DERR-2024-007878

KENNECOTT UTAH COPPER CORPORATION

FINAL DESIGN FOR REMEDIAL ACTION AT
SOUTH FACILITIES GROUNDWATER

Prepared by:

Kennecott
Copper

Utah

December 2002

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose of Final Design 1
1.2 Site Background and Summary of Site Conditions and Risks 1
1.2.1 Study Area 1
1.2.2 Site Description 3
1.2.3 Summary of Site Characteristics and Risks 3
1.3 Description of Selected CERCLA Remedy 5
1.4 Overview of Implementation 6
1.4.1 Technical Approach 6
1.4.2 Updated Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) 6
2.0 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES 10
2.1 KUCC Personnel 10
2.2 Consultants/Contractors 12
2.3 Government Oversight: EPA/UDEQ 12
2.4 Technical Review Committee (TRC) 13
3.0 FINAL DESIGN 14
3.1 Purpose, Scope and Objectives of the Final Design 14
3.2 Groundwater Containment and Extraction 14
3.2.1 Acid Plume Containment and Extraction 15
3.2.1.1 Acid Extraction Well Construction 18
3.2.1.2 Acid Plume Piping 18
3.2.2 Sulfate plume Containment and Extraction (Zone A) 20
3.2.2.1 Preliminary Evaluation Report 20
3.2.2.2 Drinking Water Source Protection (DWSP) Plans 20
3.2.2.3 Sulfate Well Construction 20
3.2.2.4 Sulfate Plume Piping and Routing 21
3.2.3 Groundwater Monitoring 21
3.2.3.1 Introduction 21
3.2.3.2 Purpose 21
3.2.3.3 Procedures 24
3.2.3.4 Monitoring Plan 25
3.2.3.5 Water Chemistry 27
3.2.3.6 Analysis and Results 35
3.3 Water Treatment and Delivery System for Treated Waters and Concentrates 35
3.3.1 Introduction 35

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- ii -

3.3.2 Design Criteria 37
3.3.3 Project Delivery Strategy 39
3.3.4 Results of Demonstration Plant Operation 40
3.3.4.1 Process Description 40
3.3.4.2 Production Data 40
3.3.5 Final Design of the Zone A Reverse Osmosis Plant 45
3.3.5.1 Building 45
3.3.5.2 Process 50
3.3.5.3 Piping System 62
3.3.6 Time Schedule 63
3.4 Management of Acidic Waters and RO Concentrates in KUCC Tailings Circuit 65
3.4.1 Overview of Water Management in Tailings Circuit 65
3.4.2 Operational Conditions 65
3.4.2.1 Performance Criteria 65
3.4.2.2 Project Delivery Strategy 66
3.4.2.3 Drawings and Sketches 66
3.4.2.4 Monitoring 67
3.4.3 Post-Mining Conditions 67
4.0 PERMITS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS 68
4.1 New Permits 68
4.1.1 Drinking Water Permit(s) 68
4.1.2 County Conditional Use and Building Permit 68
4.1.3 Construction Permit 69
4.1.4 Well Drilling/Construction Permits 69
4.2 Permit Modifications 69
4.2.1 UPDES Permit No. UTD0000051 69
4.2.2 Air Emissions Permit 69
4.2.3 Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (DOGM) - Notice of Intent 70
4.3 Groundwater Use Restrictions 70
4.4 Water Rights 72
5.0 DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTAITON QUALITY CONTROL 72
6.0 PROGRESS MEETINGS AND REPORTS 73
6.1 TRC Meetings 73
6.2 Remedial Action Reports 73
7.0 SCHEDULE FOR REMEDIAL DESIGN ACTIVITIES 74
7.1 Summary of Deliverables 74
7.2 Schedule 74

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- iii -

8.0 REFERENCES 77
List of Tables
1-1 Summary of Failure Modes and Effects Analysis 7
2-1 South Facilities Technical Review Committee 13
3-1 Extraction Rates for Proposed Remedial Strategy 17
3-2 Wells for Water-level Monitoring 26
3-2a Wells for Surface Level Monitoring 27
3-3 Analytical Suite for Groundwater Samples 30
3-4 Locations and Frequency for Groundwater Chemistry Monitoring 32
3-5 Production and Average Performance Data 41
3-6 Typical Water Analyses Comparison to MCLs and UPDES 42
3-7 Zone A RO Plant – Building Dimensions 46
3-8 Feed Water Blending 53
3-9 Blending of RO Permeate with Filtered Feed Water to achieve 250 ppm TDS 54
4-1 Summary of Water Right Information 72
7-1 Summary of Remedial Design Phase Deliverables 75

List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Project Area Map 2
Figure 2-1 Remedial Organization Plan 11
Figure 3-1 Zone A and Zone B Groundwater Plumes 16
Figure 3-2 Extraction Well Locations 17
Figure 3-3 Typical Acid Extraction Well Design 19
Figure 3-4 Typical Sulfate Extraction Well Design 22
Figure 3-5 Pipeline Design and Routing 23
Figure 3-6 RD Water Level Monitoring Locations 28
Figure 3-7 RD Water Chemistry Monitoring Locations 36
Figure 3-8 Zone A RO Plant General Arrangement 38
Figure 3-9 Demonstrative Plant Diagram 43
Figure 3-10 Demonstrative Plant Membrane Array 44
Figure 3-11 Zone A RO Plant General Arrangement Site Plan, Dwg. 456-M-0201 47
Figure 3-12 Zone A RO Plant Arrangement Plan, Dwg. No. 456-M-0202 48
Figure 3-13 Zone A RO Plant Building Elevations, Dwg. No. 451-M-0203 49
Figure 3-14 Zone A RO Plant Process Flow Diagram, Dwg. No. 456-F-0101 52
Figure 3-15a Membrane Array Rack 3 57
Figure 3-15b Membrane Array Rack 4 58
Figure 3-16a Zone A RO Plant Membrane Arrangement – Plan & Elevations, Dwg. No. 456-M-0205 59
Figure 3-16b Zone A RO Plant Rack 3 General Arrangement – Elevations, Dwg. No. 56-M-0206 60
Figure 3-17 Zone A RO Plant – Time Schedule 64
Figure 4-1 Water Rights Management Plan 70
Figure 7-1 Remedial Action Schedule 76

Appendix A – Preliminary Conceptual Post-Closure Water Management Plan for Kennecott Utah
Copper Corporation
Appendix B - KUCC Flow and Transport Model Modifications and Updates
Appendix C - Geochemical Evaluation: Treating Acidic Waters in the Copperton Tailings Line
Appendix D - Baseline Groundwater Chemistry and Water Level Study Monitoring Report. Second
Quarter 2002

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- iv -

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of Final Design

Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation (KUCC) has prepared a Final Remedial Design to address
groundwater contamination at KUCC’s South Facilities in accordance with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s Record of Decision dated December 13, 2000. In addition, many elements of the
Final Design and Remedial Action address KUCC’s obligations under the Natural Resource Damage
(NRD) settlement with the State of Utah from 1995. The Final Remedial Design addresses the size, scope
and character of the Remedial Action. Specifically, the Final Design Report:

• describes the problems to be addressed;
• identifies the technical requirements to complete a successful remedial action;
• establishes performance-based criteria for the components of the remedy, emphasizing the period
during which the Bingham Canyon mine continues to operate;
• reports the results of design investigations and support activities needed to finalize engineering
plans;
• presents the engineering plans and specifications that will implement the performance criteria;
• documents monitoring programs that will be implemented during and following remedial actions;
• provides schedules for implementing the remedial action;
• presents a Preliminary Design-level presentation of alternatives for post-mining water
management of the remediation water described in this report.

