencing unrestrained growth.
There is no planning for adequate roads much less water. The concern of
city planners is increasing the population as quickly as possible. South
Jordan residents should pay the extra cost to have the contaminates moved
to a suitable location like the plan for Copperton waste to go to a tailings
pond. Why move one polluted site to the Jordan River? If South Jordan gets
more water they will just grow faster. At some point the water in the aquifer
will not be enough. Then we will have polluted the Jordan River and the
Great Salt Lake for some greedy people in South Jordan. Make the residents
pay and slow the growth.
Does it occur to planners that at some time we may have to say we have
all the people we can support and have a decent quality of life? Water
should be in that equation.
Thanks,
Chris Dewey
South Jordan, Utah

Response to E-mail No. E03-8

8-1: See the Response to Common Comment No. 8 and No. 9.

9-1
9-2

E-mail No. 03-9

From: [Steve McDowell]
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 2003 11:09 AM
Subject: water rights

Steven D McDowell
1146 Jordan River Drive
S. Jordan, UT 84095
801 560-4234

October 29, 2003

NRD Trustee
PO Box144810
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114

Dear Sir,

This past July, my wife and I purchased a property located at 11092 S. 1300
W. in South Jordan. This property included the rights to an existing well
W. U. C. #2098 and my title company is in the process of recording a Quit
claim Deed from Doug Pillow to us for the well rights.

It has come to my attention that Kennecott is trying to obtain rights to our
water with the guise of cleaning it up. I am aware that they need water for a
huge development and I feel that this is a thinly veiled effort to steal my
water and then to sell it back to others and myself for a huge corporate
profit.

I am asking that there is a hearing on this matter later this week. I am
asking that it be delayed at least 60 days to give the water owners more time
to gather the facts.

Sincerely,
Steven D. McDowell
Response to E-mail No. 03-9

9-1: See the Response to Common Comment No. 10.

9-2: See the Response to Common Comment No. 1.

E-mail No. 03-10

From: [Ivan Weber]
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, Oct 20, 2003 4:28 PM
Subject: Sierra Club Utah Chapter Comments, Kennecott Natural
Resource Damage Claim Proposed Settlement

Dear Dr. Nielson,

Please consider the attached comments prepared on behalf of the Utah
Chapter. I will also deliver them in hard-copy, with enclosures (which I
could not manage to scan in order to attach here).

Sincerely,
Ivan

Ivan Weber
Weber Sustainability Consulting
953 1st Avenue
Salt Lake City, Utah 84103
[phone] / [phone] cellular

Response to E-mail No. 03-10

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter)

October 19, 2003

Dr. Dianne Nielson, Trustee of the Natural Resource
Executive Director, Utah Department of Environmental Quality
168 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114

Subject: Critique, Natural Resource Damage Claim Proposed Settlement
Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation Ground Water
Contamination

Dear Dr. Nielson:

Please consider the following critique of the Kennecott Ground Water
Natural Resource Damage Claim proposed settlement, submitted on behalf
of the Utah Chapter of the Sierra Club’s more than four thousand members.
The mission and purpose of the Sierra Club encompasses the full spectrum
of environmental phenomena, from urgent problems to compelling
opportunities.

We see nearly the entirety of the Oquirrh Mountain range encompassed in
Kennecott’s environmental history, culminating in this settlement proposal
among other aspects of facility ‘closure’ planning. Until now, the
predominant environmental impacts of Kennecott and preceding activities
in and around the Oquirrh Mountains have included the following:
• Air pollution from smelting and refining is a picture that has improved
drastically in recent years, while leaving several miles at the north of
the range acidified, denuded of topsoil and incapable of supporting
most plant growth in approaching decades, if not centuries.
• Deforestation by a combination of over-harvesting in pre-Kennecott,
early settlement and timber-hungry underground mining years.
• Overgrazing, which contributed to vegetation community alterations of
extensive and permanent nature.
• Acid mine drainage from unknowing and careless waste rock dumping
and inadequate leach water control, resulting in polluted surface water

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter)

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

on the southern east flank of the Oquirrhs, as well as ground water
contamination on a world-unprecedented scale, both geochemical and
geographical in extent (i.e., concentrated and large).
• ‘Cutoff’ or interception of all surface water flows except from
Butterfield Tunnel and the occasional south-end seep, making clean
water available to wildlife extremely rare for at least ten miles of the
mountain face.
• Land use changes, including the Bingham Pit and several billion tons of
waste rock deposited on the surface; Barney’s Canyon gold mine pits,
cyanide leach pads and waste rock dumps, with their own acid mine
drainage problems; and the Magna Tailings Impoundment with the
recent expansion into the North Tailings Impoundment. Together, the
surface disturbances make up at least 20,000 acres of the total of
approximately 85,000 owned by Kennecott in Salt Lake County.
Former surface-contaminated sites that have been partially cleaned
(i.e., to agricultural land use standards) constitute about 3,000 or so
acres of the total.
• Facilities and infrastructure making up both the present and many
previous manifestations of the Kennecott industrial complex, one of the
largest in the mining industry.
• Highway, railroad and industrial infrastructure severing ecological
relationships with the Great Salt Lake shore as thoroughly as can be
imagined.
• Vegetation community changes from, and compounded by, all the
factors listed above, with the dominance of invasive plant species
added (cheatgrass, wild mustard, whitetop, Phragmites, tamarisk,
Russian olive, etc.) to form a vegetative landscape alien to native
wildlife communities (burrowing owl, kit fox, raptors, etc.) and
favoring disturbed-lands species (deer, elk, fox, etc.).

The human community has undeniably benefited economically for more
than a century from the wealth derived from this huge mine and its
predecessors. There have been, however, counterposed to economic
benefits, the extensive environmental and public health problems created by
Kennecott and its predecessors. We do not advocate opening a new mine
somewhere else (e.g., Lisbon Valley, near Lasal, Utah) in order to obtain

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-1: See the Response to Common Comment No. 1, No. 8, and No. 9.

10-1
E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

supplies of copper and other metals that our technological society demands.
We regret to point out, however, that the Kennecott ground water settlement
proposal before us creates a new, macro-scale item that must be
added to this list of major Kennecott environmental impacts: Great Salt
Lake and Jordan River metals contamination over short and long terms. For
these vulnerable aquatic environments, already under siege from urban
growth that promises to overwhelm their margins, from MagCorp/US
Magnesium dioxins and other regional-scale stressors, this may be the straw
that breaks the camel’s back. If this settlement proposal is carried out as
formulated, we will strenuously advocate reopening of National Priorities
List (‘Superfund’) nomination for the Kennecott South and North Zones
because of the breach of trust inherent in the scheme. It is that bad a
concept, technically and ethically.

We thank you for extending the comment period by one month from the
original deadline, but we must repeat the objections voiced in the first
hearing to what is still an excessively short evaluation/comment period, and
request additional time for our many interested and concerned members to
further digest such a large body of technical documentation. Please extend
the comment deadline at least to December 1, 2003, and preferably to
January 1, 2004. This is much too complex a confluence of issues,
involving multiple pathways of regulatory, scientific and community
concern, to be crowded not only into the short timeframe originally
proposed for comment, but --- for ordinary citizens with ordinary lives ---
also compressed into the one month time extension. It is critical to note that
the settlement’s inseparability from at least two critical UPDES discharge
permits, JVWCD to the Jordan and KUCC to the Great Salt Lake, render
holistic understanding of the settlement proposal dependent on these
documents, as well as other, previous records of Technical Review
Committee discussions, not to mention the December, 2000, Record of
Decision. Sorting through these records is a daunting task, at best.

We are very concerned that this decision has been ‘wired’ for some time.
There have been signals visible both from inside and outside the process
that it was likely, but frankly, we did not believe that anyone would so
abdicate ecological dimensions of the public trust that some elements of the
proposal would be put forth with the finality we’ve witnessed. Governor

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-2: The TRC attendance records indicate that Scott Endicott attended
TRC meetings regularly from 1994 until 1997. Ivan Weber attended as a
citizen (according to the notes) from 1998 to 1999. The membership roster
for the Sierra Club indicates that both Ivan Weber and Scott Endicott as
members during this time. Members of the TAG group (Herriman
Residents for Responsible Reclamation) began attending in early 2000 and
have continued since then. In addition, several academic members also
attended. The notes reveal that there was no period of time in which the
public was not represented. Representatives of local, state, and federal
agencies and communities were also present.

10-1
10-2

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

Leavitt’s citing of this settlement immediately after his August 11, 2003,
nomination to EPA Administrator occurred several weeks before the
September 2 public notice, alerting us that something ‘was up.’ As we’ve
gone back through available documents, especially TRC meeting notes and
materials presented at TRC meetings, it appears that a decision to abandon
relatively thoroughgoing, corrective measures that fully engage the
precautionary principle, in favor of risk-externalizing dilution and disposal
strategies, have been shaping up for about six years, approximately since
the Shepherd-Miller study of acid/metals water disposal in the tailings line,
which we recall to have occurred around 1996-97. This is critically
important, both because of the dealbreaking conceptual faults of that study,
but also because of the lack of continuity in what amounted to sadly
deficient citizen involvement prior to current representation by Friends of
Great Salt Lake’s Ms. Joy Emory, TRC member since about 2001. By the
time Ms. Emory joined the TRC, it is now apparent that the decision had
been made. Documentation since approximately 1997-98 has been very
deficient in representing previous investigations, concerns and justifications
(or lack thereof) of conclusions.

Utah Chapter Sierra Club Comments Abstract: Our comments
present the following points:

1. Wrong Questions Beget Wrong Answers: The settlement proposal
is conceptually flawed, reflecting process flaws in the Company’s
and Agencies’ management of the Technical Review Committee,
and lack of additional conduits for both public education and
receiving public reflections, then adapting as the project went
along.
2. Time for review and comments: Still more time is needed to
educate the public and to afford review and comment opportunity
that was not encouraged by the Technical Review Committee
structure and schedule.
3. Great Salt Lake and Jordan River ecosystem attributes and
significance were suppressed; biogeochemical meaning of terminal
basin is ignored; cumulative impacts are dismissed without
adequate study, understanding or care; and the Migratory Bird Act
of 1918 is ignored.

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-3: The discussions of the TRC and the investigations which occurred go
back to 1992. The TRC meeting summaries document what the concerns of
the scientists were and what was done in response to those concerns. A
summary of the work prior to 1998 is documented in the Remedial
Investigation Report (and its eleven appendices) and the Feasibility Study
Report (with its appendices). These documents have been available to the
public for some time.

10-2
10-3
E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

4. Avoidance of ecological concern and science is at the very base of
the settlement proposal.
5. Zone A acid/metals plume metals removal at point of extraction
has been suppressed without cause and ignored.
6. Metals removal technology alternatives have been suppressed and
ignored, but are demonstrably feasible, especially used in
combinations.
7. The tailings impoundments are inadequate as toxic metals
repositories.
8. Air quality degradation from metals-toxified tailings impoundment
dust appears inevitable, but has been inadequately considered and
inaccurately characterized by ignoring metals ‘fate’ and physical
behavior in the tailings line and impoundments.
9. Tailings impoundment vegetation cover is critical to air quality
maintenance, but will be compromised or rendered impossible by
metals deposits.
10. Environmental accounting and sustainable solutions: The narrow
financial analysis applied to alternatives evaluation has effectively
precluded assemblage of sustainable solutions.

Utah Chapter Sierra Club Expanded Comments:

1. Wrong Questions Beget Wrong Answers: The settlement is
conceptually wrong in that it measures criteria only against human-
needs water resource considerations (water and rights to M&I
purveyor, 40-year sustainable supply, contamination plume
stabilization, water supply cost stabilization). Additional, unavoidably
appropriate criteria should have included: assurance of minimal or no
ecological consequences, minimal or no human health consequences,
no vulnerability to natural disaster, management error or malfeasance,
or to corporate or ownership changes. Failure to adequately discuss
these additional criteria in a truly public forum (which the TRC
generally was not during critical years) through this concept’s
development render the concept as a whole unacceptable, unworkable,
and reprehensible. Collectively, we can and must do better than this,
both early problem formulation and public involvement and education
to assure adaptive improvement of problem and solutions formulation
along the way.
Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-4: The Trustee’s authority to review and approve the Joint NRD
Proposal, and to authorize expenditure of the Trust Fund, is derived from
the Consent Decree. The criteria that the comment describes as
“conceptually wrong” are those set forth in the Consent Decree and the
Trustee is obligated to consider those criteria.

10-5: The record demonstrates that over the last 10 years, these issues were
not only reviewed by the Technical Review Committee, the concerns were
so prevalent that the Technical Review Committee requested additional
information on many of them.

10-6: See the Response to Common Comment No. 5.

The composition of the acidic core was known to contain elevated metals
and there was no effort to hide this. Selenium, which is not a metal, was
evaluated in Kennecott and EPA studies and was discussed by the TRC.
The predominant form of selenium in this case is selenate, not selenite.
Neutralization is a common chemical reaction with reactants and products.
In this case, the products produced are solids, which settle down along with
the rest of the solids in the tailings impoundment. The TRC wanted to
know how complete that reaction was and whether the solids, once formed,
could re-dissolve. All of that data is in the TRC minutes and in the
Remedial Design report.

10-4
10-5
10-6
E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

Further, the settlement predicates Zone A “acid” plume “treatment”
strictly on acid neutralization, a breach of scientific common sense first
put forth by the Shepherd Miller study in 1997 on use of the tailings
line for neutralization. “Neutralization,” as we point out elsewhere, is a
Trojan horse that distracts us from the mass transport of toxic metals
into the North Tailings Impoundment, if not directly into the Great Salt
Lake. Indeed, selenium, pound-for-pound arguably the most ecotoxic
of metals in the Zone A ‘acid/metals’ plume (we insist on use of this
technically correct and non-denial-laden terminology, instead of ‘acid
plume’), is not at all dependent on acidity in some of its most
dangerous oxidation states (+2 selenite, especially). Neutralization is a
deception. Metals are the reality. Until the settlement reflects this
reality, it must be rejected.

2. Time for Review and Comments: Still more time is needed to
understand the proposed settlement in the context of separate UPDES
permits, to recognize reasonable alternatives abandoned along the way,
and to compensate for the conceptual deficiencies of the settlement
process and documents on ecological, public health and water
resource/rights concerns.
• Together, the settlement and supporting permits form a single
system of contaminant disposal from ground water to
surface ecosystems --- a system that we believe was neither
intended nor countenanced by the 1995 Natural Resource
Damage disposition by Judge Thomas Green in the Third
District Court.
• The ‘public’ component of the natural resource damage
claim process has been woefully inadequate, with meetings
consistently held over the years in workday hours, times when
the working public cannot get free. There has been no
newsletter or public information summary sent out disclosing
enough about the thought process to allow formulation of
critical thought on alternatives. No ‘technical assistance’
group or grant was formed or sought. The ‘technical review
committee’ included functionally no representation from the
environmental community until very recently, especially

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-7: See the Response to Common Comment No. 1.

10-8: See the Response to Common Comment No. 8.

10-9: See the Response to Common Comment No. 1. The Technical
Review Committee attempted to accommodate the differing schedules of its
members and has consistently indicated a willingness to accommodate other
meeting times.

10-10: See the Response to Common Comment No. 1. Technical
information developed during studies has been and will continue to be
presented to the TRC group. This information has and will continue to be
provided to the Sierra Club as a member of the TRC. During the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) public comment and review was
sought by the members of the TRC. Media coverage on project activities
periodically took place as well.

10-11: This statement is in error. A Technical Assistance Group was
formed in 1997 (Herriman Residents for Responsible Reclamation), initially
to deal with surface mining waste issues in the Herriman area. They
expanded their interest to cover the ground water issues in 2000 and began
to participate with the TRC at that time. They received a grant, a renewal,
and an extension of performance period. They were extremely active with
the agencies during this time period.

10-12: The environmental community was and is represented on the
membership of the TRC.

10-7
10-8
10-9
10-10
10-11
10-12
10-6
E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

AFTER decisions critical to this settlement had been made
apparently in the 1996-1999 timeframe. Since the State and
EPA --- not to mention the PRP, Kennecott --- have chosen
not to educate forthrightly not only the public, but also our
political leaders, about this subject, we guess that it falls to us
and other public-interest activists to do it. That being the case,
we need more time: at least another two months will be
required to adequately perform the ecological and
biogeochemical data accumulation that the State is disinclined
to do. Others who are very concerned about water rights and
resources implications may need more time than that.
Extension beyond January 1, 2004, is the least amount of
additional time that can reasonably be expected.
• Not enough about alternatives has been disclosed.
• As quoted under comment 5, below, “community acceptance”
was designed to be undertaken after the settlement proposal
was announced. The present process is the only opportunity
for the larger community, beyond agency and immediate,
invited neighbors (who are free on workdays) to participate.

3. Great Salt Lake and Jordan River Ecosystem Significance: The
Great Salt Lake (GSL) and its watershed constitute the single most
important ecological element of our region. As the Kennecott Visitors’
Center video points out, the Bingham Canyon Mine is one of two man-
made objects that can be seen from space. Although it is not man-
made, the Great Salt Lake is even more ‘visible from space,’ especially
to wildlife dependent on it for their lives (as opposed to transitory
economic gain).
• The settlement proposal, together with the supporting, but
separate, State (UPDES) discharge permits, consign the
Great Salt Lake ecosystem to an early death due to metals
accumulation that would not occur otherwise Effectively,
the settlement’s Zone A acid/metals plume metals relocation
would accelerate the mass transport of millions of years of
natural processes into a few decades. The Great Salt Lake is a
terminal basin. Whatever goes in that does not evaporate or

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-13: See the Response to Common Comment No. 1. The TRC was used
as the primary method of communication between the parties involved.
Each member was responsible for briefing those of his own organization.

10-14: The alternatives analysis is contained in the KUCC South Facilities
Groundwater Feasibility Study from 1998 and was reviewed by the TRC of
which the Sierra Club is a member.

10-15: See the Response to Common Comment No. 1.

Community acceptance is an integral component to the selection of a
remedial approach, both under the CERCLA and NRD authorities.
Community representatives as well as other interested groups were invited
to review the investigative studies and participate in the selection of a
remedial approach, via participation on the TRC, for the Zone A portion of
the project and later on the NRD proposal. At any point during the
investigation and project development activities concerns and comments
could have been raised.

As presented in the chronology of TRC meetings presented in the Response
to Common Comment No. 1, the CERCLA project in Zone A and the
State’s NRD project have both been in development for some time. At key
times the public has been brought into the process prior to the significant
decision being made (public comment period for the focus feasibility study,
release of the remedial investigation/feasibility study, public comment
period of the Record of Decision, public comment period for the NRD
project).

10-16: See the Response to Common Comment No. 9.

10-12
10-13
10-14
10-15
10-16
10-17

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

get removed by humans or natural processes STAYS. The
molecule stops here, except for water and whatever off-gases.
• The settlement is, therefore, ‘eco-ethically challenged,’ to put
it charitably. The Great Salt Lake is not a corporate sink, nor
is the Jordan River. The approximately ten million migratory
shorebirds and waterfowl per year in populations of more
than 250 species, typically, that are dependent on the GSL in
their seasonal migrations are unique, living, treaty-protected
international wildlife (Migratory Bird Act of 1918),
warranting our utmost efforts on their behalf to conserve all
elements of their complex ecosystem. Similarly, the riparian
habitat values offered by the Jordan uniquely in the Lower
Provo watershed are much too rare and important to diminish
for the sake of accommodating an increment of water demand
in a culture tragically --- almost pathologically --- reluctant to
conserve water, much less to pay its true cost.
• Landscapes teach, and so do government policies toward
landscapes. What would this settlement teach about Utah’s
official regard for Nature and for living beings in Nature?
That Utah holds wild lives in comtempt, that they are
secondary and disposable to the will of business interests and
corporate expediency, that they are not appreciated as intrinsic
magnets for sustainable economic development, in and of
themselves. When was the last time you heard of a Utah
State-initiated eco-tourism task force? More money is spent
on bird watching than on hunting, nationally; and have we got
birds! Does this add up to a business development thrust in
State government circles, as it has begun to be in Davis
County? Not so far, not at all.
• Birds Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918:
“The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is the domestic law that
affirms, or implements, the United States' commitment to four
international conventions (with Canada, Japan, Mexico, and
Russia) for the protection of a shared migratory bird resource.
Each of the conventions protect selected species of birds that
are common to both countries (i.e., they occur in both

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-17: See the Response to Common Comment No. 9.

A number of studies were conducted (some under the guidance of the TRC)
to consider the impact of a project involving the Jordan River, the tailings
impoundment, or the GSL. Additional studies are contemplated, and all
discharges will be subject to regulatory approval. The amounts of metals
and non-metals coming from this project are extremely small in comparison
to the total amounts of these contaminants entering the Lake from other
sources.

10-18: Both EPA and DEQ are authorized and required to protect public
health and the environment. Staff members for both agencies have been
and will continue to be mindful of the impact this project could have on the
Great Salt Lake watershed and the aquifer in the Affected Area. The
Consent Decree recognized the importance and challenges of the
groundwater cleanup. This project has taken many years to reach this
decision selection point because of the exhaustive investigation of cleanup
alternatives, to assure that this project would remain protective of public
health and the environment. Through continued monitoring and modeling
activities both agencies will audit the projects ability to attain the
established goals, in a manner that continues to be protective of public
health and the environment. The regulatory programs of DEQ with
permitting authority will review their individual permits every five years to
assess the protectiveness allotted by the individual permits. If project
activities fall outside of the protective parameters established under State
permitting programs, the particular problem will be addressed swiftly.

10-17
10-18
10-19
E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

countries at some point during their annual life cycle).” (US
Fish & Wildlife Service Division of Migratory Bird
Management website,
http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/intrnltr/treatlaw.html).
• Great Salt Lake birds that are also on the Migratory Bird
Act of 1918 list of protected bird species (based on a cursory,
comparative scan, comparing list in E.V. Rawley, “Wildlife of
the Great Salt Lake” in Great Salt Lake: a Scientific,
Historical and Economic Overview, ed. by J. Wallace Gwynn,
UGMS/UDNR Bulletin 116, June, 1980, pp. 298-299, with
the list on the USFWS website at
http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/intrnltr/mbta/mbtandx.html#alph
a, where scientific names are listed; for more information go
to http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/intrnltr/mbta/mbtintro.html)
includes AT LEAST the following:
American Avocet
American Bittern
Red-winged Blackbird
Yellow-headed Blackbird
Bufflehead
Canvasback
American Coot
Double-crested Cormorant
Common Crane
Sandhill Crane
Whooping Crane
Least Curlew
Long-billed Curlew
Long-billed Dowitcher
Ruddy Duck
Wood Duck
Bald Eagle
Golden Eagle
Snowy Egret
Perigrine Falcon
Prairie Falcon
Gadwall

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-19: Please refer to Response to Common Comment No. 9.

10-19
E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

Marbled Godwit
Common Goldeneye
American Golden Plover
Lesser Canada Goose
Great Basin Canada Goose
Snow Goose
Eared Grebe
Western Grebe
Pied-billed Grebe
Bonaparte’s Gull
California Gull
Franklin’s Gull
Ring-billed Gull
Great Blue Heron
Black-crowned Night Heron
White-faced Ibis
Killdeer
Common Loon
Mallard
Common Merganser
Oldsquaw
White Pelican
Brown Pelican
Wilson’s Phalarope
Pintail (Northern)
Snowy Plover
Virginia Rail
Redhead
Sanderling
Western Sandpiper
Least Sandpiper
Pectoral Sandpiper
Baird’s Sandpiper
Spotted Sandpiper
Solitary Sandpiper
Greater Scaup
Lesser Scaup

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-19
E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

White-winged Scoter
Shoveller
Black-necked Stilt
Whistling (Tundra) Swan
Blue-winged Teal
Cinnamon Teal
Green-winged Teal
Forster’s Tern
Caspian Tern
Black Tern
American Wigeon (?)
Willet
Greater Yellowlegs
Lesser Yellowlegs
• The Great Salt Lake is a place to celebrate, not to kill.
Some of these species exist in greater populations at the
Great Salt Lake than at any other place on earth.
• Baseline studies targeted at comprehensive understanding
of the Great Salt Lake ecosystem and watershed still have
not been done, after all these years. As urban growth
encroaches and makes vulnerable more and more
ecosystem variables, the lack of this baseline knowledge
becomes, increasingly, a moral deficiency, as well as a
scientific gap.
• ‘Ramsar’ designation to promote international recognition
of this hemispherically critical wetlands complex should be
a State priority, as it should have been for decades.
(Ramsar is a 1979 international convention named for the
town in Iran where a meeting to draft the rules for wetlands
recognition were drafted. Strictly speaking, it has nothing to
do with the United Nations, and results in only voluntary
measures to protect designated wetlands. See
http://www.ramsar.org for more information. Ramsar
“Mission Statement: "The Convention's mission is the
conservation and wise use of all wetlands through local,
regional and national actions and international cooperation, as

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-19
E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

a contribution towards achieving sustainable development
throughout the world" (Ramsar COP8, 2002).” Recognition
of the Great Salt Lake’s importance must start somewhere. If
it won’t start in Utah, then it will start wherever it starts.

4. Avoidance of ecological concern and science is at the very base of
the settlement proposal: Throughout alternatives screening, studies of
impacts and formulation of remediation ‘designs,’ ecological impacts to
the Great Salt Lake and to the Jordan River have been ignored. Parallel
processes in State government have repeatedly dismissed consideration
of numerical water quality standards for the Lake based on
biogeochemical and ecological constraints. Permits have been issued
jeopardizing the ecosystem, effectively spelling its doom over the long
term in a way that is entirely avoidable by metals removal and
sustainable alternatives choices. Alternatives screening omitted Great
Salt Lake and Jordan River ecological considerations almost
completely, notwithstanding the ‘risk assessment’ analyses prepared by
Kennecott and Kennecott consultants in the 1990s. The GSL, we
remind the Trustee, is a terminal basin, which will retain and
accumulate any and all toxic metals of concern. The Lake is
demonstrably already at the critical threshold for selenium effects on
birds. Mass transport of an enormous additional consignment from
Kennecott’s acid/metals and sulfate plumes can only lead to ecological
disaster.
• Sulfate plume treatment: Concentrates discharge to the Jordan
River is not ecologically acceptable or responsible, however
appealing water reclamation may to water utility administrators
seeking to match supply with demand at least cost. Selenium and
TDS, as pointed out by USFWS, are immediate problems that will
be irresponsibly exacerbated by the settlement proposal.
• Acid/metals plume disposal: Metals relocation from the
acid/metals ground water plume to the north tailings impoundment
next to the Great Salt Lake is neither ecologically acceptable nor
responsible. Metals do not go away magically; if they are put into
the top end of the gravity-fed tailings pipeline, they will come out
at the bottom, even if acid is partially or entirely neutralized.

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-20: This is untrue. Not only the discussions in the TRC indicate this
wasn’t ignored, but also the formation of work groups to look at these
issues and the hiring of contractors to study the potential different
discharges provide ample proof that the ecological issues were seriously
considered throughout the deliberations. As part of the discussions, direct
discharges to the Great Salt Lake (GSL) were, in fact, discussed. It was
studied and rejected. The literature on selenium is extensive and growing
every day. The particular selection chosen here for discussion is curious
and not balanced. The permit limit for selenium was based on actual results
of bioassay toxicity tests and includes bioaccumulation factors.

10-21: See the Response to Common Comment No. 9.

10-22: There is no evidence that the ecosystem is being exposed to
significant or unnecessary risk by permitting discharges to waters of the
state. In fact, the continued regulation of such discharges allows for
continued monitoring of in-stream conditions and protects the designated
beneficial uses of the water body. The UPDES system only provides the
authority to limit concentrations of pollutants discharged to a water body, it
does not provide the authority to require a specific type of treatment
technology.

10-23: See the Response to Common Comment No. 9.

10-24: See the Response to Common Comment No. 8, and No. 9.

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-19
10-20
10-21
10-22
10-23
10-24
10-25
Hollow claims of metals “treatment” in the tailings line must be
recognized as counter-intuitive and abjectly unscientific, and must
be rejected.
• Baseline studies of the Great Salt Lake ecosystem have still not
been done, despite years of pressure on both State and Federal
agencies. Both US Fish and Wildlife and the US Geological
Survey have led recent, post-Kesterson Marsh exploration of
selenium in the GSL’s saline environment, but even they have
emphasized that much, much more needs to be done in order for
understanding to approach the threshold of competent policy
formulation. Add to selenium the alarming probability of
MagCorp/US Magnesium dioxin emissions through air, water and
solid media, and the potential for synergistic effects should compel
agencies at all levels to formulate immediately a plan for rapid
advance of scientific knowledge about the Great Salt Lake
ecosystem. The present settlement proposal flies in the face of this
need, indeed exploiting the absence of scientific data and
interpretation to justify use of the Lake as a metals disposal sink.
• Selenium ecotoxicology has been effectively avoided by the
State’s utter lack of initiative in study and gathering of data on the
Great Salt Lake ecosystem, despite years of discussion and
exploration by Kennecott, including the company’s hosting of a
national-scale conference on selenium in aquatic environments. A
true reflection appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune article printed
Saturday, October 18, 2003, quoting Mr. Don Ostler, Executive
Director of the Utah Division of Water Quality: "I don't see any
scientific information that shows there's a problem in the
wetlands," said Ostler. "There are perceptions but no presentation
of data." Apparently, despite a storm of scientific study and very
extensive data accumulation on the Great Salt Lake, sites
elsewhere in Utah, and on sites all over the western states of the
USA, it is incumbent on the public to force before the State of
Utah’s perception the existence of this literature. A partial
bibliography is enclosed with these comments, and a more
extensive literature search will produce a supplement to these
comments for later submittal before the comment deadline.

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-25: See the Response to Common Comment No. 5.

10-26: See the Response to Common Comment No. 9.

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-24
10-25
10-26
• After Kesterson: Since California’s Kesterson Marsh came to
light in the 1980s, the biological sciences and public agencies
throughout the world have focused attention on selenium that
could be considered unprecedented, were it not for Rachel
Carson’s Silent Spring and the almost countless studies done since
its publication on pesticides, dioxins and other persistent
organochlorines. This presents an interesting Utah contrast with
the typical public policy development process, however, in that the
MagCorp/US Magnesium dioxins have been ignored, like nearly
all other issues of Great Salt Lake biogeochemistry and ecology
that may not be conducive to industrial use of the Lake as source
and sink. By contrast, the 1999 Great Salt Lake Management Plan
process bravely began with “A Starting Point for Issue
Identification,” including a list pertaining to “Lake Hydrology and
Water Chemistry,” which in turn included the following (among
others):
• “The potential for groundwater contamination of culinary
water supplies from mining activities might be reduced by
directly discharging wastewater concentrate containing acid
and sulfates into the lake. Would this pose a risk to the Lake’s
ecosystem? How?
• Should the State begin to establish a scientifically defensible
numeric water quality standards [sic] for GSL as a receiving
water body? Why?”

By the time the Management Plan was issued, however, these questions had
gone functionally dead, and no resolution of these issues was offered. The
Great Salt Lake Draft Comprehensive Management Plan (Utah Department
of Natural Resources Great Salt Lake Planning Team, Nov. 3, 1999, pp. 54-
55) offers a useful summary of the way State water quality classifications
affect administration of GSL water quality issues, after enumerating the five
basic water quality classes:

“Class 5 GSL. Protected for primary and secondary contact
recreation, aquatic wildlife and mineral extraction.

“Most of the main classes are divided into sub-classes which

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-24
address specific pollutants and beneficial uses. GSL is in its own
class (Class 5). Primary and secondary recreation, aquatic wildlife,
and mineral extraction are the defined beneficial uses of the lake’s
waters. Numerical water quality standards have not been
established for GSL, but DWQ has established narrative standards
for discharges to the lake and permits for waste water discharges
are established on a case-by-case basis. Applications for waste
water discharges are reviewed and regulated by the Water Quality
Board to prevent the addition of pollutants which would be
injurious to the defined uses. The general policy is that, to the
extent feasible, no pollutants (discharges) should be delivered to
the lake in amounts that result in concentrations greater than those
already present in the lake…. Dischargers are regulated by state
and federal effluent limitations for total suspended solids (TSS),
biochemical oxygen demand, coliforms, pH and some metals. A
public notice process is followed to allow comment on any
concerns. Except for sewage treatment facilities, most facilities do
not directly discharge into the lake and a mixing zone is allowed
most cases.”