The Final Design, prepared as the engineering-design document for the project, includes the following
elements:

• performance and, as appropriate, design criteria;
• project delivery strategy;
• results of treatability studies and additional field sampling;
• plans, drawings and sketches;
• description of required performance objectives and/or specifications;
• the construction schedule for Remedial Action.

1.2 Site Background and Summary of Site Conditions and Risks

1.2.1 Study Area

The southwest Jordan Valley (SWJV) extends from the KUCC waste rock disposal areas on the eastern
edge of the Oquirrh Mountains to the Jordan River. The foothills of the Traverse Mountains bound it on
the south; the northern boundary is at approximately 7800 South Street. Figure 1-1 shows the project
area.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 1 -

Figure 1-1 Project Area Map
MINE
CANYON
BINGHAM
MOUNTAINS
OQUIRRH
BINGHAM
CANYON
PROJECT AREA
Lake
Great Salt
Bingham Canyon
Mine
CitySalt Lake

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 1 -
1.2.2 Site Description

The Bingham Canyon mine is located on the western edge of the SWJV in the Oquirrh Mountains. The
open-pit mine covers 1,900 acres and is over one-half mile deep. More than five billion tons of rock have
been removed from the pit, resulting in the production of more than 15 million tons of copper and other
metals. Waste rock from the mine is placed along the east, west and north sides of the pit, where it
receives meteoric precipitation that results in some natural leaching. Prior to 2000, the waste rock was
artificially leached with recycled acidic water. The active leaching circuit was phased out beginning in
1999 and finally discontinued on September 29, 2000.

1.2.3 Summary of Site Characteristics and Risks

This section summarizes the regional and site-specific geography, geology and hydrogeology as
interpreted from previous site characterization studies. The site description and technical background of
the problems are provided in very great detail in the Remedial Investigation (KUC, 1998a) and Feasibility
Study (KUC, 1998b) and in the Remedial Design Work Plan (KUC, 2001a). For the Final Design the
background material will be significantly abbreviated so that the design elements themselves can be
succinctly presented. The following material is adapted, much of it verbatim, from the EPA/UDEQ
document “Southwestern Jordan Valley Groundwater Plumes Proposed Plan”, issued in August 2000 in
conjunction with public comment period on the proposed groundwater cleanup plan or the Record of
Decision for the same project. Readers requiring more detail should consult the earlier technical
documents that specifically describe the RI/FS programs. Appendix B to this report updates the status
and results of groundwater flow and transport modeling since the RI/FS. Appendix C presents the results
of the geochemical studies conducted during the Remedial Design phase. Since the completion of the
RI/FS, a baseline water level and chemistry report has been completed that documents the nature and
extent of groundwater contamination in 2001 and 2002. This report, attached as Appendix D, will be
used as the baseline to evaluate the success of the remediation program.

There has been mining in the Oquirrh Mountains since the 1870s. Historical mining processes, including
past operations of KUCC, resulted in groundwater contamination. Natural meteoric infiltration and
pumped mine-waters reacted with sulfide-bearing waste rock to generate effluents that were high in total
dissolved solids, including sulfate. In portions of the system, the waters were acidic and leached metals.
In addition to generalized seepage, the Large Bingham Reservoir, the Old Evaporation Ponds, and other
collection systems, built to contain such waters, leaked over many years. In the lower part of the valley,
non-KUCC mining sources, such as irrigation canals and the ARCO tailings impoundment may also have
contributed to elevated concentrations of some constituents.

Intermittent and ephemeral surface waters and groundwater flow from the Oquirrh Mountains toward the
Jordan River. The flow of mine-impacted effluents in the ground-water flow system produced plumes of
contaminated groundwater within the aquifer in the Southwestern Jordan Valley. The Remedial
Investigation (KUC, 1998a) showed that there are about 171,000 acre-feet of groundwater that exceed
appropriate water-quality criteria. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Utah
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) have determined that the ground-water plumes containing
sulfate concentrations greater than 1500 mg/L sulfate or acid constitute a risk to human health and the
environment that requires remedial actions.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 3 -

The nature and extent of contamination of the groundwater depend upon location:

• In Zone A, immediately down-gradient of the Bingham Reservoir and the waste-rock piles, the
groundwater system includes an acidic plume, surrounded by a partially to fully neutralized zone
of high-sulfate waters. Within the high-sulfate acidic plume, there are a variety of heavy metals
in solution at concentrations that exceed drinking-water standards, in some places by a factor of
one hundred or more.

• In Zone B, located at and down-gradient from the old KUCC Evaporation Ponds, the ground-
water contaminant of concern is sulfate, which is present in Zone B at concentrations that average
less than 1,500 mg/L but above the State Drinking-Water Primary Standard of 500 mg/L.

Of major concern is the proximity of mining-affected groundwaters, especially Zone A, to municipal well
fields of West Jordan and Riverton. Further off-site migration of contaminated groundwaters must be
controlled in order to protect these public water-supply systems.

EPA, acting on data developed by KUCC in the Remedial Investigation, defined Remedial Action
Objectives for corrective actions with respect to CERCLA in Zone A:

1. Minimize or remove the potential for human risk (by means of ingestion) by limiting
exposure to groundwater containing chemicals of concern exceeding risk based
concentrations or drinking water Maximum Contaminant Levels;
2. Minimize or remove the potential for environmental risk (by means of flow of groundwater to
the Jordan River) to receptors of concern;
3. Contain the acid plume and keep it from expanding;
4. Remediate the aquifer over the long term.

Potential response actions were described and evaluated in the Feasibility Study (KUC, 1998b), which
proposed a preferred remedy, discussed in Section 1.3 below.

In addition to the CERCLA response for Zone A that is the principal focus of this Remedial Design,
KUCC is coordinating its Zone A activities with remedial actions in Zone B that are intended to resolve
Natural Resource Damage Claim issues in the Zone B plume. Both agencies (EPA and UDEQ) and also
KUCC understand that the cleanup of the two zones is linked by the historical nexus of origins of the
plumes and by the hydrogeology of the groundwater flow systems. The principal objective of the Natural
Resource Damage Claim – to “restore, replace or acquire the equivalent” of the damaged ground-water
resource - is addressed in a separate settlement between the State of Utah, acting through its Natural
Resource Trustee, and Kennecott. Portions of that settlement that overlap the scope of the CERCLA
remedial action include:

1. Completing the CERCLA actions;
2. Extracting contaminated groundwater from the acid plume at a minimum rolling average of
400 acre-feet per year to remove contaminant mass and contain the plume;

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 4 -
3. Completing identified source controls in order to comply with KUCC’s ground-water
discharge permit;
4. Creating a trust fund to be used to “restore, replace or acquire the equivalent” of the lost
groundwater to the benefit of the public in the affected area.
5. Producing 3500 acre-ft per year of drinking water from the Zone A sulfate plume that will be
delivered to the affected communities.

1.3 Description of Selected CERCLA Remedy

To ensure compatibility, this section is taken verbatim from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s
Record of Decision (EPA, 2000).

“The selected remedy involves treatment and containment of contaminated groundwater plumes. The
principal threats, which caused the groundwater contamination, have been addressed in previous actions
or are contained under provisions of a Utah Groundwater Protection Permit.

The selected remedy contains the following elements:

• Continuation of source control measures as administered through the State of Utah Groundwater
Protection Program.

• Prevent human exposure to unacceptably high concentrations of hazardous substances and/or
pollutants or contaminants by limiting access to the contaminated groundwater. Institutional
controls include purchases of land, purchases of water rights, limiting drilling of new wells and
increased pumping of nearby old wells as approved (on request) and administered through the
State of Utah State Engineer (Division of Water Rights).

• Prevent human exposure to unacceptably high concentrations of hazardous substances and/or
pollutants or contaminants through point-of-use management which includes providing in-house
treatment units to residents with impacted wells, replacement of their water by hooking the
properties up to municipal drinking and/or secondary supplies, and/or modifying their wells to
reach uncontaminated waters.