• Selenium ecosystem science is very recent, a fact that argues
strongly for application of ‘precautionary principle” to public
policy. Work thusfar on selenium aquatic ecosystem and wildlife
impacts in the West has been restricted primarily to critical areas
where response was needed, such as Stewart Lake, near Jensen in
northeastern Utah, and in such major, obvious occurrences such as
Kesterson Marsh, the Salton Sea and others in the USFWS
Migratory Bird Refuge system where locations receive agricultural
return flows for their sources of water. Although we have not yet
gained access to recent relevant studies on the Great Salt Lake, we
understand that cooperative work by the late Doyle Stephens, Kidd
Waddell and others of US Geological Survey and US Fish and
Wildlife Service has begun to address this deficiency of data for
the Great Salt Lake. One thing is certain: Selenium is one of the
environmental ‘genies’ which, when ‘let out of the bottle,’ are
extremely damaging to wildlife, difficult to

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-24
contain and remediate, and expensive to remedy. An act as
careless as the proposed Kennecott settlement, which conceptually
proposes to relocate metals-contaminated acid ground water from
one geological/geographic circumstance (alluvial fan at the toe of a
Basin-and-Range montane copper mine) to one that is a basin-
bottom, terminal basin, incapable of flushing itself, must not be
allowed. There are better, feasible choices.

• It is obvious that selenium is necessary for nearly all life at levels
varying from not-more-than an almost undetectable trace for algae
and other simple plant life (J. Vymazal, Algae and Element
Cycling in Wetlands, section 5.13.2 “Selenium in Algal Nutrition,”
pp.356-7) to relatively significant benefits for selenium as an anti-
oxidant in human diets. In between, it is increasingly clear that
aquatic selenium is disastrous for birds and fish in excess of two
parts per billion (ppb), and possibly less. The Clean Water Act
limit of 5 ppb is not sufficiently protective of wildlife, most
biologists now contend. The USFWS Salt Lake Field Office
argues, in fact, for Jordan River selenium limits not in excess of
that level (2 ppb) for total Se in the Jordan, and limits on each
separate UPDES discharge permit to maintain that cap (see
attached copy, USFWS 8-15-03 letter commenting on UPDES
discharge permit UT0025551 by Jordan Valley Water
Conservancy District to the Jordan River). Others have argued for
limits as low as 0.5 ppb in aquatic environments. Certainly, the
Kesterson Marsh experience of teratogenic (embryo deforming)
effects of selenium in an irrigation return reservoir have so
horrified the community of biologists, ornithologists, agricultural
managers and those of the general public who possess basic
compassion with wildlife that there is growing resolve to identify,
for each waterbody/ecosystem nexus, the appropriate numerical
limits for each selenium compound that may occur (see T. Harris,
Death in the Marsh). The most recent, major works by Lemly and
others (A. D. Lemly, Selenium Assessment and Aquatic
Ecosystems: A Guide for Hazard Evaluation and Water Quality
Criteria, Springer-Verlag, 2002) are not available to us, but we
will endeavor to digest their implications for this complex set of
selenium concerns. We can
Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-24
only assume that there is extensive discussion of these concerns in
ecological and biological technical journals, but we can’t justify
holding up these comments pending a literature search.

None --- literally none --- of that work has made its way into
public policy applied to the Great Salt Lake under the current
administration, despite the coincidence of this administration
with the advent of a preponderance of evidence that action is
warranted. Only the Clean Water Act constraints of 5 ppb have
been applied to the Jordan River. We seriously doubt that this
constitutes responsible public policy, and sincerely beg resolute
attention to this precise set of questions at the highest level of
watershed science. It is one of the most urgent of several primary
needs that demand numerical water quality designation for the
Great Salt Lake, as quickly as can be done with scientific
thoroughness, a collective act that simply must precede any
decision to allow further discharge of selenium and most other
metals into the Great Salt Lake. In fact, the North End discharge
should be halted, as much for the reason that there are other
reasonable, technologically feasible choices that can avoid this
measure, with few downsides and affording greatly reduced
ecological uncertainty, compared to this hyperbolically ill-advised
settlement proposal.

Despite the recent nature of scientific inquiry, Selenium
sources are no surprise, nor should the discovery that one of the
worst is on our doorstep be in any way startling. Tom Harris, in
Death in the Marsh, warned that Kennecott may be a major
selenium source but could not investigate it because of high Great
Salt Lake water levels in the mid-‘80s when he was making his
informal survey of sources in Western states. Sources have long
been identified in scientific and industrial literature (e.g., Ihnat,
Occurrence and Distribution of Selenium; Rosenfeld and Beath (U.
of Wyoming), Selenium; Zingaro and Cooper, Selenium; Bay
Institute of San Francisco Selenium Symposium Series; several
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) studies) alerting us that
the Great Salt Lake watershed may not be exempt from selenium

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-24
effects from several potential sources:
• Copper mining, smelting and refinining of pyrite-rich ores
constitute a long-recognized major source of selenium, as a
geological inevitability. Selenium occurs with sulfur in trace
proportions of Se in proportion to S. Two major sources occur in
copper ‘beneficiation,’ one at near the process end and the other at
the beginning. After smelting, copper purification to >99% pure
copper is done by an electrolytic process that drops out most
impurities. The copper refinery electrolyte sludges, containing
gold, silver, selenium, and often vanadium, tellurium and other
trace metals, are refined to leave selenium as one of the last metals
to be removed or disposed. At the beginning of the mining
process, sulfuric acid leach water from pyrite oxidation and
intentional sulfuric acid application to dissolve available waste
rock metals into surface- and ground-water contaminated with a
catalog of metals, as represented in the extreme in the ‘Zone A’
acid/metals plume. This can also be done by design, as is
proposed at the Lisbon Valley mine south of Moab. In the
Kennecott case, refining electrolytes is the primary source of
selenium at the “North End” contaminated ground water zone,
which is presently being pumped at massive rates directly into the
Great Salt Lake. Kennecott is currently discharging an estimated
8,000-10,000 gpm of diluted water from the Garfield Wells, north
of the Refinery, in order to eliminate a source of liability. This
discharge is being pumped and diluted to approximately one part
per million (ppm) selenium, not to exceed the permit limit of 54
ppm after the ‘mixing zone,’ directly into the Great Salt Lake,
under a UPDES discharge permit, thus contributing from the North
End to the growing total selenium load in the Great Salt Lake. It is
worth noting, here, that the ecological limit established by the
Clean Water Act is five parts per billion (5 ppb), ten thousand
times less than is allowed to be discharged into the Great Salt
Lake by the State DWQ permit (54 ppm).

The South End natural resource damage claim settlement deals
overtly with the consequences of fugitive leach water from pyretic
waste rock. Beginning in 1903 or so, Kennecott pulverized
billions
Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-27:
Current waste rock dumping:
As meteoric water passes through the waste rock piles, oxidation of the rock
will occur. However, a single pass through the waste rock pile is
insufficient to generate significantly contaminated water. The contaminated
leach water, which leaked from the reservoirs, resulted from many
successive passes through the waste rock piles, i.e. the water was
continuously re-circulated thereby concentrating the contaminants.
Initially, Kennecott even found this insufficient for copper extraction and
added sulfuric acid to the leach water.

Previous leaching contamination:
Continued contamination from past leaching practices on the waste rock
piles is handled in several ways. 1) Active leaching, i.e. re-circulating water
collected from the dumps, was terminated in 2000, however sufficient
residue exists in the waste rock piles to generate contaminated water for a
very long time. 2) The waste rock piles are permitted under the State’s
groundwater program. The permit has two separate series of wells for
detection of contamination. If the wells detect contamination above permit
limits, Kennecott is required to follow a series of mitigating steps ultimately
leading to a contaminant investigation and corrective action plan. Dry Fork,
Saints Rest and Keystone are areas currently under going corrective action
under permit requirements. 3) Meteoric water from the waste rock piles is
collected and routed to the process circuit for neutralization. 4) Also, as
part of the mine closure plan, up gradient, uncontaminated water is
intercepted prior to contacting contaminated areas, thereby minimizing the
amount of contaminated water. Contouring and re-vegetation as part of the
reclamation plan will be done to minimize infiltration into the dumps and
collect otherwise uncontaminated water.

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-24
10-27
of tons of pyrite-bearing waste rock and allowed it to be exposed to
air and moisture, creating conditions for pyrite to break down and
form an extremely efficient metals solvent, sulfuric acid, in
prodigious quantities. That the scale of ground water
contamination from sulfuric acid is so huge should surprise no one
who has seen the 2.5 mile-wide, 1,500 feet-deep pit. Neither
should there be denial of the world-beating scale of this
phenomenon, at the foot of the world’s largest and oldest waste
rock piles produced from pyrite-laden ores of copper, lead, zinc,
silver, gold and molybdenum. You can’t say that it is one of the
largest metals producers without acknowledging that it is also one
of the world’s largest metals polluters. The roughly 15,000,000
tons of copper produced in Kennecott’s century (Kennecott
Visitors’ Center video, “Kennecott Utah Copper’s Bingham
Canyon Mine”) has also produced at least a quart of contaminated
ground water for each pound of copper. This happened historically,
mostly (but not entirely) between 1965 and about 1988 due to
poorly managed leach water leakage from the Large Bingham
Reservoir (one million gallons to seven million gallons per day of
leakage of pH <3.0 waters saturated with metals and salts into
ground water) prior to remediation and reservoir lining. This
leakage produced the present ‘Zone A’ acid/metals plume, with
some help from other drainages, such as Midas to the south. It is
possible, however, that current waste rock dumping in Bingham
Canyon and Dry Fork Canyon could become a future source of
ground water contamination, with contributions from Barney’s
Canyon dumps into the Dry Fork Canyon area.

• To say that ‘we now know better’ than to inflict this pollution on
the environment is to suppose that we will choose to do so. The
present settlement presents evidence to the contrary. True, we
now collectively know how to use available technologies to
prevent most of mining’s pollution to water. Recent melding of
technology, engineering, economics and political will COULD
conspire to mine an ore body sustainably, in theory. For this to
happen, the mining company must want to integrate technology,
engineering, economics and political will --- inspired by ecological

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-24
10-27
ethics --- into preventive, corrective and restorative action, or
nothing will be done. The settlement goes only a small portion of
the way there, the easy, obvious part, leaving the crux of
sustainability to future generations.
• Considering the magnitude of this ground water pollution act by
Kennecott, and the perilous nature of potential impacts on the
Great Salt Lake and its watershed, it is both fitting and just that
higher expectations be enforced on behalf of the surrounding
environment, instead of this compounding of the problem
represented by the settlement proposal.
• From memory, we list the following approximations of chemical
constituents and properties of the acid/metals plume water:
¾ Aluminum > 2,000 ppm
¾ Iron > 600 ppm
¾ Copper > 100 ppm
¾ Manganese ~ 300 – 400 ppm
¾ Zinc > 120 ppm
¾ Magnesium > 4,000 ppm
¾ Cadmium – approaching 1 ppm
¾ Lead – also approaching 1 ppm
¾ Selenium > 10 ppm
¾ Sulfate > 30,000 ppm
¾ pH ~ 3.4 to 3.6
- Mineral acidity more than 90% made up of dissolved
aluminum, dwarfing pH as primary acidity
(These numbers are at some variance with those presented in the
settlement documents, but they can probably be verified by review
of TRC meeting note, presentations and discussions.)

Should the South End metals be allowed to be discharged to the
Great Salt Lake, either directly (via the same ‘outfall’ as that from
North End selenium ground water contamination) or indirectly
(through the tailings impoundments and their eventual leakage or
catastrophic degradation), the cumulative effects of these
conjoined discharges are not even remotely addressed in such a
way that it would justify further metals and selenium releases
from South End sources of such enormous magnitude,

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-24
especially when technological choices exist to avoid it all in the
first place.

Other selenium sources may be regionally significant but less
direct in their effects on the GSL:
- Irrigation return flows from Jurassic and Cretaceous
soils that are sometimes rich in selenium. This was
the genesis of the Kesterson Marsh catastrophe,
resulting in deformed and dead bird embryos,
discovered in the 1980s (Tom Harris, Death in the
Marsh, 1991), as well as the northeastern Utah
occurrence at Stewart Lake, where Harris reported
the highest selenium measurements known in living
tissue at the time, in catfish.
- Phosphate refining for fertilizer, as is done from
Phosphoria Formation rock throughout the West
(e.g., Uinta Basin). The Phosphoria Formation, often
hundreds or thousands of feet thick, is also a natural
selenium source into surface and ground waters, as is
suspected in Spanish Fork Canyon in the Lower
Provo River, where the formation outcrops.
- Coal mining and coal combustion, especially in
power plants and major industrial facilities. For
many years, EPRI has addressed this problem on
behalf of member utilities in cooling water
circulation systems and in power plant releases to
rivers and lakes, without resolution. Airborne
releases of selenium on a wide geographic scale are
substantially unevaluated, despite awareness of
immense total quantities of particulate selenium
released by this mechanism. Ecological
consequences to forests, crops and aquatic systems
and ecosystems are similarly unknown.
- Oil extraction, gas extraction, coal bed methane
extraction (esp. surface water discharges), and oil
refining are, with near certainty, major selenium
sources, since there is a range of consistent

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-28: See the Response to Common Comment No 9.

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-24
10-28
association between sulfur and its surrogate,
selenium. Tar sands and oil shale, were they to be
developed, would pose extreme problems of isolating
water-borne selenium discharges from surrounding
water bodies for this essential reason.
- Pulp and paper production, generally not an activity
in our region, is an ongoing selenium source in the
American southeast and northwest, as well as in
Canada and elsewhere in the world.

• Selenium is very reactive, cycling readily from oxidized
to reduced or to elemental form, or oxidizing from
reduced to ‘higher’ oxidation states. The dynamics of the
Great Salt Lake may be the worst-case scenario for
supposed ‘safe’ discharge of selenium. No adequate
study has been done of the fate and consequences of this
aspect of the proposed settlement. This, alone, constitutes
a ‘deal-breaker.’
• Selenium may cause ‘synergistic’ impacts with other
elements and compounds. Vanadium, particularly,
appears in scientific literature as an element possibly
causing such synergistic effects. “Sentinels” are telling
us, according to current USFWS work on the Great Salt
Lake, that the ecosystem is vulnerable to further
cumulative effects (see USFWS 8-15-03 comment letter
on the JVWCD UPDES permit UT0025551 to the Jordan
River). Unless the Trustee is completely certain that
cumulative and synergistic effects are categorically
impossible, this settlement proposal must be rejected on
the face of the matter. The Great Salt Lake ecosystem,
including the Jordan River, are far too unique and
ecologically important to jeopardize for corporate
expediency.

5. Zone A acid/metals plume metals removal at point of extraction
has been suppressed without cause and ignored. The Record of
Decision (Dec. 2000) required metals removal from acid/metals plume
extraction
Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-29: See the Response to Common Comment No. 9.

Additional study of synergistic effects may be warranted. However, the
form of selenium present in the Kennecott contaminated water is selenate.
Studies have documented that sulfate has an antagonistic relationship with
the bioavailability of selenate. This means that in the presence of elevated
sulfate concentrations, like those that are present in the RO concentrate
streams and acid plume water, the selenate that is present is not as available
which lowers the overall toxicity of the selenium.

10-30: See the Response to Common Comment No. 5.

The document to which the commenter refers is the “Explanation of
Significant Differences” which is a required CERCLA document when
treatability studies conducted in the course of Remedial Design suggests a
different treatment alternative might reduce costs or increase effectiveness.
The document compares the original Record of Decision (2000) and the
final Remedial Design (2002) and explains what the differences are between
the two remedies under CERCLA and why the new approach is better than
the old. The document was authored by EPA Region VIII and signed by
both the EPA and DEQ in the summer of 2003. The statement that metals
removal takes place in the tailings line is amply supported in several studies
overseen and reviewed by the TRC.

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-28
10-29
10-30
flows by nanofiltration, but the settlement proposal brushes this aside,
apparently based on the fraudulent claim of metals “removal” in the
tailings line. Here is a direct transcription of the line item from the
ROD/Settlement comparison and notes of differences obtained from
DEQ files (from p.2, entire document attached to these comments, 4pp
long; origin or exact date is unknown, but it appears to have been an
appendix to the settlement proposal submittal to the Trustee):

“Remedy in Record of Decision - Pretreatment of acid water using
nanofiltration
Remedy in Design Phase - Acid water sent directly to tailings line
without pretreatment.
Neutralization and metals removal takes place in the tailings line.
Neutralization by tailing can be augmented with lime if needed.
Differences - Nanofiltration step eliminated in final design”

There is no way to dignify this facile claim that “…metals removal
takes place in the tailings line.” We must call it what it is: Fraudulent,
‘junk’ science, deceiving and possibly dishonest. This isn’t a magic-
show ‘black box’ with applicable spells from Hogwarts. Metals don’t
just ‘get removed’ without scientifically described process
intervention of credible natural phenomena. Nothing of the sort
happens in this large but simple gravity pipeline. What is sometimes
called the “law of conservation of matter” reminds us that if we put
metals into the top end of a closed pipe (the tailings line is gravity fed),
then the metals will come out at the bottom relatively unchanged. They
may be transformed into different metals compounds as a result of
reactions that take place in the pipe --- precipitation resulting from
partial neutralization, which is being claimed --- and they will be very
thoroughly ‘hammered’ by the extreme violence of falling about 1,200
feet in a 50,000 gpm flow of >30% tailings solids, but they will come
out at the bottom, nonetheless, with the only exception being those that
bind to ‘scale’ on the insides of the pipe or other parts of the closed
vessel along the way.

The true difference between the ROD’s recommended
nanofiltration ‘pretreatment’ to remove toxic metals, on the one
Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-31: See the Response to Common Comment No. 5.

The issue was considered in the context of comparing the concentrations of
metals in tailings from mining operations with the metals in the waste from
the groundwater treatment. If the differences had been significant, this
would have triggered an investigation by the Risk Assessment Task Force.
The increases in metals from the addition of the acid plume waters were
assessed to be minor.

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-30
10-31
hand, and mass dumping of the acid/metals-laden water “directly
to tailings line without pretreatment,” on the other, is the metals.
They would be removed by nanofiltration and not be put into the pipe
(as long as concentrates aren’t put into the pipe!); without
nanofiltration, they go into the pipe and into the environment at the
bottom end. We are willing to recognize that some degree of
neutralization will occur, but ‘neutralization’ is not the core issue at
stake here. The long-term metals impacts on disposal-area
ecosystems and public health are the collective, critical point. Metals
could be removed by any of, or a combination of, several technologies
(see next Sierra Club comment item “6. Metals removal technology
alternatives…”).

This provision of the settlement proposal, to ‘remove metals by putting
them into a pipe,’ is no better than smoke and mirrors. We must not
allow ourselves to be deceived into thinking that there are no other
issues than ‘neutralization’ nor choices other than simple discharge. If
treated by nanofiltration or other membrane filtration technology,
permeate (the purified fraction of water flow) could be reclaimed,
affording even more culinary water than the settlement proposes.
Concentrate (all the contaminants loaded into a slurry) disposal is a
burden, to be sure, but it is so because of past management choices and
mistakes that allowed extremely acidic/metals-saturated leach water to
escape over more than half a century, and is therefore an obligation that
cannot merely be discharged into handy ecosystems for corporate
expediency.

Not on our watch.

It is possible, moreover, for truly ‘sustainable solutions’ (see Sierra
Club comment 10, below) to be applied in order to dramatically reduce
ecological and other environmental impacts, and to dramatically
compensate for treatment costs by accrual of revenues from sale of
byproducts commodities. These commodities may be substances
recovered from concentrates and from selective precipitates from other,
non-membrane purification processes, and even materials made from
the tailings, themselves, IF they are not made excessively toxic by

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-32: The commenter appears to be concerned that the Technical Review
Committee did not investigate the ecological impacts this project may have
on the Great Salt Lake. The table included in Response to Common
Comment No. 1 provides an understanding of when ecological concerns
were discussed during the TRC meetings. Resource recovery of the metals
in the plume water in Zone A has and was investigated early on during the
remedial design phase of the CERCLA process. This remedial alternative
was not selected. See the Response to Common Comment No. 5 for a
further understanding of how the acid plume is being addressed.

The commenter lists the screening criteria for selecting a particular remedial
option. Please keep in mind that these criteria are for remedies investigated
under CERCLA. However, in this particular case similar criterion were
used by the TRC in its review and recommendation to the State Trustee
concerning the Joint Proposal for a ground water treatment project. The
commenter implies that both ecological concerns and community
acceptance were not considered as criteria to assess the proposed treatment
option. As has been noted before, both EPA and DEQ are aware that
ecological studies on the potential impacts from discharges to the Great Salt
Lake were performed and reviewed by the TRC at various times. Please
refer to Response to Common Comment No. 9 for a listing of some of these
studies.

DEQ notes that it was never intended that the public would be left out,
however it was intended that a remedial choice would be presented to the
public for their opinion. The EPA and DEQ felt it was prudent to narrow
the field for remedy selection to the best technology screened by the criteria
listed for CERCLA projects, under the National Contingency Plan (NCP).

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-31
10-32
metals transport.

Omission and/or avoidance of ecological values: We do not have
available all the TRC meeting notes over the years, but one, in 1998, is
very telling. In these notes from the January 21, 1998, TRC meeting,
the major agenda item was the review and screening of ‘general
response actions,’ including remedial technologies, as they appeared at
the time. The ‘general response action’ alternatives included:
• “No Further Action (except source control and monitoring)
• Institutional Controls
• Point-of-Use Management
• Containment
• In-situ Treatment
• Collection/Treatment/Delivery”

The ‘screening’ process imposed criteria, as
follows (quoting from TRC notes):
• “Threshold Criteria:
9 Overall protection of human health and the environment
9 Compliance with potential ARARs [applicable, relevant and
appropriate requirements]
• Balancing Criteria:
9 Long-term effectiveness and permanence
9 Reduction in toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment
9 Short-term effectiveness
9 Implementability
9 Cost
• Modifying Criteria:
9 State acceptance
9 Community acceptance”

Notes on the ‘modifying criteria’ indicate
that:
9 “The UDEQ has been and currently is involved in each step of
the RI/FS process for this site.
Although this criterion will be addressed after the Proposed Plan
is released, the TRC has provided community input throughout the
development of the RI report and FS discussion
Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-32
document.”

Italicized/bold emphasis added by Sierra Club to call attention to
the apparent intent of Trustee, EPA and Kennecott to defer
‘community acceptance’ process until period after announcement
of settlement proposal.

Six ‘remedial technologies’ were screened
against these criteria:
I. “No Further Action
II. Institutional Controls
III. Point-of-Use Management
IV. Hydrologic Containment, RO Treatment, Delayed Acid Plume
Extraction and Delivery [with permeate to one of four ‘delivery
options’, one of which is ‘Directly to the Great Salt Lake’]
V. Hydraulic Containment, RO Treatment, Active Extraction of Acid
Plume and Delivery [with same four ‘delivery options’]
VI. Hydraulic Containment, RO Treatment, Active Pumping of the
Acid Plume and Lime Treatment” [with lime addition taking place such
that, “Sludge generated from lime treatment would be placed in a
newly created, lined repository, and Permeate from the lime treatment
plant could potentially be sent to RO plant for polishing and ultimate
municipal use”]

The last page of the Powerpoint-generated notes is transliterated to MS
Word exactly, as follows:

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-33: See Response to Common Comment No. 5 for an understanding of
the statutory authority that the remediation of the acidic, metals plume in
Zone A (acid plume) is being addressed.

Metals removal alternatives were evaluated in a pilot testing program.
Updates on the progress of this strategy were a routine part of TRC
meetings. When during the final design phase of the project this strategy
did not produce any economic benefits or any environmental benefits, it
was dropped due to high cost, difficulties in maintenance, and production of
few, if any, environmental benefits. Only a small amount of water was
produced and it was at high cost. In addition, the technology would have
produced an additional waste stream requiring disposal. Selective
precipitation, which did show promise in the beginning, was dropped from
the selected remedy under the CERCLA action failing the cost-effectiveness
criteria required by the National Contingency Plan (NCP). Very serious
consideration was given to this approach.

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-32
“Comparison of Alternatives
Relative Comparisons of Advantages and Disadvantages of the
Options
• In general, protectiveness of human health and the environment
increases from Alternative I to VI.
• In general, ARAR compliance increases with increased remedial
action (Alternatives I through III do not comply).
• Of the six options, Alternative I does not provide long-term
effectiveness and permanence.
• Alternatives IV through VI provide better long-term effectiveness
and permanence by reliable controls
• Alternatives I through III provide little or no reduction in TMV.
[toxicity, mobility or volume]
• Alternatives V and VI provide the greatest reduction in TMV, but
VI generates large amounts of sludge.
• Alternatives IV through VI permanently reduce TMV by extraction
of contaminant mass.
• Costs increase as a function of the degree of action taken at the site
(generally increasing from Alternative I through VI).”
[*For the table to be included the original was reformatted to fit
into CRS]
This sequence of quotations from the January, 1998 TRC meeting
presentation is useful here to show the state of the implied settlement
proposal at that time. Whether nanofiltration was ‘in’ or ‘out’ of the
proposal, the primary alternative was metals removal before any plume
disposal in the tailings pipeline, creating the problem of great amounts of
sludge (from lime treatment, in this case, but it could be nanofiltration
concentrate sludges, as well). There was, therefore, intent to remove metals
near the point of origin, though there was mention of possible filtration
concentrates disposal directly into the Great Salt Lake. ‘Community
acceptance,’ as noted above, was anticipated to happen after the settlement
proposal was announced --- i.e., it hasn’t happened yet, as of January, 1998,
and the TRC isn’t to be understood as representing that public process.
Costs were predicated in the TRC presentation to increase linearly through
the six alternatives, with no consideration of modifying factors, such as
potential revenue from resource recovery byproducts (we discuss these

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-34: See the Response to Common Comment No. 4 and No. 5.

With regard to remediation technologies for the Zone A contamination,
Kennecott evaluated over 40 different remediation technologies,
combinations of technologies and alternatives. Evaluation of these
technologies was presented in the Feasibility Study for Kennecott Utah
Copper South Facilities Groundwater Plume, March 16, 1998 – Version B.
The following treatment strategies were specifically investigated and were
considered by Kennecott to address both its CERCLA and NRD
requirements.

Selective precipitation (“liquid mining”) for the recovery of alumina was
evaluated as one of the technologies. Although this technology has the
potential to remove alumina as a saleable product, the technology is far
from being ready to implement at a full scale. In addition, the selective
precipitation leaves the other contaminants behind that still require
additional treatment.

Nanofiltration was studied for a number of years at a pilot scale.

The decision to neutralize acidic groundwater in the tailings line is based on
years of studies documented in Appendix A of the South Facilities
Remedial Design. Kennecott also has tested this technology for a short
period of time at full scale to demonstrate the scientific, technical and
economic viability of this process Fundamentally, acidic water must be
neutralized before it can be reused or discharged. Employing
nanofiltration does not solve this problem. Nanofiltration simply
concentrates the acidic water in a concentrate stream that still requires the
same neutralization capacity as the unconcentrated volume of acid water
extracted from the ground. Through full scale testing, Kennecott was able
to demonstrate that the acid plume water was neutralized in the tailings line,
the contaminants were precipitated out of the water, the contaminants were
deposited in solid form into the tailings impoundment and the water was
clean enough to reuse in Kennecott’s milling process or discharge under
Kennecott’s discharge permits.

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-32
under our last point, “10. Environmental Accounting and Sustainable
Solutions,” below).

In only one instance in the entire TRC meeting is there mention of the word,
‘ecology’ or a derivative of that term, that one instance being in reference to
the Jordan River. At no time is there reference to any concerns about the
ecology of the Great Salt Lake, which happens to be by far the most
significant ecological phenomenon in our region. We submit this to be an
effect of lack of numerical water quality standards, compounded by a
societal and governmental lack of biological ethics.

The settlement snatches defeat from the jaws of victory, in ecological terms.
A job that was in the process of being relatively well done, tempered by an
ongoing lack of ecological consciousness, as late as 1996-97, was turned
into a tragedy of the largest proportions imaginable for the region’s
dominant ecological feature and one of the region’s most conspicuous
public trusts (with air quality and drinking water). This has to be placed in
a position of dubious honor alongside MagCorp/US Magnesium’s dioxin
production (with which there may be synergies in the Great Salt Lake) for
sheer environmental destructiveness.

6. Metals removal technology alternatives have been suppressed and
ignored in the settlement, but are feasible, especially used in strategic
combinations. Kennecott knows intimately, and has developed at least to
large pilot applications, treatment technology alternatives that are not only
technically effective, but are also economically feasible by virtue of
selective precipitation or selective recovery of metals plume chemical
constituents. The acid/metals plume can be viewed as a liquid mine. As
reported in years of TRC meetings and in reports to EPA Region VIII and
to the Trustee, Kennecott has done extensive work in evaluating biosufide
and filtration (ultra-, nano- and reverse osmosis filtration) as selective
precipitation technologies. At some historical point we have been able to
reach only by deconstruction, Kennecott abandoned nanofiltration and
biosulfide treatment technologies hastily and without adequate cause (ref.
summary of differences between the Dec. 2000 ROD and the

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-34: (cont.) By neutralizing the acid plume water in the tailings circuit
and by adding the Zone A RO concentrate, the contaminated water is being
put to a beneficial use, as it is recycled from the tailings impoundment into
the milling process to produce copper from the Bingham Canyon Mine.
The precipitated contaminants are deposited in the tailings impoundment at
a ratio of 100 parts tailings to 2 parts contaminants (which is mainly
gypsum or calcium sulfate). As noted in the Explanation of Significant
Difference (ESD) document signed by EPA and the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality in 2003, nanofiltration was removed from the Zone
A selected remedy under the CERCLA authority. Originally it was
proposed by Kennecott to use the extracted acid core water as a source of
water to be treated and supplied to the public in the Affected Area. The
produced water would allow Kennecott to meet their water production
requirements for a reduction of the letter of credit, as prescribed by the
Consent Decree. However, this treatment alternative did not produce any
economic benefits or any environmental benefits (as described above).

Kennecott ultimately determined that a higher extraction of sulfate water
from the Zone A plume could provide a sufficient stream of water to meet
the Consent Decree production requirement. However, extractions of acid
core water were still required under the Consent Decree (for containment)
so Kennecott proposed that the acid core water extractions would continue
as proposed to prevent the further migration of the plume in Zone A. The
extracted acid core water is proposed for disposal in the North Expansion
Impoundment via the Kennecott Tailings Pipeline, after neutralization in the
tailings pipeline. The geochemical studies demonstrating the neutralization
potential of the tailings material, the impact to the aquifer from the
proposed higher extractions, the feasibility study to treat the sulfate water
stream to produce treated municipal quality water, and other studies were
presented to the TRC between 1999 and 2003. The TRC assessed this
approach by Kennecott and agreed that it was appropriate. EPA revised the
selected remedy and memorialized the change in the referenced ESD
document.

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-32
10-33
10-34
Settlement, obtained from UDEQ files). If the obligations and
responsibilities imposed by Kennecott mal-management as the
contamination’s source are to be honored by a supposed corporate ‘good
citizen,’ then metals removal for highest-and-best use should be a
paramount consideration. The December, 2000 Record of Decision (see
Sierra Club comment 5, above) stipulated that nanofiltration would be used
to remove metals and excess salts, a measure that we would probably find
acceptable, depending on verification and monitoring to accompany this
technology, and eventual disposition of the removed concentrates (i.e., NOT
into the Great Salt Lake or the tailings impoundments, thence eventually
into the GSL). Pilot work at Kennecott proved the efficiency of
nanofiltration in this particular application, specifically to acid/metals
ground water flows. That’s how nanofiltration came to be the technology of
choice at the point of the ROD’s announcement. It is dismaying in the
extreme to see that organizational politics and a frankly disreputable drive
to improve the bottom line at the expense of the Great Salt Lake and the
public trust has been exercised here, with apparent support from UDEQ and
EPA.

7. The tailings impoundments are inadequate as toxic metals
repositories, especially considering pass-through hydrology, Lake level
changes, and potential for geological hazards occurrences. The tailings
impoundments are not RCRA-qualified repositories in any sense. But the
metals proposed to be relocated there warrant the application of RCRA
repository criteria for permanent isolation from the environment. Neither
the old, Magna Tailings Impoundment nor the North Tailings Impoundment
are lined. In fact, they operate by promoting water to pass through the fine
sand materials that make up the dikes (made entirely of tailings), to be
collected in a similarly-unlined, perimeter canal (C7 Ditch) for collection
and recirculation into the Copperton Concentrator process line, or for
discharge to the Great Salt Lake.

• GSL Hydrological Unpredictability: Counting on the North
Tailings Impoundment for reliable, long-term isolation of toxic
metals contaminants from the Great Salt Lake is unnecessarily

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)
10-35: See the Response to Common Comment No. 7 and No. 13.

More specifically, the DEQ has permitting authority over the operation of
the North Expansion Impoundment (proposed receiving facility of treatment
concentrates). The concern of pass-through hydrology has been assessed by
the DWQ under the State’s Ground Water Protection Program. There are
monitoring and compliance requirements under Kennecott ground water
protection permit, which are aimed at preventing offsite migration of
contaminants. The chemistry of the deposited materials is such that as long
as the impoundment remains at a neutral pH (6.5-7.0) the metals that are
bound within the impounded substrates will remain stable and not available
to the environment. Control of acidity in the tailings slurry begins at the
Copperton Concentrator and is monitored along the tailings pipeline both as
a requirement of the State’s ground water protection permit for the pipeline
and the CERCLA authority.