• Contain the acid plume in Zone A by installation of barrier wells at the leading edge of the
contamination (1500 ppm sulfate or less), pump and treat the waters to provide a hydraulic barrier
to further plume movement while providing treated water for municipal use. The treatment
technology for the barrier well waters is reverse osmosis.

• Withdraw the heavily contaminated waters from the core of the acid plume in Zone A and treat
these contaminated waters using pretreatment with nanofiltration or equivalent technology,
followed by treatment with reverse osmosis to provide drinking quality water for municipal use.1

• Monitor the plume to follow the progress of natural attenuation for the portions of the Zone A
plume which contain sulfate in excess of the state primary drinking water standard for sulfate
(500 ppm sulfate).

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 5 -
1 The RD elects to not implement nanofiltration technology as part of the treatment program. Rather, the acid
groundwater will be neutralized in the tailings line (equivalent technology) and supplemented with lime if necessary. The
reverse osmosis treatment system will be used to treat sulfate-contaminated water to produce drinking water.
• Disposal of treatment concentrates in existing pipeline used to slurry tailings to a tailings
impoundment prior to mine closure.

• Development of a post-mine closure plan to handle treatment residuals for use when the mine and
mill are no longer operating.

1.4 Overview of Implementation

1.4.1 Technical Approach

The selected remedy described in Section 1.3 will be organized into three functional units; 1) containment
and extraction of contaminated groundwater, 2) treatment of sulfate contaminated water in the Zone A
Reverse Osmosis (RO) facility to produce municipal quality water, and 3) neutralization of acidic
groundwater in the tailings line using the naturally occurring neutralization potential of the tails
(supplemental lime will be added to the tails if necessary). The purpose, scope and objectives for each of
these functional units are detailed in Section 3.0.

1.4.2 Updated Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA)

As with most CERCLA actions, the RI/FS phase did not produce all the data needed for the Remedial
Design. To determine the sorts of information needs that are most critical to successful performance of
the selected remedy, KUCC consulted its design team to identify gaps in support information and
underlying data. In addition, KUCC elected to use a style of engineering risk assessment called “Failure
Modes and Effects Analysis” (FMEA). FMEA is a qualitative evaluation that uses experienced
specialists to describe an engineered system in terms of its critical components. Using this description of
the system and its components, the specialists then systematically identify (a) ways in which adverse
effects could arise; (b) the severity of the consequence(s) of those effects; and (c) how the project could
mitigate the adverse effects.

The FMEA process allows the project team to concentrate on the information needed to control risk in the
components and the overall system. It provides a traceable rationale for the identification of data needs,
and therefore for the studies and projects needed to resolve the remaining uncertainties. Preliminary
FMEA evaluations were presented in the Remedial Design Work Plan (KUC, 2001). Current status of the
FMEA for this project is summarized in Table 1-1, and the results of this evaluation were used to
establish the Final Design described in Section 3.0 below. The FMEA process will continue through the
rest of the Remedial Action based on monitoring data, and may be used, in conjunction with the
monitoring to guide additional actions.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 6 -

Table 1-1. Summary of Failure Modes and Effects Analysis
FAILURE MODE ADVERSE
EFFECT
RANK OF
CONSEQUENCE
POSSIBLE
MITIGATION
Groundwater Collection and Containment System
Well Casing Fails
Above Plume
Acidic or high-SO4
water flows to vadose
zone and re-infiltrates
Extraction rate
compromised
Low to Moderate,
depending on amount of
flow lost
1. Plug and redrill well
2. Sleeve well
Extraction rate does not
contain plume
Plume is not contained;
water quality degrades
downgradient
High to Extreme 1. Reconfigure pumping
2. Increase extraction rates
3. Install and pump additional
wells
4. Add injection wells to
improve containment
Extraction rate creates
overdraft on aquifer
Rate of water-level
decline exceeds State
Engineer’s guidelines
Moderate (e.g., adjust
pumping rates) to
Severe (e.g., adverse
impacts to water rights
or ground subsidence)
1. Monitor water levels
against predictions and adjust
pumping as necessary;
2. Respond to direction from
State Engineer
3. Add injection wells to
improve containment
Delivery pipeline fails
(acid plume water)
Contaminated water
spills to surface

Extraction rate
compromised
Low to Moderate,
depending on volume
and period of
interruption
1. Place pipelines above
ground for inspection
2. Monitor flow rates and shut
down flow automatically if
rate falls out of acceptable
range
3. Double-wall (or otherwise
contain) pipelines
4. Leak detection in double-
wall, with failsafe
5. Storage during repairs or
shut down pumping
Delivery pipeline fails
(sulfate plume water)
Contaminated water
spills to surface

Delivery rate to water
treatment (RO units) is
compromised
Low to Moderate,
depending on volume
and period of
interruption
1. Place pipelines above
ground for inspection
2. Monitor flow rates and shut
down flow automatically if
rate falls out of acceptable
range
4. Storage during repairs or
shut down pumping
5. Shut down treatment
facility until pipeline is
repaired

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 7 -

FAILURE MODE ADVERSE
EFFECT
RANK OF
CONSEQUENCE
POSSIBLE
MITIGATION
Water Treatment (RO) and Hydraulic Delivery Systems
Larger volumes than
anticipated require
treatment and
distribution
Capacity must be
increased
Rate of aquifer clean-up
compromised
Moderate to High,
depending on scale of
modification to schedule
1. Add additional treatment
and/or delivery capacity
2. Add additional distribution
capacity
Quality of extracted
water degrades beyond
requirements of RO feed
water
Increased feed pressure
Lower permeate
recovery and quality
Low (technical) to
Moderate (cost)
1. Blend with low-TDS water
2. Use nanofiltration or other
pretreatment
Concentrate pipeline
fails
Contaminated water
spills to surface

Delivery rate to
Copperton tailings line
compromised
Low 1. Place pipelines above
ground for inspection
2. Monitor flow rates and shut
down flow automatically if
rate falls out of acceptable
range
3. Provide temporary storage
(e.g., Desilting Basin) while
pipeline is repaired
4. Shut down treatment
facilities until pipeline is
repaired
Permeate pipeline fails Clean water delivery
interrupted
Regulatory impact for
drinking water supplies
Low to Moderate

1. Restore flow
2. Provide alternative fresh
water through purchase or
alternative source

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 8 -

FAILURE MODE ADVERSE
EFFECT
RANK OF
CONSEQUENCE
POSSIBLE
MITIGATION
Management of Acidic Flows & RO Concentrates in KUCC Tailings Circuit
Mechanical failure of
tailings pipeline

Contaminated water and
solids spill to surface
Groundwater extraction
and treatment rates
compromised;
Copper production
curtailed
Low to High, depending
on volume and period of
interruption

1. Inspect and maintain
2. Monitor flow rates and
shut down flow
automatically if rate falls out
of acceptable range [Very
difficult technically]
3. Store concentrates (e.g., in
Desilting Basin) until
tailings flow restored
4. Shut down treatment
facilities until pipeline is
repaired
Pipeline scale affects
performance
Scale adversely affects
pipeline performance or
maintenance schedule
Low (technical) to
Moderate (cost)
Control scale by chemical
management or physical
removal
Design-basis lime (CaO)
amendment does not
adequately control
chemistry in tails
Chemistry of decant
pool exceeds discharge
criteria
Chemistry of return flow
exceeds processing
criteria
High 1. Increase CaO dosage
2. Control discharge of
WDPS, if a short-term
problem
3. Treat decant pool, if a
short-term problem
4. Adjust chemistry of
process-water, if a short-
term problem
5. Blend with gray water (or
other waters)
6. Long-term mitigation
through lime treatment /
high-density sludge system