The term “toxic” is not applicable as the concentrate has been repeatedly
tested and does not exhibit any hazardous characteristics.

The issue of stability of the tailings pond was thoroughly examined in the
course of the Environmental Impact Studies conducted by Kennecott as a
part of the Clean Water Act 404 process. Both proximity to the Lake and
seismic stability were considered in that process.

10-36: See the Response to Common Comment No. 5.

For further information, the decision to neutralize acidic groundwater in the
tailings line is based on years of studies. The commenter is referred to
Final Design for Remedial Action at South Facilities Groundwater,
available at the DEQ website. Specifically, review Appendices A and C
which address the concern regarding deposition of metals in the tailings
impoundment. Leachability studies demonstrate that lime sludges
generated by treatment of Zone A acid groundwater readily pass Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Protocol (TCLP), and thus by definition do not
require disposal in a RCRA-type repository.

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-34
10-35
10-36
10-37
risky, in the face of regional hydrological unpredictability,
especially to extreme Lake level fluctuations. As stated by
Atwood and Mabey (‘Flooding Hazards Associated with Great Salt
Lake,’ Genevieve Atwood and Don R. Mabey, in Environmental
and Engineering Geology of the Wasatch Front Region, Utah
Geological Association Publication 24, 1995, W.R. Lund, ed.; page
483), “Twice in historical time Great Salt Lake has risen to an
elevation of 4,212 feet above sea level. The second rise occurred
in the 1980s and cost industry and government over $300 million.
Rises to even higher levels should be considered in the design of
structures on the lake bed. Wind setup and wave runup associated
with sustained high-velocity winds cause flooding up to several
feet above the static lake level. This super-elevation of the
flooding level varies by several feet around the lake shore. The
magnitude of the setup and runup is determined by wind velocity,
fetch, lake depth, shoreline exposure, lake bed slope, and the
configuration of the beach or constructed shoreline feature such as
a dike or causeway.” It is flatly irresponsible to ignore the long
term potential of iterative physical attacks on the tailings
impoundments, as well as the potential inherent in these episodes
for metals mixing with Great Salt Lake waters and sediments.

• Low-water hydrology also appears to be off the ‘radar screen’ in
the settlement, not considered at all. The settlement’s assumptions
seem to be based on studies of the tailings impoundment vicinity
done during the sustained mid-1980s-early 1990s high-water
episode, in the course of application for the tailings expansion that
became the North Tailings Impoundment (~3.5 square miles of the
total 12.5 sq.mi. impoundment area). With the Great Salt Lake’s
level low and falling due to several years of drought, hydraulic
‘head’ must necessarily have altered the hydrological gradient.
Lake margin soils consist of a complex interlayering of sands,
gravels and clays, with few of these layers capable of resisting
hydraulic flow even slightly, much less to meet the impermeability
expectations we’d have of a ‘liner’ system. Indeed, these soils
present preferred pathways to horizontal migration in more cases
than not. Given the porosity of the North Tailings Impoundment

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-36: (cont.) Through full scale testing, Kennecott has demonstrated that
the acid plume water can be neutralized in the tailings line (either from
excess neutralization potential in the tailings or through addition of lime),
metals are precipitated out of the water and deposited in solid form in the
tailings impoundment, and the decant water is clean enough to reuse in
Kennecott's milling process or discharge to Great Salt Lake under
Kennecott's discharge permits. This information has often been brought to
the TRC membership for their evaluation.

10-37: Prior to State Engineer approval in the mid-1990’s for the
construction of the North Tailings Impoundment, numerous studies were
conducted addressing site, geotechnical, engineering and environmental
considerations. These studies included assessing the impacts of flooding
and wave run-up on the North Tailings Impoundment such that the design
of the embankment incorporates these concerns. This information is
included in the final environmental impact statement document which was
submitted to the U.S. Army Corps. Of Engineers to address some 404
permit requirements for the north expansion impoundment (Final EIS, Dec.
22, 1995).

10-38: The tailings impoundment is underlain by a 9 to 15 foot thick layer
of Bonneville Clay that effectively limits vertical movement of
impoundment solutions, acting as a liner. In addition, the alkaline treatment
of acidic waters and treatment concentrates in the tailings pipeline converts
dissolved metals into stable precipitates before entering the impoundment.
A Groundwater Discharge Permit issued by the Utah Division of Water
Quality for the tailings impoundment requires intense monitoring of
operational flows and ground water in the vicinity of the impoundment
ensuring no environmental degradation.

Kennecott has performed studies on the wastes to be discharged in the
tailings impoundment and submitted them to the TRC including EPA and
the State of Utah. The studies show that the RO concentrate, acid plume
water and resulting neutralized precipitates (which were analyzed in a State
certified laboratory) do not exhibit any hazardous characteristics.
Furthermore, when the wastes are combined with tailings, they represent
less than two percent of the total volume of material placed in the tailings

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-37
10-38
dike and canal, there is literally nothing in the way of migration of
metals from the impoundments into the Great Salt Lake at low
Lake water levels, even without exacerbation of the problem by
geological disaster. Hydrological models of the tailings
impoundment vicinity were done during GSL high-water years,
finding to no one’s retrospective surprise that hydraulic gradients
were generally upward (artesian), and only insignificantly vectored
toward the Lake. Now that the GSL level is quite low and falling,
we do not know that this is still true, nor that it will be true in
future, “geological timeframe” low-water episodes. It is common-
sense engineering wisdom that hydraulic ‘head’ has changed by as
much as ten or twelve feet since the Tailings Expansion Project
EIS was done, a change probably conducive to communication of
contaminants from the unlined tailings impoundments and the
unlined collection ditch system (C7 Ditch) to the Great Salt Lake.
What if the Lake drops ten or fifteen more feet? ‘Snapshot’
environmental decision making doesn’t work around the shores of
our extremely dynamic terminal basin. These analyses need, first,
to understand how the Lake and its ecosystem work over both
short and long terms; second, to respect ecosystem functions and
values; and third, to engineer within ecosystem constraints.
‘Snapshot’ engineering isn’t good enough when the Great Salt
Lake’s miraculous ecosystem is at stake. The long term here
means centuries, certainly, and millennia, appropriately.

• Seismic instability has not been considered, but evidence
suggests should be emphasized in this evaluation. We are
overdue for an earthquake in the Richter 7.0 to 7.2 range, which
UGS and USGS literature says can produce great instability in
Lake sediments, as well as significant ‘seiche’ tidal wave events
due to Lake shallowness and significant tectonic ground
displacement. Liquefaction, structural displacement, resonant
amplification effects like those observed in Mexico City’s similar
circumstances, and “seiches” (earthquake-generated lake waves)
all offer opportunity, over geological timeframes, to degrade or
destroy impoundment dike structures and to mix whatever is put
into the tailings impoundments into the Great Salt Lake.

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-38: (cont.) impoundment. As documented in Appendix A of the
Kennecott South Facilities Remedial Design, the following supports storage
of these wastes at the tailings impoundment:
• The tailings are underlain by several feet of low permeability clay
that essentially acts as a liner (see Final EIS, Dec. 22, 1995)
• The groundwater gradient beneath the tailings impoundment is
upward, indicating that contamination from the tailings
impoundment would not migrate into the aquifer even if it could
penetrate the layer of clay beneath the impoundment.
• The tailings impoundment is located over an aquifer that is too
salty for use as a drinking water aquifer making it a less sensitive
area.
• The tailings impoundment is covered under State and Federal air,
surface water, groundwater and reclamation permits that require
various long term monitoring.

10-39: Significant seismic analyses of the tailings impoundment site and
method of construction were completed as part of a final environmental
impact statement (Final EIS, Dec. 22, 1995) conducted for the tailings north
expansion project completed in 1995. The development of the tailings dam
employs the use of cycloned sand tailings using a modified centerline
method of construction. The combination of using cycloned sand tailings
placed and compacted as an engineered fill in conjunction with an
underdrain system provides for a structure that is stable and safe under the
design earthquake conditions, the Maximum Credible Earthquake. State
statutes define the Maximum Credible Earthquake as “the most severe
earthquake that is believed to be possible at the site on the basis of
geological and seismological evidence.”

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-38
10-39
8. Air quality degradation from metals-toxified tailings impoundment
dust appears inevitable, but has been inadequately considered and
inaccurately characterized by ignoring metals ‘fate’ and physical
behavior in the tailings line and impoundments. Air quality
implications of metals precipitates and consequent evaporates at
surface are not considered. Kennecott’s “Little Gobi” creates
sufficiently severe, intermittent dust storms now; we hardly need toxic
metals added to the cloud when these storms occur.

• Metals salts discharged into the tailings impoundment may behave
differently from the rosy scenarios presented in settlement
documents, which assume homogeneous diffusion, as though the
tailings were a liquid. Tailings are extremely fine, relatively
uniformly-sized sand. Tailings may will surely act more like a
sand filter than a liquid, segregating and classifying some
compounds, such as colloidal aluminum hydroxides and hydroxy-
sulfates, possibly bound up with arsenic, selenium, copper,
cadmium, chromium and other constituents of the acid/metals
plume; while passing through some compounds that ‘want’ to
remain dissolved regardless of pH (acidity, chemical neutrality or
alkalinity). Some elements and compounds may, in fact, be
dissolved and mobilized by high alkalinity.
• Evaporates from Kennecott’s leach water, even in slight dilutions
similar to the acid/metals ground water plume, are observed to
form on the ground surface in the course of accumulation and
drying of some metals compounds. Some of these evaporates may
be susceptible to dust formation and air transport into populated
areas and neighboring ecosystems. The burden of proof that this
will not happen is on the PRP (potentially responsible party,
Kennecott) and the Trustee. It is a sufficient concern among those
who have seen the properties of leach water evaporates that it
deserves full consideration, rather than the absence of
consideration that it has received in the settlement.

Tailings impoundment vegetation cover is critical to regional air
quality maintenance, but will be compromised or rendered
impossible by metals deposits.

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-40: See the Response to Common Comment No. 5 and No. 7.

Wind blown dust from the tailings impoundment is monitored and does not
exceed human health exposure criteria established by EPA and the State of
Utah. Samples of soil and dust from the town of Magna that contained trace
amounts of tailings in some cases were analyzed and did not exceed health
criteria. The contaminants that will end up in the tailings impoundment
represent less than two percent of the volume of material being placed and
will not significantly alter the chemical nature of the tailings. The
significant majority of “contaminants” that come from the south end waters
will be sulfate. The sulfate will precipitate out of solution with calcium to
form calcium sulfate. Calcium sulfate is more commonly known as
gypsum, which is the same material that is used in wallboard for
construction of residential houses.

The issue of inappropriate metals loading was considered in the context of
comparing the concentrations of metals in tailings with the tailings/acid
mixture. If the differences had been significant, this would have triggered
an investigation by the Risk Assessment Task Force. The increases in
metals were evaluated by the TRC and judged to be minor.

10-41: The Utah Department of Environmental Quality and the U.S. EPA
Region VIII agree with the commenter about the importance of vegetative
cover on the tailings pond. The Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining
(DOGM’s) permit involving the tailings pond requires that it be revegetated
after closure. If the surface of the tailings has become toxic for ANY
reason, then revegetation will obviously be more challenging, perhaps more
costly. But the permit requires that, however costly, the revegetation must
occur. As a management practice, this requirement places an emphasis to
protect the impoundment from acidification.

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-40
10-41
Since abandonment of the Magna Tailings Impoundment, less water
has been placed into this nine square-mile area immediately north-
northwest of Magna, Kearns and West Valley City, and west of Salt
Lake City. High wind episodes, usually preceding storm fronts, have
picked up and distributed many tons of tailings as dust clouds
throughout the Salt Lake Valley, resulting in stringent efforts by
Kennecott to establish vegetation on the impoundment surface.
Temporary dust suppression measures have been necessary, especially
in areas that have resisted plant growth.
• Dust prevention plans for the abandoned Magna tailings
impoundment depend on creating vegetative growth, as will be the
case when the North Tailings Impoundment is abandoned in
upcoming decades, theoretically when the Bingham Pit closes.
Vegetation establishment appears not to have been very effective,
casting suspicion on the neutralization-capacity theory of the
tailings impoundment.
• Aluminum, the dominant acid-generating element in the
acid/metals contamination plume, is phyto-toxic, moreover: it
retards or kills plant growth. Mass transfer of metals to the north
tailings impoundment may prevent vegetation from being
established on that surface, as a consequence of aluminum, alone.
Arsenic, copper and probably other metals and salts constituents of
the acid/metals plume and leach waters cannot help to meet this
vegetation cover imperative. In any case, the model of sustainable
native vegetation in GSL lakeshore environments is of scattered,
‘clumpy’ vegetation, including forbs and small shrubs, not a
landscape one would recognize as sufficiently preventive of dust-
forming capacity in high winds to inspire confidence that the
vision is adequate. Given some degree of phyto-toxicity (plant
poisons) present, vegetation may be relegated to extreme
sparseness, possibly even demanding very expensive, very
extensive alternative measures to prevent dust in perpetuity, for all
practical purposes. For this reason alone, the mass relocation of
metals into the tailings impoundments is ill-advised, and surely in
violation of air quality permit conditions for reclamation.

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-40
9. Environmental accounting and sustainable solutions: The narrow
financial analysis applied to alternatives evaluation has effectively
precluded assemblage of sustainable solutions. It appears that all
decision making has occurred according to ‘net present value’
calculations, or some other calculus that 1) depreciates the future and 2)
externalizes wildlife and Jordan River and Great Salt Lake ecosystems.
• The basic principle of “extended producer responsibility” must
apply here. Kennecott manufactured the ground water
contamination in the course of making copper, silver, gold,
molybdenum, selenium and other related products. Considering the
sulfate and the acid/metals plumes together, Kennecott has
manufactured at least a quart of contaminated water for each of the
approximately 30 billion pounds of copper it made in the
Twentieth Century. Kennecott, therefore, bears full
responsibility to remedy the damaging contamination byproducts
in such a way that the public trust is not violated. If the settlement
is carried forth as proposed, then an additional environmental cost
for energy and global warming impacts will accrue per pound of
copper.
• The settlement allows damage to the public trust to occur on a
massive scale in the form of metals discharges to the Jordan River
and, both directly and indirectly, to the Great Salt Lake.
• Technological remedies that would afford metals removal prior to
disposal of possibly-acceptable salts into the Great Salt Lake
(though not the Jordan River) have been dismissed by the device of
separate evaluation of each technology by NPV investment
evaluations that also place value on ecosystems, habitats, wild
lives and the public trust that protects them. Combined technology
applications integrating comprehensive environmental accounting
presents the only sustainable approach:
¾ For example, biosulfide pre-treatment, by engineered
application of controlled microorganism cultures that
biologically mediate selected chemical reactions, can
selectively precipitate copper and aluminum. The biosulfide
process can produce copper concentrate at higher copper
content than the Concentrator’s floatation process, and
produce high-commercial value ‘alumina’ (aluminum oxide
in
Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-42: See the Response to Common Comment No. 12.

10-43: With regard to remediation technologies for the Zone A
contamination, see the Response to Common Comment No. 4 and No. 5.

A number of the sustainable solutions were in fact evaluated in the course
of this study. Included were concrete, the solar photovoltaic power, and the
biosulfide processes. These suggestions were proposed by Kennecott and
discussed in open forums including the Focus Group discussions regarding
future land use at the tailings impoundment. Approval of the Joint Proposal
is not expected to preclude future sustainable management of the tailings
impoundment.

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-42
10-43
various forms); nanofiltration can remove most remaining
salts to near-drinking water standards; reverse osmosis can
‘polish’ to culinary standards;
¾ drying by distilling can reduce concentrate volumes for
repository disposal, if necessary, further capturing culinary
water, facilitating further resource extraction. The cost-benefit
balance sheet for this holistic approach to remediation looks
very different from the rigid, one-technology-at-a-time
methodology applied to the settlement’s analysis of
alternatives.
¾ If energy is integrated into these equations --- which it surely
must be, in this age of seemingly inevitable global climate
change from fossil fuel use excesses, and in light of the recent
report on regional water resource implications of global
climate change --- then we are compelled to draw on abundant
solar, wind and possibly other renewable energy forms in
order to render energy use for contaminated water remediation
not only less drastic than it would otherwise be, but make of
water treatment a probable sustainable economic development
tool for the region. We should recall that Kennecott and a few
other Great Salt Lake shore industries are uniquely sited to
employ ‘salt gradient solar ponds (SGSP),’ a type of low-tech,
anti-convective pond capable of generating both heat and
electricity by use of saturated salts in pond bottom layers that
capture and hold solar heat, trapped by the density of salt
layers above. Heat, in turn, can be extracted by circulating
liquids through tubes in the bottom layer for direct use
(greenhouses, ‘district’ or industrial/commercial heat), or for
conversion to electrical power. The technology is proven, with
plants in operation at many locations around the world (e.g.,
Univ. of Texas – El Paso, has had a small working plant for
more than twelve years; see
http://www.cerm.utep.edu/solarpond/2epsp.html). Salts from
water treatment concentrates (minus toxic metals) may be
usable as SGSP density-gradient salts, moreover, reducing
disposal costs and making use of what would otherwise be
wasted.