Metals and metalloids
not irreversibly removed
in tailings solids
Adverse water-quality
impacts to discharge
Low (if reversibility is
low) to High
1. Control pH of pipeline
system to a value that
produces stable solids
2. Amend tailing (e.g., with
limestone) to control pH in
tailing.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 9 -

FAILURE MODE ADVERSE
EFFECT
RANK OF
CONSEQUENCE
POSSIBLE MITIGATION
Management of Acidic Flows and RO Concentrates in KUCC Tailings Circuit (continued.)
Tailings acidified Adverse water quality
impacts to groundwater
and surface water
discharge
Adverse impacts to
surface reclamation
Regulatory & permitting
impacts
Moderate (if acidity,
metals fluxes are low) to
High
1. Add sufficient CaO (or
other alkaline amendment) in
tailing line to provide excess
Net Neutralization Potential
in tailing
2. Amend tailing in-situ (e.g.,
with limestone) to provide
additional alkalinity in
oxidation zone
3. Re-vegetate with resistant
species and soil amendments
to control phytotoxicity
Water quality not
suitable for discharge to
GSL at end of mining
Alternative for water
and chemical
management required
Moderate (if flow
volumes and chemistry
are moderate) to High
1. Evaporation with “RCRA”
containment for solids
2. “Land application”, if
concentrations do not exceed
regulatory limits

2.0 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The overall organization of the project team for the Remedial Action and the project’s relationship to
EPA and UDEQ oversight is shown in Figure 2-1. The specific responsibilities of each individual or
group are discussed below.

2.1 KUCC Personnel

Mr. Jon Cherry, P.E., is the KUCC Project Manager and main point of contact for communications to and
from KUCC. Mr. Cherry is designated as the Design Professional for this program. Mr. Cherry will be
responsible for day-to-day communication with the EPA and UDEQ oversight as well as with contractors
and consultants hired for specific tasks. His general responsibilities include implementation of a remedial
action that will meet the performance criteria specified in the December 13, 2000 Record of Decision
(ROD). As project manager, Mr. Cherry will define and clarify the scope of work and objectives for each
major activity, and ensure the technical, budget, permitting and schedule requirements are met. Mr.
Cherry is a registered professional engineer with over eleven years of RCRA, CERCLA, SARA, and
environmental permitting and compliance experience.

Mr. Bart Van Dyken is the KUCC Director of Engineering Services and will oversee the design,
construction and start-up of the extraction and treatment facilities. He will be responsible for
coordinating the necessary resources to accomplish the design and construction of the various elements
and to complete the remedial action phase on schedule. Mr. Van Dyken and his staff will be responsible
for the design, documentation, procurement, accounting and construction management of: 1)
containment/extraction wells, 2) delivery of the extracted water to the membrane filtration treatment
plant(s) and 3) delivery of the treated waters and concentrate streams to water suppliers and the tailings
line, respectively. Mr. Van Dyken has over 25 years of engineering experience in large-scale production
and environmental remediation projects.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 10 -

REMEDIAL ACTION ORGANIZATION PLAN
Figure 2-1

Eva Hoffman
EPA
Remedial Project
Manager
YESNO
Doug Bacon
DEQ/DERR
Project Manager
Jon Cherry
KUCC
Project Manager
Bart VanDyken
KUCC Eng
Services
(design, const
and start-up)
Helmar Bayer
HBC
International
(design, const,
start-up and ops)
Brian Vinton
NAMS
(modeling,
monitoring,
data analysis
and mgmt
Mark Logsdon
Geochimica
(geochemical
modeling and
analysis)
Steve Schnoor
Tailings and W S
(long term O&M
of wells and RO
Plant)
REMEDIAL ACTION

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 11 -

Mr. Steve Schnoor, KUCC Tailings and Water Services, will be responsible for the long-term operation
and maintenance of the extraction wells, pumps and Zone A Reverse Osmosis Plant. Mr. Schnoor and his
staff of operators will be responsible for operating and maintaining the extraction wells and pumps such
that the acid and sulfate plumes are contained as required and that the requisite amount of extracted water
is delivered to the Zone RO Plant to produce the required volume of drinking water. Mr. Schnoor’s team
will also be responsible for operating the Zone A RO Plant at the necessary operating configuration to
produce 3500 acre-feet per year of drinking water.

2.2 Consultants/Contractors

Mr. Helmar Bayer is the President of HBC International, Inc. and has contracted to KUCC for the past 10
years for treatability testing and design of the membrane treatment plant(s). Mr. Bayer will continue in
this capacity, working directly with KUCC Engineering Services, to design, construct and start-up the
treatment facilities. Mr. Bayer holds an M.S. in food and fermentation technology and has over ten years
experience in wastewater treatment design.

Mr. Mark Logsdon is principal geochemist and President of Geochimica, Inc. and has contracted to
KUCC to perform specific geochemical investigations related to the remedial design as well as provide
other technical oversight throughout the remedial design process. Mr. Logsdon holds a M.S. in geology
with specialization in geochemistry, has published numerous articles on specific geochemical issues and
is a recognized expert in his field, with more than 25 years experience in mining-related geochemical
studies. Mr. Logsdon will be consulted on an as needed basis to review long term geochemical
monitoring in the aquifer and tailings impoundment.

Mr. Brian Vinton is President of North American Mine Services (NAMS). Mr. Vinton and his staff of
engineers and technicians have contracted to KUCC over the past ten years for source removal/control
projects and the RIFS. Mr. Vinton holds a B.S. in earth science and has over 20 years of experience in
the exploration, mining and environmental remediation fields. NAMS is contracted to KUCC as part of
the remedial design project to provide technical review, GIS support, groundwater modeling, groundwater
monitoring, groundwater data management and source control evaluation.

2.3 Government Oversight: EPA/UDEQ

Dr. Eva Hoffman is the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) from EPA Region VIII for the remedial action.
Dr. Hoffman has been the EPA lead project manager for this project during the source removal/control
projects and RIFS and will be responsible for coordination of all oversight for the project from EPA’s
perspective. She also will be responsible for contracting technical support and review from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and United State Geological Survey (USGS) to support her oversight role. Dr.
Hoffman’s responsibilities include ensuring that the remedial action will meet the performance criteria
established in the ROD, that the public’s interests are protected and that all federal administrative
requirements are met.

Mr. Doug Bacon is the lead Project Manager from the State of Utah Department of Environmental
Quality (UDEQ) for the remedial action phase of this project. Mr. Bacon was the lead project manager
for UDEQ during the FS and ROD. Mr. Bacon will be responsible for coordination of all oversight for
the project from UDEQ’s perspective and ensuring that all State administrative requirements are met.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 12 -
2.4 Technical Review Committee (TRC)