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-43
These are only a few of several possible beneficially
synergistic technology integration that can reduce overall cost
more than enough to justify even to corporate accountants the
undertaking of integrated-thinking sustainability projects,
instead of simplistic, habitual approaches that ‘pump-and-
dump’ into out-of-sight, out-of-mind waterbodies. It just
happens that these particular waterbodies are anything
but out of mind, however out of sight we may imagine
them to be.
¾ The tailings, themselves, in the hands of enlightened company
management, could become the source of one of the best
‘green’ building materials known: autoclaved aerated
concrete (AAC). AAC samples exist made directly from
Kennecott tailings from the Magna Tailings Impoundment,
produced by the Pennsylvania State University Materials
Laboratory (Dr. Michael Grutzeck). These samples show all
the positive properties that have made AAC the dominant
building material of Europe for more than 80 years: light
weight, great thermal insulation value, strong performance in
seismic events, rapid construction, easy workability with
common hand tools, extreme fire resistance, good resistance to
moisture and mildew. One US/Canadian company, E-Crete, is
manufacturing AAC in Arizona using copper floatation
process tailings, like Kennecott’s, as the primary mineral
filler. Early AAC samples made by an E-Crete predecessor
(Airstone) from Kennecott tailings passed leachability tests.
Whether these tailings will pass leachability tests (TCLP) after
the mass transport of the contents of the acid/metals plume’s
contamination into the tailings impoundment, or not, is a
question that is important to anyone who hopes to see this
sustainable alternative to forest products and common
masonry products come into existence. AAC, as it happens, is
a heat-intensive manufacturing process, so it could be an on-
site user of heat from salt gradient solar ponds and other solar-
thermal technologies.
¾ Solar photovoltaic power is also worth considering. The nine
square mile area of the abandoned Magna Tailings

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-43
Impoundment could produce as much as 700 megawatts of
solar (PV) ‘green’ electricity, which can be sold at ‘peak’
price rates, if covered with panels proposed by one solar farm
developer, essentially at little or no cost to Kennecott. This
power source can be accounted, also, as a ‘sustainable’
contribution to the positive side of the ledger by which
Kennecott’s societal and environmental obligations could be
resolved.

What does the Sierra Club need to see in the Kennecott ground water
natural resource damage claim settlement? At least the following:
• Ecological functions and values of the Great Salt Lake and its
watershed must be adequately understood and considered in the
full light of scientific scrutiny.
• Ecologically, environmentally and economically sustainable
solutions to the problem must be formulated.
• Zone A metals from the acid plume must not be transported to the
tailings impoundments or to the Great Salt Lake.
• Selenium must not be discharged into the terminal basin of the
Great Salt Lake where it will accumulate, nor into the Jordan
River, where ‘assimilative capacity’ may already have been
exceeded.
• Jordan River water quality of any other critical parameter must
not be degraded by concentrate discharge.
• Kennecott should change contaminants to resources by resource
recovery, and create positives from negatives, wherever possible.
• Ecological and environmental restoration should prevail as the
overarching objective, instead of sneaking through some rate of
attrition that the community will tolerate.

Hope is the most fundamental ingredient of sustainability, closely followed
by compassion, restraint, selflessness, and community-centeredness. In
order for us to trust the Trustee, not to mention the Company and the
assembled regulators, there must be a gulf filled with hope, compassion,
restraint, selflessness and community-centeredness. The Great Salt Lake
lies before us as a beacon, reminding us that ‘community’ consists not just

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-44: This summary has been responded to as discussed in the response to
common comments and in previous paragraphs. It is the Trustee’s
judgment that approval of the Joint Proposal best balances the many
competing factors with the legal framework of the Trustee’s obligations
under CERCLA and the Consent Decree.

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

10-43
10-44
of the human community, but also of our wild neighbors in such miraculous
profusion.

Please carefully consider these comments, submitted on behalf of Sierra
Club’s Utah members. We request that we be kept informed of all future
events, publications and alterations of the settlement process as they may be
scheduled.

Sincerely,

Ivan Weber
For the Utah Chapter

Encl: US FWS letter of comment 8-15-03 on UPDES Permit
UT0025551 (4 pp) [hard-copy only]
“Explanation of Significant Differences…” document, date
unknown (4 pp) [hard-copy only, though we will
endeavor to scan the document and make it available on
request]

CC: Agencies:
EPA Region VIII, Eva Hoffman
Kennecott Utah Copper Corp., Bill Williams, Louis Cononelos,
Marcelle Shoop
USFWS Utah Field Office, H.R. Maddux Utah Field Supervisor
USGS – Utah Office
Utah Geological Survey
Utah Div. of Oil, Gas and Mining

Organizations, Institutions and Interested Individuals:
United Steelworkers of America, Mike Wright, Diane Heminway,
Wayne Holland, Kelly Hansen
Friends of Great Salt Lake, President Lynn DeFreitas, TRC Rep.
Joy Emory
Great Salt Lake Audubon Society, Jeff Salt
National Audubon Society, Wayne Martinson
Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

The Nature Conservancy, Utah Office, Dave Livermore, Joel
Peterson
Utah Waters, Exec. Dir. Darrell Mensel
Utah Rivers Council
Mineral Policy Center
HEAL Utah, Exec. Dir. Jason Groenewold
Wasatch Clean Air Coalition, Kathy Van Dame
Dr. Ty Harrison, Westminister College Dept. of Biology
Dr. Genevieve Atwood and Dr. Don Mabey
Tom Belchak
Dr. John Veranth, Chairman, Utah Air Quality Board
Ms. Ann Wechsler, Utah Water Quality Board

Response to E-mail No. 03-10 (attached letter, cont.)

E-mail No. 03-11

From: [Ivan Weber]
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 2003 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: Addendum, Sierra Club Critique, Kennecott NRDC
Settlement Proposal

My apologies, Dianne and everyone on this list: I dropped off the
attachment somehow.

Ivan
----- Original Message -----
From: Ivan Weber
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [mark.Clemens]; [marc.heileson]; [jwalker]; [wmartinson]; [jpeterson];
[Ldefreitas]; [Joy Emory]; [AWECHSL]; [john.veranth]; [Jason]; [jeffsalt];
[dvd.kvd]; [Darrell Mensel]; [Zachary Frankel]; [Steve Erickson]; [Lewis
Downey]; [Dan Randolph]; [editor]; [rford]; [lucy Jordan]; [bruce_waddell]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 6:22 PM
Subject: Addendum, Sierra Club Critique, Kennecott NRDC Settlement
Proposal

Dear Dr. Nielson:

Please add the attached addendum to the record of Utah Chapter Sierra Club
comments submitted on the proposed settlement of the Kennecott ground
water contamination claim. We understand that the comment period has
been kept open until November 21, allowing a beginning of public review
and understanding of the problem --- though many people are only now
becoming aware that it exists, at all. This deserves better.

Congratulations are in order for Governor Leavitt's confirmation to the
office of EPA Administrator, and to you for the obvious opportunity for you
to move to the national level of environmental administration.

Thanks very much,
Ivan
Response to E-mail No. 03-11

E-mail No. 03-11 (cont.)

Ivan Weber
Weber Sustainability Consulting
953 1st Avenue
Salt Lake City, Utah 84103
[phone] / [phone] cellular
[phyto]

CC: [mark.Clemens], [marc.heileson], [jwalker], [wmartinson],
[jpeterson], [Ldefreitas], [Joy Emory] [joypat2000], [AWECHSL],
[john.veranth], [Jason], [jeffsalt], [dvd.kvd], [Darrell Mensel] [dmensel],
[Zachary Frankel] [z_frankel], [Steve Erickson] [erickson.steve1], [Lewis
Downey] [LDOWNEY], [Dan Randolph] [drandolph], [editor], [rford],
[lucy Jordan] [lucy_Jordan], [bruce_waddell]

Response to E-mail No. 03-11 (cont.)

E-mail No. 03-11 (attached letter)

October 29, 2003

Dr. Dianne Nielson, Trustee of the Natural Resource
Executive Director, Utah Department of Environmental Quality
168 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114

Subject: Addendum to Critique, Natural Resource Damage Claim Proposed
Settlement Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation Ground Water
Contamination

Dear Dr. Nielson:

Please incorporate the following additional points and requests into the
Utah Chapter Sierra Club’s comments on the proposed settlement
(continuing the item numbering from our previous submittal):

11. Some significant portion of the aquifer is ruined. Even if the near-
neutral Sulfate plume portion can be purged, over time, the Zone A
acid/metals aquifer is surely ruined for effective use as an aquifer,
not only for the foreseeable future, but probably permanently.
Many of the metals compounds present will have adsorbed, bound
to alluvial soil particles in great quantities. In previous comments,
we called attention to the discrepancy between our memory of
previous statements about acid/metals plume pH, on the one hand
(3.4-3.7), compared to the pH claimed in settlement presentation
documents (~4.3). This latter number is approximately the
threshold of aluminum precipitation. Has this event happened in
the aquifer, or is it about to happen in the tailings line, producing a
startlingly high-volume, low-mass precipitate that may behave in
ways the Company and the Trustee do not anticipate? Which is it?
Wouldn’t it be a good idea 1) to be sure of this phenomenon, and
2) to disclose the true chemical condition of the acid well waters to
the public? Aluminum is toxic to plant life and may have physical
and biochemical effects we do not fully understand, particularly in
the water column of such a unique and dynamic saline waterbody

Response to E-mail No 03-11 (attached letter)

11-1: See the Response to Common Comment No. 5.

Acid plume water is extracted from Zone A and neutralized in the
Kennecott Tailings Pipeline. Please refer to Table 15 of Appendix C of the
Final Design for Remedial Action at South Facilities Groundwater which
reports results of full scale and bench scale tests on metals removal by
neutralization in the tailings pipeline: 99.9% of aluminum is removed from
solution and precipitated as a solid in the tailings impoundment thereby
preventing aqueous alumina from reaching Great Salt Lake ecosystems.

E-mail No. 03-11 (attached letter, cont.)

11-1
as the Great Salt Lake. Unless and until the Trustee is absolutely
certain of the harmlessness of metals in the GSL ecosystem, these
metals must not be placed into harm’s way in the North Tailings
Impoundment, much less directly into the GSL through
Kennecott’s unfortunately permitted Outfall 008.

The greatest significance of this difference may lie in the amount
of the metals compounds precipitated by dilution, in-situ
neutralization due to aquifer alkalinity, and other factors, either in
the aquifer or prospectively in the North Tailings Impoundment.
Please keep in mind that the pH of water leaked from the Large
Bingham Reservoir was generally <3.0 and as low as 2.6 or so,
leaking (according to previous Kennecott studies and contractor
studies in the public record) at a rate in the range of one million
gallons to seven million gallons per day. This took place for about
30 years, yielding a total leakage between eleven billion and
seventy-seven billion gallons of de facto leach water (i.e., highly
acidic and metals-laden, as a result of waste rock leaching that
yielded ‘acid mine drainage’). Other, less well-defined sources
must be added to this quantity, moreover, particularly from the
drainages between Bingham Creek and Midas to the south, prior to
cutoff wall and leach collection system commissioning.

Regardless whether the pH is actually lower than claimed, thereby
retaining a great deal of the aluminum in solution, or the pH
actually is at the aluminum precipitation threshold, there will be
enough aluminum hydroxide precipitated by dilution and/or
neutralization to surprise even those who have observed this
phenomena in bench tests. A considerable proportion of the total
metals content in the aquifer will be left in place, rendering the
aquifer unusable, probably forever, requiring institutional controls
forever.

12. Aquifer recharge has been contaminated and blocked (precluded)
as a result of collection system commissioning, residual
contamination and institutional controls imposed. Although it has
been engineered, this deprives the public of the benefit of the

Response to E-mail No. 03-11 (attached letter, cont.)

11-2: The Eastside Collection System (toe drains, capture trenches, cut-off
walls, storage reservoirs, etc.) were required under CERCLA and the
Consent Decree to prevent the uncontrolled release of leach water and
alluvial flow from the main drainages along the eastern front of the Oquirrh
Mountains. This system collects the alluvial flow and leach water filtering
through the waste rock dumps, and redirects it toward Kennecott’s holding
reservoir complex outside of the Town of Copperton for use in their process
circuit.

Kennecott contends and the DEQ agrees that the aquifer is still recharged
by precipitation that falls within the valley, the potential ground water that
flows through the bedrock aquifer of the Oquirrh Mountains and infiltration
from the irrigation canals located in the valley. Kennecott and DEQ
recognized that with the source control measures in place (i.e., Eastside
Collection System) the aquifer had a finite recharge value and a certain
sustainable yield. The sustainable yield for this particular aquifer was
calculated as part of the damage assessment; 8235 acre-feet per year from
the contaminated aquifer. This assessment included the State Engineer’s
office as part of the review team. The required production total for a full
reduction of the Letter of Credit has taken sustainable yield into
consideration.

E-mail No. 03-11 (attached letter, cont.)

11-1
11-2
aquifer, a public trust, forever. The Consent Decree takes this into
account, but we ask that the Trustee not lose sight of this damage
in weighing obligations of the PRP, Kennecott.

13. There are profound water resource and water rights implications of
this severance of recharge, contamination of ground water, and
ruining of the aquifer. A specific study of these implications by
the State Engineer is in order, and should be requested on behalf of
well owners and water rights owners in the affected area, as well as
on behalf of water users in the entire region, who will be forced to
seek other water resources as a result of Kennecott’s
mismanagement of its process waters, resulting in the subject
ground water contamination.

14. The Utah Chapter Sierra Club requests that our comments be
answered in writing.

15. The Utah Chapter Sierra Club requests that the Trustee publish in
commonly accessible print media or mail to those who submit
comments the list of all those who comment. This will constitute a
significant step toward remedying the deficiencies of the ‘citizen
review’ shortcomings of the TRC.

16. Only a much more significant extension of the review period can
acceptably allow the public to digest and respond to the settlement
proposal. Others are suggesting that a moratorium of at least one
year be imposed to allow the public sufficient opportunity to
respond. The Utah Chapter Sierra Club concurs with this
suggestion, and hereby requests that the Trustee’s decision on the
settlement be deferred until November, 2004.

Thank you for incorporating these additional comments into our previously
submitted critique.

Sincerely yours,

Response to E-mail No. 03-11 (attached letter, cont.)

11-3: The Division of Water Rights is working with Kennecott to ensure
that water rights associated with this proposal are properly handled within
the confines of state statutes. All applications have been and will continue
to be subject to the review process as required by law. The State Engineer
continues to study the implications of Kennecott’s operations on the aquifer
as well as those of other water users and will act within his statutory
authority on behalf of all water users.

11-4: All comments have been responded to. Copies of this document will
be available for viewing at the City Recorder’s Office, City of West Jordan,
located at 8000 Redwood Road, West Jordan or at the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality offices located at 168 North 1950 West, Salt Lake
City. A copy will also be made available for viewing at the following web
link: http://www.deq.utah.gov/issues/nrd/index.htm. For hard copies please
contact the Utah Department of Environmental Quality at [phone].

11-5: The Comment Response Summary (this document) provides the name
of each individual that provided a comment to the State Trustee for Natural
Resource Damages during the public comment period.

Also, see the Response to Common Comment No. 1.

11-6: See the Response to Common Comment No. 1.

E-mail No. 03-11 (attached letter, cont.)