The TRC was formed during the initial stages of the RI and has continued through the FS, Remedial
Design (RD) and into the remedial action (RA). The committee is comprised of representatives from
KUCC, various federal, state and local government agencies, as well as, representatives from local
municipalities and local residents. The TRC is co-chaired by the KUCC, EPA and UDEQ project
managers. There are two purposes of the TRC. First, the TRC provides a forum in which the technical
details and progress of the remedial action can be communicated in a transparent process that allows open
dialog between the interested parties. The second purpose of the TRC is to provide technical review in
their respective areas of expertise to ensure that basic assumptions are credible and that critical details are
not overlooked. Table 2-1 is the current listing of TRC members, their affiliation, phone number and
email address.
Table 2-1. South Facilities Technical Review Committee
NAME AFFILIATION PHONE NUMBER EMAIL
1 Eva Hoffman EPA 303-312-6764 [e-mail]
2 Helen Dawson EPA 303-312-7841 [e-mail]
3 Joy Emory FOGSL 801-532-2771 [e-mail]
4 Michelle Baguley HRRR 801-254-4921 [e-mail]
5 Richard Bay JVWCD 801-565-8903 [e-mail]
6 Mark Atencio JVWCD 801-565-8903 [e-mail]
7 Alan Packard JVWCD 801-565-8903 [e-mail]
8 Ryan Evans KUCC 801-569-6961 [e-mail]
9 Paula Doughty KUCC 801-569-7120 [e-mail]
10 Jon Cherry KUCC 801-252-3126 [e-mail]
11 Helmar Bayer KUCC – HBC Int. 801-569-7301 [e-mail]
12 Mark Logsdon KUCC-Geochimica 805-640-8697 [e-mail]
13 Brian Vinton KUCC-NAMS 801-569-7887 [e-mail]
14 Mary Pat Buckman SL Co. Health Dept. 801-313-6707 [e-mail]
15 Steve Noble South Jordan City 801-253-5230 [e-mail]
16 Frank Roberts UDEQ – DDW 801-536-0098 [e-mail]
17 Brent Everett UDEQ – DERR 801-536-4171 [e-mail]
18 Doug Bacon UDEQ – DERR 801-536-4282 [e-mail]
19 Doug Taylor UDEQ – DSHW 801-538-6857 [e-mail]
20 Dennis Frederick UDEQ – DWQ 801-538-6038 [e-mail]
21 Dan Hall UDEQ – DWQ 801-538-9153 [e-mail]
22 Bill Moellmer UDEQ – DWQ 801-538-6329 [e-mail]
23 Tom Munson UDNR – DOGM 801-538-5321 [e-mail]
24 Karl Kappe UDNR – GSL 801 538-5273 [e-mail]
25 Chuck Williamson UDNR – Water Rights 801-538-7392 [e-mail]
26 Jared Manning UDNR – Water Rights 801-538-7455 [e-mail]
27 Mark Wichman USACE - Omaha 402-221-4135 [e-mail]
28 Bert Stolp USGS 801-908-5061 [e-mail]
29 Roger Payne West Jordan City 801-569-5761 [e-mail]
30 Scott Hill Riverton City 801-253-4145 na
31 Kim Shelley DWQ 801-538-6760 [e-mail]
(REVISED December 18, 2002)

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 13 -
3.0 FINAL DESIGN

3.1 Purpose, Scope and Objectives of the Final Design

The purpose of the Remedial Design (RD) is to develop and document the technical requirements of the
Remedial Action that will be executed by KUCC to resolve the CERCLA issues associated with
contamination of groundwater from mining activities. Where appropriate, this design also addresses
KUCC’s obligations related to the previously mentioned NRD settlement. The general nature of the
selected remedy and an overview of the conceptual design for that remedy have been presented in
Sections 1.3 and 1.4, above.

The scope of the Final Design includes plans for three “functional units” of the conceptual plan during the
period in which the Bingham Canyon mine continues to operate:

• Groundwater containment and extraction system (including monitoring);
• Water treatment (RO) and hydraulic delivery system for treated water and concentrate;
• Management of acid plume water and Zone A RO concentrates in KUCC tailings circuit.

In addition, Appendix A to this Final Design Report describes KUCC’s approach to post-mining water
management. This appendix has been prepared at the level of a Preliminary Design. The plan for post-
mining water management will be updated formally as part of the 5-Year Reviews during Remedial
Action. Through the update process, there will be a final engineering design for all aspects of post-
mining conditions prior to the actual end of mining act Bingham Canyon, which is expected to be some
time between 2013 and 2030, depending on long-term mine planning.

The Final Design addresses processes and designs that will be used by KUCC to meet the terms of the
ROD both during operational stages of the mine and after the end of mining. The level of detail for the
operational phase is much greater than for the end-of-mining phase, as we expect that much will be
learned during the period of expected operation that can be applied in the context of closure but which
cannot be anticipated in detail at this time.

This Final Design Report provides the general plans and specifications for a performance-based Remedial
Action that would be detailed and executed by KUCC or the selected contractor(s). Objectives of the
Final Design include:

• Identify performance and, as appropriate, design criteria for each “functional unit” of the
conceptual design;
• Present the results of supplemental testing, sampling and analytical programs executed during the
Remedial Design process to address data needs that were identified after the RI/FS;
• Document the performance-based designs in plans and specifications.

The Final Design Report is organized in terms of the three “functional units” discussed below.

3.2 Groundwater Containment and Extraction

Zone A groundwater will be extracted from acid and sulfate contaminant plumes (Figure 3-1). The acid
plume contains low pH/high TDS water that will be extracted and routed to the tailings line via the
Wastewater Disposal Pump Station (neutralization of the acid water is discussed in Section 3.4). Sulfate

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 14 -
water from Zone A will be routed to the RO Plant. The Zone B sulfate groundwater extraction and
treatment plan will be implemented by others through various agreements with the State of Utah and local
water purveyor(s).

Extraction rates from the Zone A sulfate plume wells will be adjusted to accommodate the feed water
requirements at the RO Plant and to produce the required 3500 acre-feet per year of drinking water while
containing the sulfate plume at 1500 mg/L on KUCC property. If additional wells are needed to contain
the sulfate plume on KUCC property, the average extraction rate would still be in the 2500 to 3500 gpm
range with production of 3500 acre feet of drinking water per year. Table 3-1 lists the planned extraction
rates and volume for the sulfate and acid extraction wells. Placement of these wells is shown below in
Figure 3-2.

3.2.1 Acid Plume Containment and Extraction

Water from the acid wells will be routed to the tailings line via the Wastewater Disposal Pump Station
(WDPS). The current acid well, ECG1146, was installed in 1995 along with a pipeline delivery system to
the Membrane Filtration Plant (Figure 3-2 and 3-5). A second acid well will be installed approximately ¼
mile east of Highway 111 and adjacent to and south of the Trans Jordan Landfill in late 2002 or early
2003. Additional acid wells will be installed in the future to contain the acid plume. They will be located
where the maximum acid-water extraction is likely based on then-current groundwater monitoring and
modeling results. The current (December, 2002) extraction rate for ECG1146 is 900 gpm. Routing of
flows after extraction is described in Section 3.2.1.2 below.

Optimal containment of the acid plume over the life of the project will be achieved by evaluating the
monitoring data described in Section 3.2.3. KUCC will use its calibrated groundwater flow model as a
planning tool for ongoing optimization of plume containment and groundwater extraction. The model
will be calibrated periodically using data from ongoing monitoring. Extraction rates and well-field
geometry will be set according to monitoring results to contain the acid plume, to extract Zone A sulfate
waters for treatment to drinking-water standards, to contain the 1500 mg/L sulfate plume on Kennecott
property and to balance the hydraulic response of the aquifer (drawdown) with the need to protect the
ability of the aquifer to transmit the acid water to the wells.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 15 -
Figure 3-1 Zone A and Zone B Groundwater Plumes
Zone B
Zone A

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 16 -

Table 3-1. Extraction Rates for Proposed Remedial Strategy

Well

Model Layer* Pumping Rate
(gpm)
Pumping Rate
(as: ac-ft/yr)

Estimated
Yearsψ
Acid Well (ECG1146) 4 750-1500 (1200-2400) 0-5
New Acid Well #1 4 Varied† (Varied†) 0-30
New Acid Well #2 4 Varied†† (Varied††) 6-50
New Acid Well #3 4 (50%), 5 (50%) Varied ††† (Varied †††) 16-50
BFG1200 (K109) 4, 5, 6 ~1100 (~1750) 0-50
B2G1193 (K60) 4, 5 ~1100 (~1750) 0-50
LTG1147 3 (50%), 4 (50%) ~1000 (~1600) 0-50
* Layer 3 is approximately 0 – 150 feet below the groundwater table
Layer 4 is approximately 150 – 300 feet below the groundwater table
Layer 5 is approximately 300 – 450 feet below the groundwater table
Layer 6 is approximately 450 – 650 feet below the groundwater table
ψ Actual pumping will be evaluated based on water quality and efficiency at this location
† Varied Pumping as necessary: Years 0-15, ~1000 gpm (1600afy); Years 16-50, ~500 gpm (800 afy)
†† Varied Pumping as necessary: Years 6-15, ~1000 gpm (1600 afy); Years 16-50, ~500-750 gpm (800-1200 afy)
††† Varied Pumping as necessary: Years 16-30, ~750 gpm (1200 afy); Years 31-50, ~500-750 gpm (800-1200 afy)

Figure 3-2 Extraction Well Locations

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 17 -
3.2.1.1 Acid Extraction Well Construction

In addition to acid well ECG1146, other acid wells will be drilled and installed in the same manner
(Kennecott RI 1998). Typical acid-well design will include an eighteen-inch nominal diameter stainless
steel casing and screen (Figure 3-3). A submersible stainless steel pump will be installed at depth within
the casing. The well, pump, and appurtenances in contact with low pH water will be stainless steel and
designed to withstand the water pumping pressure for each specific well. Screen intervals for all
additional wells will include all portions of the aquifer identified during monitoring as containing low pH
water (<3.5 pH s.u.).

3.2.1.2 Acid Plume Piping

All of the acid-well water will be piped through a 12-inch to 14-inch HDPE pipe encased in a 16-inch to
18-inch secondary HDPE containment pipe. The current pipeline was designed as such and includes
approximately 7500 feet of line from ECG1146 to the Eastside Collection Reservoir (Figures 3-2 and 3-
5). The second acid well line will include approximately 4700 feet of line from the planned well site to
ECG1146. This line will be sized to facilitate the possibility of maximum volume extraction in the eastern
extent of the acid plume. The pipe will be designed to withstand the additional pressure due to its lower
elevation location. Each of the respective acid wells will be designed with monitoring devices to ensure
proper pump operation, flow metering and depth to water. These devices also will be programmed to shut
down the well if any one parameter is not within the tolerance allowed. The secondary containment pipe
also will be monitored at each of the down gradient well locations. If any flow is detected in the
secondary pipe at any of the acid well sites by the continuous-reading conductance probes, the
conductance signal will be conveyed to the electrical circuit at each of the wells, and each well will be
programmed to shut down until the problem is identified and repaired.

The current pipeline will be re-routed to the cement-lined canal and/or the Precipitation Plant (P-Plant).
Flow in the cement-lined canal will report to the WDPS that delivers water to the beginning of the tailings
line. If the WDPS station needs repair and down time is scheduled, the flow from the acid wells will
either be shut down until repairs are complete or be diverted to the Bingham Reservoir. Flow to the P-
Plant will either be pumped to HDPE-lined evaporation ponds on the Eastside Waste Rock dumps during
the summer months or routed to the WDPS or the Bingham Reservoir. The second acid well pipeline will
be tied into the pipeline adjacent well ECG1146. Any additional pipelines from future acid wells will also
be tied to the pipeline from well ECG1146. The existing pipeline from ECG1146 to the lower cement-
lined canal has the capacity to carry up to 3000 gpm.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 18 -
Figure 3-3 Typical Acid Extraction Well Design
785'
700'
600'
500'
400'
300'
200'
100'
DR
AW
I
NG

#

4
5
1-
F
-
00
15

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 19 -

3.2.2 Sulfate plume Containment and Extraction (Zone A)

Water from the sulfate wells in Zone A will be routed to the RO Plants as described in Section 3.3. The
wells include LTG1147 (sulfate well), B2G1193 (K60) and BFG1200 (K109). Each of the three wells has
existing conveyance lines which will be re-routed directly to the RO Plant. The flow from each well will
be regulated by two objectives: (a) to contain the 1500 mg/L sulfate plume on KUCC property and (b) to
provide a composite flow that will satisfy the water-quality and quantity requirements of the RO Plant.
The current well-field configuration meets these requirements, based on the operations data for pilot-
testing the RO Plant over time since 1996. If monitoring and its evaluation through groundwater-flow
modeling reveal that additional wells are needed to contain the Zone A sulfate plume, KUCC will develop
and submit for approval plans and specifications that are similar to those for the existing well sites. The
plan would include supporting monitoring data, drawdown modeling results, and water-quality
predictions.

As part of Zone A sulfate containment, KUCC is also evaluating injecting water into a portion of the
principal aquifer in the BFG1200/West Jordan Well Field area. Injection would provide additional
hydraulic containment for the sulfate plume and also would recharge the overdraft of the principal aquifer
that has developed from over-extraction during the last decade or more. Development of a feasibility plan
for injection will be evaluated and recommendations completed in 2003.

3.2.2.1 Preliminary Evaluation Report

A Preliminary Evaluation Report (PER) on the feasibility and appropriateness of a particular groundwater
source for use as a drinking water source is required under Utah Administrative Codes R309-600, R655-4
and R309-204. A PER and the engineering specifications were submitted and approved by the Division of
Drinking Water prior to completion of well BFG1200. Wells B2G1193 and LTG1147 were completed
without a PER before details of the Remedial Design were worked out; however, both wells have been
discussed with the State, and the State has asked that the information required in the PER be included in
the Drinking Water Source Protection Plan (DWSP) for all of the sulfate wells. Any additional sulfate-
extraction wells will follow the procedures as defined in the State regulations. All drilling and well
construction materials will be in compliance with existing State regulations.

3.2.2.2 Drinking Water Source Protection (DWSP) Plans

All Zone A sulfate wells that are or will be routed to the RO Plant are required by the State to have
approved DWSP plans. As agreed with the State, one plan will be completed that will include all three
existing sulfate wells. This plan will be completed in 2003.

3.2.2.3 Sulfate Well Construction

Sulfate Well LTG1147 was installed in 1995 (Kennecott RI, 1998) and has been in operation through
2002. B2G1193 was installed in 1997, and BFG1200 was installed in 2000. The typical sulfate-well
design includes an eighteen-inch nominal diameter stainless steel screen and a steel casing (Figure 3-4).
Each well has a submersible pump, and the combined flow will meet the required volume of 3500 acre
feet per year. These wells were originally constructed to supply make-up water to the Copperton
concentrator.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 20 -
3.2.2.4 Sulfate Plume Piping and Routing

Pipelines from current sulfate containment wells currently exist and convey water from the extraction
location to the Copperton concentrator. When the Zone A RO Plant construction is complete, these
pipelines will be diverted to the plant. Pipeline design and routing can be viewed in Figure 3-5. Each of
the lines from the well sites are designed to convey maximum flow from each well. Pipelines are
installed per manufacture’s instructions.

3.2.3 Groundwater Monitoring

3.2.3.1 Introduction

As part of the Remedial Design/Remedial Action on the CERCLA groundwater plume in the Southwest
Jordan Valley, KUCC will monitor the groundwater in and around the contaminant plume. In 2001, a
Baseline Groundwater Chemistry and Water Level Study (Appendix D) was conducted to create a
representation of the shape and size of the Zone A contaminated groundwater plume at the start of
remediation and to document the status of water level changes at the time in the valley. The frequency
and intensity of long-term monitoring as discussed in this section is based on the results of that Baseline
study and previous Remedial Investigation results.