11-2
11-3
11-4
11-5
11-6
Ivan Weber
for the Utah Chapter

CC: Agencies:
EPA Region VIII, Eva Hoffman
Kennecott Utah Copper Corp., Bill Williams, Louis Cononelos,
Marcelle Shoop
USFWS Utah Field Office, H.R. Maddux Utah Field Supervisor
USGS – Utah Office
Utah Geological Survey
Utah Div. of Oil, Gas and Mining

Organizations, Institutions and Interested Individuals:
United Steelworkers of America, Mike Wright, Diane Heminway,
Wayne Holland, Kelly Hansen
Friends of Great Salt Lake, President Lynn DeFreitas, TRC Rep.
Joy Emory
Western Resource Advocates (LAW Fund), Joro Walker, Atty.
Great Salt Lake Audubon Society, Jeff Salt
National Audubon Society, Wayne Martinson
The Nature Conservancy, Utah Office, Dave Livermore, Joel
Peterson
Utah Waters, Exec. Dir. Darrell Mensel
Utah Rivers Council
Mineral Policy Center
HEAL Utah, Exec. Dir. Jason Groenewold
Wasatch Clean Air Coalition, Kathy Van Dame
Dr. Ty Harrison, Westminister College Dept. of Biology
Dr. Genevieve Atwood and Dr. Don Mabey
Tom Belchak
Dr. John Veranth, Chairman, Utah Air Quality Board
Ms. Ann Wechsler, Utah Water Quality Board

Response to E-mail No. 03-11 (attached letter, cont.)

Email No. 03-12

From: [Alysia Watanabe]
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, Oct 31, 2003 4:24 PM
Subject: Toxic chemical disposal

My understanding is that the selenium removed from the tainted
groundwater in West Jordan is being allowed to be dumped into the surface
lagoons of KCC which discharges to the wetlands of the Great Salt Lake.
This may be the cheap way to do it but it is hardly reasonable to allow one's
community toxic waste to increase the chemical load in another
community's natural resource. I had thought we had moved past the age of
using the Great Salt Lake as a toilet.
The wetlands in particular are a sensitive ecology. There are published
studies from Calif. showing the toxic effect of selenium on birds. I would
think it would be a future PR nightmare if DEQ ignored the concerns of
another state Department. Dept. of Natural Resources has expressed its
concerns over this toxic discharge.
Please add my adamant opposition to disposes of selenium in any manner
that will allow it to reach the wetlands of the GSL.
Alysia Watanabe
3622 Kaibab Cir., SLC 84109

Response to E-mail No. 03-12

12-1: See the Response to Common Comment No. 9.

12-2: See the Response to Common Comment No. 8 and No. 9.

E-mail No. E03-13

From: [Nichole Madrid]
12-2
12-1
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, Nov 2, 2003 9:41 PM
Subject: Jordan Valley Groundwater Cleanup

To whom it may concern,

I'm no scientist or expert on this particular subject, but, I am a water
user. I've seen your response that the amount of removed contaminants are
well below the EPA acceptable levels (which would have been more
stringent if not blocked by the current administration), when discharged into
the Jordan River. My question is, "Why would we spend all the vast amount
of resources required to remove pollution from the ground water only to
discharge it into surface water?!?" If I understand your plan properly, and to
paraphrase, It's unhealthy in ground water but fit for surface water.
HUH?????????????? I can't believe the State of Utah is willing to risk the
long term effects of this discharge on the wetlands used as a flyway
stopover by international migratory birds. Have you had any response from
other governments? I imagine we should take into account their desires as
well, considering "our" actions will affect "their" birds and possibly have an
effect on "everybody's" wildlife. Remember that these birds will be a part of
the food chain elsewhere. Also, there are many other uses of the Jordan
River water besides the wetlands issues. What consideration has been given
to other ground water users with wells in the areas affected by the pumping
project? The State Engineer will verify that in this prolonged drought the
valley's water table is dropping.
My personal feeling is that Kennecott should be solely responsible for
the removal and disposal of this contamination!!! Although, I stand for
these chemicals to be properly disposed of in an environmentally safer
manner, I'm against removing the contamination if it is to be dumped back
into a water source.
I would appreciate a personal response, if possible, as I'm trying to
become more educated about this subject. Thank-you for your time and
consideration of this correspondence.

Response to E-mail No. E03-13

13-1: See the Response to Common Comment No. 8 and No. 9.

13-2: See the Response to Common Comment No. 9.

13-3: See the Response to Common Comment No. 10.

13-4: See the Response to Common Comment No. 12.

E-mail No. E03-13 (cont.)

Sincerely,

13-4
13-1
13-1
13-2
13-3
Lindy Carlton
2628 E. Woodchuck Way
Sandy, Utah 84093-2810
CC: [lindy.carlton]

Response to E-mail No. E03-13 (cont.)

E-mail No. E03-14

From: [Bryan Holbrook]
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, Nov 11, 2003 3:45 PM
Subject: public comment

Dear Ms. Nielson,

I and my family read with interest the article in the Tribune one week ago
regarding the plan to clean up the groundwater known as the "Southwest
Jordan Valley Ground Water Cleanup Project". The six of us do not live in
the immediately affected area, but we are very concerned about the water in
the Jordan River and the Great Salt Lake. We feel it is a grave mistake to
discharge any contaminants from the cleanup into the river, and thus the
lake. These will eventually have to be cleaned up, and will have a highly
adverse effect in the interim. It would be far more foresightful and
long-term cost effective to properly dispose of the contaminants from both
zones now.

Please be aware that six of your citizens feel very strongly against the
proposal to discharge contaminants into the Jordan River.

Thank you,

Bryan Holbrook

Response to E-mail No. E03-14

14-1: See the Response to Common Comment No. 8 and No. 9.

14-2: See the Response to Common Comment No. 7 and No. 9.

E-mail No. 03-15

From: [Peter Maier]
To: <[e-mail]>
14-1
14-1
14-2
Date: Wed, Nov 12, 2003 2:08 PM
Subject: Comments: Southwest Jordan Valley Ground Water
Cleanup Project.

Dear NRD Trustee:

Attached to this message my comments regarding the proposed ground
water cleanup project.
Please let me know if you were able to open the file. If not, I can sent my
comments by mail,

Sincerely,
Peter Maier, PHD, PE
[phone]

CC: [Lynn de Freitas] [ldefreitas]

Response to E-mail No. 03-15

E-mail No. 03-15 (attached letter)

To: NRD Trustee, Utah Department of Environmental Quality.

From: Peter Maier, PhD, PE

Date: November 12, 2003.

Comments: Southwest Jordan Valley Groundwater Cleanup Project.

Introduction:

The Clean Water Act of 1972.

“This Act simply means that we can not use our rivers to treat our sewage
any longer”.
This was Senator Muskie’s statement on the Senate floor, when Congress
passed the Clean Water Act in 1972.

The goal of the CWA was is to eliminate all water pollution by 1985 and
Congress demanded a ‘Technology’ based implementation program,
thereby specifically rejecting a ‘Water Quality’ based program, since such a
program would be subject to local political pressures to lower treatment
requirements, when receiving water bodies were already ‘polluted’.

We now know, 31 years later, that the NPDES permit requirements, which
were supposed to implement the CWA, will never achieve any of the goals
of the Act, due to a faulty application of an essential pollution test.

The Jordan River, as a result, now receives daily about 15,000 lbs of
nitrogenous (urine and proteins) waste from the three main sewage
treatment facilities in the Valley, which equals to 3000 of 20 lbs bags of
fertilizer each day.

The Great Salt Lake and its wetlands.

Response to E-mail No. 03-15 (attached letter)

E-mail No. 03-15 (attached letter, cont.)

Utah State University professor Wurtsbaugh monitors the Farmington Bay
and stated in a recent newspaper article that nitrogenous nutrients and algae
blooms are so prolific that he on days can not see more then 4 inches into its
murky depths and that at times his oxygen sensors register zero at all
depths.

Water and Wastewater (sewage) Treatment.

Treatment basically means that ‘undesirable’ solids in water or wastewater
are removed from the water. This can be achieved with the use of different
technologies, each yielding certain solid removal efficiencies.

Reverse Osmosis, basically is a molecular filter, which will filter out even
the smallest solids (ions), as long as they are larger than the water
molecules. Although the filtrate is ‘clean’, the solids that caused the water
to be ‘polluted’ are now concentrated into the waste stream. In order to
achieve ‘real’ treatment, these solids in the waste stream requires further
treatment.

Comments regarding the Proposed Jordan Valley Ground Water
Cleanup.

The groundwater to be ‘cleanup’ contains sulfates and heavy metals and the
proposed reverse osmosis treatment will extract ‘clean drinking water’, but
the waste stream containing all the ‘pollutants’ are proposed to be
discharged either in Kennecott’s tailing ponds or in the Jordan River. The
latter clearly violates the Clean Water Act, since this ‘polluted’ water into
the Jordan River has not been ‘treated’ prior to disposal.

The Department of Environmental Quality issued a NPDES permit for such
discharge, which is based on ‘acceptable pollution levels’ in the receiving
waterways, clearly also violating the Clean Water Act, since Congress
specifically rejected such a ‘water quality’ based permit program.

Public Health Concerns.

1. Impact of Present Wells.

Response to E-mail No. 03-15 (attached letter, cont.)

15-1: See the Response to Common Comment No. 8 and No. 9.

E-mail No. 03-15 (attached letter)

The geological makeup of the Valley is very complicated and ‘ground
water’ flows in acquirers would be very hard to predict. Since the original
15-1
‘pollution’ was very acidic and contained sulfates, it would be not
surprising if the sulfates would drop out when the acidity of the
groundwater was neutralized by ‘normal’ ground water. This undoubtedly
affected the permeability of the aquiver passing on the contaminated water.

Ground water computer models may indicate groundwater flows, but
verifications of such models are extremely difficult and results should only
be valued as an indication.

Although Utah often is called a ‘dry’ State, where evaporation exceeds
precipitation, this is not the case in the Valley, especially not when also
irrigation is considered. What this means is that surface groundwater
penetrates into the soil and ends up in acquirers. This surface ground water
is very contaminated by the anthropogenic use of the land. Pumping out
(extracting) ground water may cause this contaminated shallow
groundwater to be drawn into deep aquiver and cause presently good wells
to become contaminated, not with sulfates, but with herbicides, pesticides
and other pollutants.

2. Impact on Great Salt Lake and its Wetlands.

Sulfates, selenium and heavy metals are all natural elements that are
released from the mining operation. Their concentrations, after dilution in
the Jordan River may not exceed present ‘standards’, but as we have
witnessed in the past, standards are changed when better information and
scientific data becomes available. Presently nobody can claim to know how
this discharge of selenium and heavy metals may affect the future of the
Great Salt Lake and its wetland as the result of bioaccumulation.

What we however already know is that the wetlands are eutrophic and at
times lack dissolved oxygen. With the presence of organic matter and
bacteria this first would cause anoxic conditions, whereby bacteria use their
enzymes to release the oxygen bond mainly in the sulfates and nitrates.
Reducing nitrates into nitrogen gas would be beneficial, but the reduction of
sulfates into Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) gas, would not only be a public health

Response to E-mail No. 03-15 (attached letter, cont.)

15-2: See the Response to Common Comment No. 10.

15-3: See the Response to Common Comment No. 9.

E-mail No. 03-15 (attached letter, cont.)

hazard, but would cause odor problems in the Valley.

15-3
15-3
15-2
When section would turn anaerobic, organic matter will be converted into
methane gas and since some interim organic matter break down compounds
are volatile, they also will cause odor problems.

3. Programs and Models used to establish pollution levels.

All programs and models used depend of certain ‘test’ values. Since most
of these values were established early last century, they all ignore sub-
micron particles and some test procedures, like the TDS (Total Dissolved
Solids) test have been conveniently changed to achieve faster testing results.
Unfortunately this also has caused the fact that ‘organic’ solids not any
longer are measured. Evaluating an ecosystem without these sub micron
organic solids can hardly be called science.

4. Reverse Osmosis Process.

This process does not remove solids, it basically extracts water and if
‘treatment’ is considered, the waste stream requires additional treatment to
remove the solids. During the past 30 years remarkable advances have been
made in the making of the membranes and this form of ‘treatment’ now can
be applied in small household filtering systems.
Still the major problem is the plugging of these membranes. Especially
organic sub-micron particles are troublesome, which could prove to be very
expensive (due to membrane replacements) in the future.

Especially the ‘makeup’ water proposal, using shallow groundwater may
prove to contain high levels of sub-micron organic matter and may cause
unforeseen and expensive operation and maintenance problems in future.
To contemplate potential problems it is recommended to visit the ‘glycol’
recovering facility at the Salt Lake City Airport, which also incorporate
reverse osmosis in their ‘treatment’ process.

Conclusion:

The Clean Water Act requires ‘Best Available Treatment’ prior to any

Response to E-mail No. 03-15 (attached letter, cont.)

15-4: The UPDES permit program adopts standards and guidance that U.S.
EPA recommends for program administration. The NPDES permit
program, as defined by EPA, provides for the regulation of certain
parameters that have been shown to have measurable effects on the
receiving stream. Sub-micron organic solids are not one of these
parameters at this time. If at some time in the future EPA recommends their
regulation, Utah may incorporate the new standard into state regulations.

15-5: The potential for plugging of reverse osmosis membranes through the
treatment of shallow groundwater was evaluated during pilot testing.
JVWCD is anticipating that the membranes will be replaced during the 40-
year term of the project. These costs have been included in the cost of the
project.

E-mail No. 03-15 (attached letter, cont.)

discharge into open waterways. Although Reverse Osmosis technically
achieves to goals of extracting drinking water, its proposed waste stream
15-1
15-1
15-4
15-5
disposal in the Jordan River containing all the original pollutants, not only
directly violates the CWA, but also does not make any common sense since
‘real treatment’ is feasible.

If somebody would suggest extracting ‘drinking water’ from municipal
sewage and discharging the ‘waste stream’ into the Jordan, people at DEQ
would only smile.
Why is this ‘cleanup’ proposal any different?

Call me if you have any questions or if you need additional information,

Peter Maier, PhD, PE
44 Lakeview
Stansbury, UT 84074
[phone]

CC: Friends of the Great Salt Lake
Others

Response to E-mail No. 03-15 (attached letter, cont.)

E-mail No. E03-16

From: [Scott Goudie]
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, Nov 17, 2003 8:09 AM
Subject: Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District Discharge
Permit

To: Utah Department of Environmental Quality
From: Scott Goudie

To whom it may concern,

I recently learned that you are reviewing a proposal that would allow
organizations to dump pollution into the Jordan River. I am appalled to
think that anyone would actually be considering such an action. I am even
more appalled that an organization such as The Department of
Environmental Quality needs time to consider such an action. I believe this
is an obvious attempt for some organizations to line their own pockets and
pass on their responsibility to someone else. There is a lot of wildlife that
could be affected by such an action not to mention people and there pets use
that water for recreation such as; boating, fishing, and hunting. What are the
ramifications to people when they eat fish and duck that comes from this
water? I belong to a hunting club that gets its water from the Jordan River
and my family and I spend a significant amount of time in that water. I
believe that if you don't want something in your own yard you have no
business dumping it into a river.
Please say NO to the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District
Discharge Permit.

Sincerely,
Scott Goudie

Response to E-mail No. E03-16

16-1: See the Response to Common Comment No. 8 and No. 9.

16-2: See the Response to Common Comment No. 12.

E-mail No. E03-17

From: [Sylvia Wilcox]
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, Nov 17, 2003 9:44 PM
16-2
16-1
16-1
Subject: kennecott

Dear Sir/Madam:

I am writing to express concern over the leakage and delivery of
contaminated water from Kennecott into our groundwater, and most
especially, directly into the Jordan River and Great Salt Lake.

I hope you will take great care to see that Kennecott filters the waste water
adequately so that aquatic life and avian life in these two jewels of nature
not be damaged or destroyed. Let us not be so shortsighted in seeking
economic gains over losses to our quality of life. These two waterways are
integral to the survival of other industry (ie brine shrimp) but also to the
survival of birds that travel the entire continent and all the complex
interactions between them and other aquatic life on the continent, as well as
right here in our valley.

Sincerely,

Sylvia Wilcox

Response to E-mail No. E03-17

17-1: See the Response to Common Comment No. 8 and No. 9.

E-mail No. E03-18

From: [John Tudor]
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, Nov 17, 2003 10:26 AM
17-1
Subject: Polluted groundwater

I am writing because of my concern for the agreement about disposing of
polluted groundwater from Kennecott mining into the Jordan River or the
GSL watertable north of Magna. These acidic and sulfur compounds with
heavy metals can permanently damage or destroy habitat in the river, the
marshes, and the lake itself.

It does not seem that the level of toxicity in the effluent is being held to
strict enough standards to protect our river and its fish and birds. The GSL
provides massive amounts of food to migratory birds and should not be
allowed to concentrate heavy metals and other toxic substances.

Utah and Kennecott should shoulder the burden of doing this job correctly.
Industrial cost and development of housing are not the only important
things in the state.

Please withhold approval on these plans until all concerns have been
answered. And stop the further discharge of toxic substances into unlined
storage, until this can be resolved.
Thank you for your attention.
John Tudor, M.D.
1309 Federal Heights Drive
Salt Lake City, UT 84103
801-521-9334

Response to E-mail No. E03-18

18-1: See the Response to Common Comment No. 8 and No. 9.