Future monitoring data will be compared to the baseline representation to evaluate the effectiveness of
remediation and its impact on water levels and groundwater quality in the valley. Three types of data will
be collected in the course of groundwater monitoring: water level elevation measurements (annual to
monthly measurements on 317 wells), groundwater chemistry from well sampling (29 different analytes
on samples collected on a semiannual to every two year sampling frequency on samples from 100 wells)
and ground surface elevation monitoring (annual survey from 7 different well sites) . Annual monitoring
reports completed as part of the Groundwater Characterization and Monitoring Plan will detail significant
changes in the plume geometry and chemistry. These reports may include potentiometric maps,
potentiometric-change maps, contaminant distribution maps and/or hydrogeologic cross sections. This
monitoring plan will be a working plan with flexibility to increase or decrease groundwater-monitoring
intensity in response to changes seen in the plume.

3.2.3.2 Purpose

Groundwater monitoring data will be used for several purposes:

1. Monitor the impacts of remedial extraction and natural attenuation on the shape and size of
the Zone A contaminant plume. Data will be compared to the pre-remediation (2001)
representation of the shape and size of the contaminated groundwater plume created using
Baseline Study data.

2. Monitoring results will be used to assure compliance with the stipulations of the Record of
Decision for KUCC South Zone Groundwater Plumes (ROD) (EPA and UDEQ, 2000), that
is, that groundwater with greater than 1500 mg/L sulfate and/or metals concentrations
exceeding state and federal drinking water standards does not migrate outside the area of
contamination defined in the Feasibility Study. The ROD also requires the natural
attenuation of groundwater with greater than 500 mg/L sulfate be monitored.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 21 -
Figure 3-4 Typical Sulfate Extraction Well Design

GROUND SURFACE
100
200
300
400
500
600

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 22 -
Figure 3-5 Pipeline Design and Routing
EXISTING DEEP WELL LINE
NEW DEEP WELL LINE (PENDING)
TURN OUT OF ACID
WATER TO LOWER
LINED CANAL
R.O. PLANT
BFG1200
(K109 REPLACEMENT)
B2G1193
(K60 REPLACEMENT)
ACID WELL (PENDING)ECG1146
(ACID WELL)
LTG1139
(CLEAN WATER WELL)
LTG1147
(SULFATE WELL)

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 23 -
3. The data will be added to the historical data set of water level and chemical trends. Some
wells in the valley currently show falling water levels, reduced head pressure or contaminant
migration. While remediation may exacerbate the head loss because of increased pumping
rates, it will be necessary to distinguish trends that existed before remediation from those
caused by remedial extraction so that KUCC can mitigate as necessary.

4. Monitor potential land surface subsidence that may be caused from water level declines.
Projected draw downs of the water table may cause land subsidence and KUCC will monitor
7 well sites on an annual basis to track changes. If changes are noted, KUCC may increase
the number and frequency of monitoring points and mitigate potential structural damage to
the extraction capture system (piping and well houses).

5. Data gathered will be used in the on-going groundwater flow and transport models.
Groundwater monitoring data will be used to identify where field conditions deviate from the
model predictions, thereby allowing refinement of the models.

3.2.3.3 Procedures

Methods

KUCC’s Groundwater Monitoring and Characterization Plan (GCMP) (KUCC 2000) and associated
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) (KUCC 1999a) will be followed for all sampling, surveying and
water level measurements. The GCMP has been approved by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) and
is updated on an annual basis. Procedures for documentation and sample handling, equipment
maintenance and decontamination, quality control sampling, field measurements, and groundwater
sampling are detailed in the SOPs.

Data Management

The GCMP specifies how field and laboratory data are managed from the point of collection, through
sampling and laboratory handling, to reporting in quarterly and annual reports to the DWQ. In addition to
GCMP data management, the Data and Records Management Plan for the Remedial Design (KUCC
2001) provides more detail on how data will be managed on the project level and how they will be
managed after all GCMP procedures are complete.

There may be certain types of data that do not go through the complete GCMP data-management
procedure. We anticipate that all the site-wide water level measurements (those not collected immediately
before well sampling) will be collected using GCMP water-level measurement protocol, but that these
data will be entered into a project database instead of the GCMP database; therefore, they would not be
included in GCMP quarterly and annual reports. These data will be reviewed by project personnel in a
similar manner to the quality control review conducted under the GCMP program. The two data sets will
be combined to evaluate the status of the contaminant plume.

Quality Control/Quality Assurance

Quality control procedures for the GCMP program will be followed for all RD data collection and
analysis. These procedures are documented in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for the GCMP
(KUCC 1999b). In addition to the extensive quality control/quality assurance performed according to
laboratory and GCMP protocol, project personnel will review data by comparison to historical trends
within 90 days of receipt of the data from the laboratory. If data outside the expected trend are identified,

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 24 -
the measurement will be investigated. The expected trend will be defined as within plus or minus two
standard deviations calculated on the previous eight sampling results for that analyte, or from empirical
evaluation of the data. Typically, a verification of field data collection and laboratory data reduction
would be performed first, followed by re-analysis of the sample, if possible. If these actions do not
resolve the issue, the well may be re-sampled. If re-analysis or re-sampling results are similar to the out-
of-trend data, the data will stand. If these actions suggest the out-of-trend data may be an outlier, a
qualifier will be placed in the database. Quality control problems, necessary corrective actions, and
effects on data will be documented in annual reports. Database management is outlined in more detail in
the Data Records and Management Plan for the Remedial Design (KUCC, 2001).

3.2.3.4 Monitoring Plan

Water Levels

Coordination with existing programs
Several existing water-level collection programs are underway in areas that overlap the South Facilities
Groundwater Plume area to be monitored. Data collected as part of these programs will also be used to
evaluate hydraulic changes in and around the contaminant plume.

TransJordan Solid Waste Disposal Facility collects quarterly water levels on five monitoring wells
located around their facility, approximately 1-2 miles west of the sulfate extraction area. KUCC has a
good working relationship with the management of this facility, and it is anticipated that their water-level
information will be available; however, KUCC cannot control when water-level measurement occurs, and
so the data may not be as useful for all purposes as data collected according to the KUCC schedule. It
should be noted that data collected by the landfill is not part of KUCC’s GCMP and will be noted as such.

Frequency
For the first several years of remedial extraction, two complete sets of water levels per year will be
collected on shallow completions of the wells identified in Figure 3-6. One set will be collected in May,
before seasonal pumping begins, and the other set will be collected in September or October toward the
end of the irrigation season but while large wells in surrounding communities are still pumping. The
timing is designed to show the impact from seasonal pumping on the water table. Water levels will be
collected on all depth completions annually to monitor vertical gradients. Under normal conditions, this
amount of data should take about five working days to collect. Weather or ground conditions may
prolong this interval up to about two weeks. All measurements will be made in as short a time span as
possible.

More frequent water-level monitoring will be conducted around pumping wells when the extent of the
cone of depression around those wells is being monitored.