18-2: See the Response to Common Comment No. 12.

E-mail No. E03-19

From: [Brock Dethier]
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, Nov 17, 2003 12:59 PM
18-2
18-1
18-1

Subject: Kennecott

I am writing to urge the Department of Environmental Quality to withhold
approval of the Kennecott environmental plan until the plan addresses the
large, long-term issues: How can the Great Salt Lake survive the selenium
poisoning allowable under the current plan? How will Kennecott pay for
poisoning huge aquifers? Will the plan preserve the brine shrimp fishery in
the lake? Why won't the tailings impoundment cause the same toxic metal
problems as Owen's Lake?
The environmental cleanup of Kennecott needs to be on the same
scale as the operation itself: huge. And the company, not we the citizens of
Utah, should pay for every cent of damage it has done and the damage that
its pollutants will cause for centuries to come. Please don't let the Lake be
poisoned just because Kennecott has political friends!

Brock Dethier
--
Brock Dethier
Assistant Professor
English Department
Utah State University
435-797-3546

Response to E-mail No. E03-19

19-1: See the Response to Common Comment No. 7, No. 8, and No. 9.

19-2: See the Response to Common Comment No. 12.

E-mail No. E03-20

From: [Bonnie Fletcher]
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, Nov 18, 2003 12:33 PM
19-2
19-2
19-1

19-1

Subject: Re: Kennecott groundwater contamination clean-up via
dumping into Jordan River

Ms. Dianne R. Nielson
Executive Director
Department of Environmental Quality
State of Utah
168 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84116

Dear Ms. Nielson:

I am very upset to learn that thousands of tons of salts and ~150 lbs. of
selenium are to be discharged into the Jordan River on an annual basis in an
attempt to clean contaminants from the ground water polluted over the years
by Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation. Although it is necessary and
laudable that this corporation needs to perform this clean-up, it is like
"*robbing Peter to pay Paul*" Why must we contaminate another part of
our environment?

As I understand it, there have been no studies done to determine the overall
impact of such dumping into the river. Such acts in the past have caused
many problems not only at the site of dumping, but also downstream.
Dumping salts and selenium into the river is irresponsible and appears to be
a quick-fix solution with no regard for the long-term effects.

As a member of Great Salt Lake Audubon, I have enjoyed many hours
walking along the Jordan River Parkway and also along the south shore of
the Great Salt Lake, watching the incredible and diverse wild life. Many
volunteer hours in our chapter have been spent removing visible garbage
from the Jordan River over the last couple of years. The Jordan River
ecosystem and the adjoining Great Salt Lake floodplains are internationally
Response to E-mail No. E03-20

20-1: See the Response to Common Comment No. 8 and No. 9.

E-mail No. E03-20 (cont.)

significant wetlands that comprise a unique and fragile lake ecosystem.

Please, please reconsider this proposal:
20-1

20-1

DEQ must set an example of preserving "environmental quality" in this
state. We owe it to our children and their children.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely

Roberta ("Bonnie") Fletcher
5186 S. 4520 W.
Kearns, UT 84118

Response to E-mail No. E03-20 (cont.)

E-mail No. E03-21

From: [Jill Mower]
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, Nov 19, 2003 6:10 PM
Subject: kennecott settlement
20-1

Dear NRD Trustee,

I would like to promote the idea of the DEQ withholding approval until
further studies have been done in response to several urgent concerns.

1) How the lake's ecosystem assimilates selenium, with possible synergies
occuring with other elements and compounds, under a wide variety of
salinity, overturning/stratification and fluctuating lake levels.

2) How the Great Salt Lake's brine shrimp and brine flies may assimilate
other metals, as well as dioxin from MagCorp/US Magnesium.

3) How the aquifer is affected.

4) How could it be that the blowing dust from the tailings impoundment
will not cary toxic metals?

5) How will the tailings impoundments behave in eqrthquakes of predicted
magniture.

No additional discharges by Kennecott or JVWCD should be permitted
until DEQ establishes numerical water quality standards.

Thank you,

Jill Mower
705 South Redwood Road #69
Salt Lake City, UT 84104

___________________________________________________________

Response to E-mail No. E03-21

21-1: See the Response to Common Comment No. 8 and No. 9.

E-mail No. E03-22

From: [Lynna Beaman]
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, Nov 19, 2003 8:45 PM
Subject: GREAT Salt Lake

21-1

Please take care of the Salt Lake. Do not allow Kennecot to increase Se and
other metal content of the lake.

Sincerely,

Bob and Lynna Beaman
735 Willow Way
Heber City, UT 84032

Wasatch County
U.S.A.

____________________________________________________________

Response to E-mail No. E03-22

22-1: See the Response to Common Comment No. 8 and No. 9.

E-mail No. E03-23

From: [Stanley Schwartzman]
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, Nov 21, 2003 9:44 AM
Subject: Kennecott's proposal

22-1
I am writing to express my concern about Kennecott's proposal for the
treatment of its toxic material near the Great Salt Lake. I think the Utah
Dept. of Environmental Quality should withhold approval of
Kennecott's plan until further issues can be addressed.
There are a number of environmental concerns that need to be taken into
account and satisfactorily dealt with in regard to all life before approval
should be granted to Kennecott's proposals. These concerns include:
1. The effect of increased selenium on the Great Salt Lake's ecosystem
2. The effect of other metals on the lake's brine shrimp and brine flies as
well as these metals interactions with other pollutants in the lake
3. The effect of their plan on the aquifer
4. The negative impact on air quality and human life from wind blown
dust, possibly toxic, off of tailings impoundments
Given the possibility for significant environmental degradation, the DEQ
should allow no further discharges from Kennecott or JVWCD until
numerical water quality standards are established.
The negative effects from improper disposal of Kennecott waste are
dangerous not just for life in Utah. What happens here has an impact on life
throughout the hemisphere.

Very truly yours,
Stanley Schwartzman

__________________________________

Response to E-mail No. E03-23

23-1: See the Response to Common Comment No. 9.

23-2: See the Response to Common Comment No. 8.

E-mail No. E03-24

From: [Terry Way]
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, Nov 21, 2003 2:11 PM
Subject: SW Jordan Valley Cleanup Project - Comments from
SLCounty Mayor and Public Works Department

23-1
23-2
Dear Trustee -

Salt Lake County Mayor Nancy Workman and the County Public Works
Department are opposed to any pollutant discharge to the Jordan River
which would reduce water quality that could hinder it's future ability to
discharge stormwater to the system. The State allowing Kennecott Utah
Copper and Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District to pump, treat and
discharge wastes to the system could do just that. The Mayor and the
Department recommend that the wastes produced by this project be pumped
to and discharged into the tailings pond or some other similar disposal
method. Disposal of wastes into the River is not the answer.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.

TW

CC: [David Marshall], [Neil Stack]

Response to E-mail No. E03-24

24-1: See the Response to Common Comment No. 8.

24-2: See the Response to Common Comment No. 7.

E-mail No. 03-25

From: [Matthew Lindon]
To: nrdtrustee
Date: Fri, Nov 21, 2003 4:07 PM
Subject: Kennicott settlement

Just a note to say that, in the State Engineers Office and Dam Safety, we are
concerned with changes in the usage of the tailings pile that may increase
24-1
24-2
25-1
the flows onto this structure and oversaturate some of the tailings. Seismic
Stability has been an issue with these tailings for years because of saturation
from inadequate drainage and consequential slope stability. Adding more
saturated toxic tailings could further exacerbate the problem.

In addition the Kennecott land company is planning a development for
approximately 100,000 people on their west side holdings, over the next 10
years, with all the added runoff going directly into the ground, toxic plumes
and water table. This development will increase the volume of runoff and
inject it into the ground. I dont believe the DEQ knows the effect of this
hydrologic change on water quality on the west side, in the Jorden River
and in the Great Salt Lake.

We did not learn of some of the facts of this settlement until recently and
appoligice for the late nature of this note but we did want to registir a
comment before the deadline. This entire concept needs more study, better
science and a coordinated consideration by the DEQ.

Sincerely,

Matt Lindon PE
Utah DNR, Dam Safety Hydrologist

Response to E-mail No. 03-25

25-1: The seismic stability issues noted by the commenter are associated
with the southern tailings impoundment that was upgraded and enveloped
by a North Tailings Expansion beginning in 1995 specifically designed to
address seismic concerns. (Please refer to the second paragraph of this
response for further information). Kennecott no longer actively discharges
to the southern tailings impoundment, which is undergoing closure and
reclamation activities. All of the flows associated with the remediation
activities of the Joint Proposal will be directed to the North Tailings
Expansion impoundment. These flows represent a fraction (1/20th) of the
total annual flow reporting to the north impoundment, or less than 2% of the
total volume being deposited in the impoundment. Kennecott will continue
to construct and monitor the North Tailings Dam as required by the State
Engineers Office. Neither the tailings nor the contaminants exhibit
hazardous characteristics.

Significant seismic analyses of the tailings impoundment site and method of
construction were completed as part of a Final Environmental Impact
Statement (Final EIS) conducted for the tailings north expansion project
completed in 1995. The development of the tailings dam employs the use
of cycloned sand tailings using a modified centerline method of
construction. The combination of using cycloned sand tailings placed and
compacted as an engineered fill in conjunction with an underdrain system
provides for a structure that is stable and safe under the design earthquake
conditions, the Maximum Credible Earthquake. State statutes define the
Maximum Credible Earthquake as “the most severe earthquake that is
believed to be possible at the site on the basis of geological and
seismological evidence.”

25-2: The Kennecott Daybreak development is a separate project, unrelated
to the Joint Proposal. Discharges and runoff from those operations will be
regulated under state and local environmental laws, including storm water
management.

E-mail No. 03-26

From: [Amy Wildermuth]
To: "'[e-mail] '" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, Nov 21, 2003 8:25 PM
Subject: Comments on Proposed Southwest Jordan Valley
Cleanup

Please see attached memo.
25-2
25-2

Response to E-mail No. 03-26

E-mail No. 03-26 (attached memorandum)

To: Utah Department of Environmental Quality, NRD Trustee

From: Amy Wildermuth

Date: 11/21/03

RE: Comments on Southwest Jordan Valley Ground Water
Cleanup Project

After reviewing much of the project documentation and attending
two meetings on this cleanup, I offer the following brief comments on the
proposed Southwest Jordan Valley Water Cleanup Project.

Although this project appears to have benefits, like most things in
life, it does not come without costs. In particular, after treating ground
water located in the Zone B area, contaminant will remain. This
contaminant, consisting of various metals and including a significant
amount of selenium, is to be discharged into the Jordan River. The metals
in the discharge will then make their way into the wetlands surrounding the
Great Salt Lake and eventually into the Great Salt Lake.

This discharge and the debate surrounding it raise two broad
questions: (1) Is the Trustee satisfied that it has fulfilled all of its duties and
obligations under the relevant federal statutes, most importantly the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), particularly with respect to adequately considering all available
alternatives and options and (2) Is the Trustee satisfied it has fulfilled its
duties and obligations under the public trust doctrine of Utah?

With respect to the discharge from Zone B, the Jordan Valley
Water Conservancy District has applied and been issued an NPDES permit
for the discharge of post-treatment contaminant as required by the Clean
Water Act.1 But a trustee’s duties under both CERCLA and the public trust

Response to E-mail No. 03-26 (attached memorandum)

1 I understand this permit has been challenged and is currently under
review.

26-1: Please refer to Response to Common Comment No. 8., No. 12 and
No. 13.

E-mail No. 03-26 (attached memorandum, cont.)

doctrine would appear to require more of the trustee than simply an
agreement that the relevant party will apply for, receive, and comply with
an NPDES permit. Instead, a trustee like Utah DEQ here has an obligation
to consider the public interest as well as manage and preserve waters for the
benefit of present and future generations.

In its simplest form, this is a question of how one acts when faced
with uncertainty. Since most environmental issues involve varying degrees
26-1
26-1
of uncertainty, the Utah DEQ surely encounters uncertainty on a daily basis.
But what makes this situation tricky—and this cleanup more difficult—is
that when the department acts as a trustee, it takes on a new role: its trustee
duties require it to act more cautiously in the face of uncertainty than it does
in most of the other situations it faces as an agency.

In essence, the Utah DEQ must put on a different hat with respect to this
project. Wearing that new hat, the question is whether the department has
properly discharged its trust duties and obligations. For example, in the
face of the scientific debate over the effect of selenium in the discharge, is
the Trustee obligated to require that the contested discharge at a more
cautious level because that is in the public interest? And because the
trustee’s duties and obligations extend in futuro, is the trustee also required
to ensure careful and extensive monitoring of the discharge and its impact
because that too is in the public interest?

It is, to be sure, difficult to view issues through the new and
different lens of trustee duties and obligations. But the department’s role as
Trustee requires that it examine the cleanup proposal from this new point of
view. It also requires that the department act in accordance with those new
duties and obligations when evaluating and determining the contours of any
cleanup that it approves.

cc: Friends of the Great Salt Lake

Response to E-mail No. 03-26 (attached memorandum,
cont.)

E-mail No. 03-27

From: [TA Belchak]
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, Nov 21, 2003 9:47 PM
Subject: Comments regarding Consent Decree Requirements

Thank you for extending the comment period to November 21. We take this
opportunity to state our position on the ability of the Consent Decree of
August 21, 1995 to guide decisions regarding the Kennecott groundwater
26-1
contamination and the production of municipal quality water to the affected
area of the Southwestern Salt Lake Valley.

P. 5 Paragraph E. A statement is made regarding the "injury to, destruction
of, and loss of surface and groundwater" Our interpretation of this
statement suggests that due to contamination, the use of the water is
hindered. The term "lost use" is NOT used in the Consent Decree,
although we concur that the CONTAMINATION causes a lost use. We
object to the use of the term "lost use" as a form of inefficiency in certain
treatment technologies. Lost use should be reserved for the loss of surface
and groundwater use due to Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation operations
and damage to the state's water supply.

P. 10 Paragraph a. The (single=1) letter of credit shall be "increased
annually by 7 percent of the then current amount of the letter of credit". We
maintain that ANY deviation from the required 7 percent escalation of the
letter of credit is a violation of the Consent Decree. Please do NOT reduce
the escalation of the letter of credit unless the letter of credit is cashed. In
addition, since the Consent Decree allows for a single letter of credit, please
do NOT consider dividing this potentially valuable asset. In a discussion
with Mr. Fred Nelson of the State of Utah Attorney General's office, it was
understood that the NRD Trustee MAY cash in the letter of credit and
THEN allocate funds. Please understand that dividing this potentially
valuable asset can be considered a violation of the Consent Decree.

P. 18 Paragraph C. It is our understanding that ONLY the State, Kennecott,
and a local water district are bound by this Decree. Third parties, including
political subdivisions of the State have potential claims regarding additional
Response to E-mail No. 03-27

27-1: See Response to Common Comment No. 12. The proposal to
establish two ILC’s has been reviewed by the Trustee and the Attorney
General’s office and is not considered to be inconsistent with or contrary to
the provisions of the Consent Decree.

Terminology used in the project documentation has been clarified in the
July 11, 2004 revised Joint Proposal.

For claims by third parties, see the Response to Common Comment No. 10.

E-mail No. 03-27 (cont.)

expenses of water deliveries due to additional infrastructure needs caused
by the contamination. Kennecott may defend against any claims.
Municipalities and private owners are able to initiate actions to remedy their
damages.

We thank you for considering this additional comment, and look forward to
responses at your earliest convenience.

Tom Belchak
27-1
27-1
LANCE Consulting Group, L.C.
1780 W. 9000 S. Suite 301
West Jordan, UT 84088

CC: [Ron Christensen]

Response to E-mail No. 03-27 (cont.)

E-mail No. 03-28

From: [Shane Jones]
To: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, Nov 25, 2003 12:27 PM
Subject: JVWCD and Kennecott Consent Decree/Remediation
Plan

In reviewing the information on the web site, am I to understand that we are
pumping contaminated water out of the ground, cleaning it, and then
dumping the contaminants back into the Jordan River? Under UPDES, 28-1
cities are spending millions of dollars to try and keep contaminants out of
the river.
Am I missing something? Shane

Shane C. Jones

Bluffdale City Engineer

[shanejones]

ph. [phone]

cell. [phone]

fax [phone]

"BLUFFDALE: DEDICATED TO THE VISION OF A SELF
SUFFICIENT RURAL COMMUNITY WITH A UNIQUE COUNTRY
LIFESTYLE"

Response to E-mail No. 03-28

28-1: See the Response to Common Comment No. 8 and No. 9.