Monitoring Locations
Table 3-2 lists the 317 wells proposed for water level monitoring. The wells include most KUCC
monitoring wells and some private wells in Zone A. As seen on Figure 3-6, the spatial distribution of
monitoring points is more concentrated in the two main areas of RD extraction (the acidic portion of the
plume and the sulfate extraction area of wells B2G1193 and BFG1200), as it will be critical to understand
the hydraulics of groundwater flow in these areas. Many of the sites are nested wells that will allow
KUCC to monitor vertical hydraulic gradients.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 25 -
Table 3-2. Wells for Water-level Monitoring
K26 P269 ECG923 HMG1122B LTG1138C EPG1165A B2G1194A
K70 P270 ECG924 HMG1122C LTG1139 EPG1165B B2G1194B
K72 P271 ECG925 HMG1123A LTG1140A EPG1165C BFG1195A
K84 P272 ECG926 HMG1123B LTG1140B EPG1166 BFG1195B
K105 P273 ECG928 HMG1123C LTG1140C LTG1167A BSG1196A
K106 P274 LTG929A ECG1124A LTG1140D LTG1167B BSG1196B
K120 P277 LTG929B ECG1124B ECG1142A LTG1167C BSG1196C
W131A P279 ECG931 ECG1124C ECG1142B BFG1168A B3G1197A
P190A BRG286 ECG932 BSG1125A ECG1142C BFG1168B B3G1197B
P190B BRG287 ECG934 BSG1125B ECG1143A BFG1168C B3G1197C
P191B BRG288 ECG935 BSG1125C ECG1143B WJG1169A BFG1198A
P192B BRG289 ECG936 HMG1126A ECG1143C WJG1169B BFG1198B
P193B BRG290 ECG937 HMG1126B ECG1144A WJG1169C BFG1198C
P194A BRG291A ECG938 HMG1126C ECG1144B WJG1170A ECG1199A
P194B ECG293 ECG939 LTG1127A ECG1144C WJG1170B ECG1199B
P197B ECG294 ECG940 LTG1127B ECG1145A WJG1170C ECG1199C
K201 ECG296 SRG945 LTG1127C ECG1145B WJG1171A ECG1199D
P208A ECG297 SRG946 ECG1128A ECG1145C WJG1171B ECG1199E
P208B ECG299 B1G951 ECG1128B ECG1146 WJG1171C ECG1199F
P209B W403 ECG952 ECG1128C LTG1147 COG1175A ECG1199G
P211A ABC01 BRG999 LTG1129A BSG1148A COG1175B BFG1200
P211B ABC02 ECG1113A LTG1129B BSG1148B COG1175C EPG1689
P212A ABC04 ECG1113B LTG1129C BSG1148C B2G1176A WJG1980
P212B ABC04A ECG1113C BSG1130A BCG1150A B2G1176B
P214A ABC05 ECG1114A BSG1130B BCG1150B B2G1176C
P220 ABC06 ECG1114B BSG1130C BCG1150C BSG1177A
P225 ABC07 ECG1115A ECG1131A BSG1153A BSG1177B
P228 ABC08 ECG1115B ECG1131B BSG1153B BSG1177C
P231 ECG900 ECG1115C ECG1131C BSG1153C COG1178A
P239 ECG901 ECG1115D BSG1132A WJG1154A COG1178B
P241B ECG902 ECG1115E BSG1132B WJG1154B COG1178C
P241C ECG903 ECG1116A BSG1132C WJG1154C BSG1179A
P242 ECG904 ECG1116B BSG1133A BFG1155B BSG1179B
P243 ECG905 ECG1116C BSG1133B BFG1155C BSG1179C
P244A ECG906 ECG1117A BSG1133C BFG1155D BSG1180A
P244B ECG907 ECG1117B HMG1134A BFG1155E BSG1180B
P244C ECG908 ECG1117C HMG1134B BFG1155F BSG1180C
P248A ECG909 ECG1118A HMG1134C BFG1156A ECG1182A
P248B LRG910 ECG1118B BSG1135A BFG1156B ECG1182B
P248C LRG911 ECG1118C BSG1135B BFG1156C ECG1183A
P249A LRG912 BSG1119A BSG1135C BFG1156D ECG1183B
P249B LRG914 BSG1119B BFG1136A BFG1156E ECG1184
P257 ECG915 BSG1119C BFG1136B BFG1156F ECG1186
P260 ECG916 B1G1120A BFG1136C B2G1157A ECG1187
P261 ECG917 B1G1120B BSG1137A B2G1157B ECG1188
P263 BRG919 B1G1120C BSG1137B B2G1157C ECG1189
P264 BRG920 ECG1121A BSG1137C BCG1158A ECG1190
P267B BRG921 ECG1121B LTG1138A BCG1158B LTG1191
P268 ECG922 HMG1122A LTG1138B BCG1158C B2G1193

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 26 -
Surface Elevation Monitoring

Seven different monitoring well sites have been selected for re-survey on an annual basis (Table
3-2a and Fig 3-6). The elevation will be surveyed with a Global Position System (GPS) unit.
Elevations will be read to the nearest centimeter and reported in the annual monitoring report.
The well sites to be included in the survey include 4 monitoring wells located in the acid plume
area and 3 monitoring wells in the sulfate plume area. Each of the monitoring well sites has a
pre-established marker point in the cement pad around the surface casing as the survey point.

Table 3-2a. Wells for Surface Level Monitoring
Well Site ID Location/Frequency
K105 West of acid plume/Annual
ECG1116 West edge of acid plume/Annual
ECG1124 Acid plume/Annual
BSG1180 Acid plume/Annual
BFG1156A,B,C Sulfate plume/Annual
WJG1170 Sulfate plume/Annual
BSG1137 Sulfate plume/Annual

3.2.3.5 Water Chemistry

Coordination with Existing Programs

Some of the wells selected for baseline water chemistry are routinely sampled as part of the GCMP, and
many of the wells along the range-front near the Eastside Leach Collection System are sampled quarterly
as part of the Bingham Canyon mine and Leach Collection System Groundwater Discharge Permit. Data
collected as part of these programs will be used to identify changes within the plume and surrounding
groundwater.

TransJordan Solid Waste Disposal Facility also collects quarterly water samples on five monitoring wells
located around their facility. Their water-quality information may be available; however, KUCC cannot
control when sampling occurs or what elements are analyzed. Data collected from the landfill will be
noted as data collected outside of KUCC’s GCMP.

Analytical Suite

Samples will be analyzed for the parameters given in Table 3-3. The rationale for selecting these specific
parameters is also listed in the table. The suite includes general water-quality parameters, major and
minor analytes and trace metals. General parameters like pH, alkalinity/acidity, TDS and major analytes
are needed for general chemistry and to calculate charge and mass balance to check the quality of the
analyses. Some of the analytes listed in Table 3-3 were identified as being present in the Bingham
Reservoir plume area at concentrations above baseline concentrations in an independent study done as
part of the RI (Shepherd Miller, Inc., 1997, page 50). Sulfate, TDS, magnesium, cadmium, nickel and
zinc were identified in that study as indicators of impacts related to mining activities.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 27 -
Figure 3-6 RD Water Level Monitoring Locations

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 28 -

Fluoride was found at elevated concentrations during baseline study sampling and therefore it will be
analyzed during at least the first years of long-term monitoring. Selenium, lead and chromium were
found at levels slightly greater than the respective drinking water standard and will stay on the analytical
suite. Nitrate, silver and barium were not found at concentrations above the drinking water standards and,
therefore, will not be analyzed on a regular basis.

The primary or secondary drinking-water standards and whether or not the analyte has a surface-water
quality standard for the Jordan River (because groundwater from Zone B may discharge to the river) are
given in Table 3-3. Also given are the analytical method(s) and target detection limits for each parameter
as given in the QAPP. Analytical methods are selected by laboratory personnel to meet the target
detection limits where possible. All analyses will be conducted according to test procedures specified
under Utah Administrative Code R317-6-6.3.L for groundwater. KUCC Environmental Laboratory, a
state-certified lab, will analyze samples.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 29 -

Table 3-3. Analytical Suite for Groundwater Samples.
Parameter T/D Rational For Sampling Primary
Drinking
H20 Std.
Secondary
Drinking
H20 Std.
Has
Aquatic
Std?
Analytical Method Target
Detect.
Limit
FIELD
PH - general chemistry 6.5-8.5 Y E 150.1 N/A
Temperature - general chemistry Y E 170.1 N/A
Conductance - general chemistry E 120.1, Std 2510B 10 µmho
Depth to Water - indicator of hydraulic changes N/A 0.01 ft
LABORATORY
TDS - general chemistry, plume indicator 2000 mg/L* 500 mg/L Y E 160.1 10 mg/l
Chloride (Cl - ) T general chem., indicator of water
source
250 mg/L E 325.2 5 mg/l
Fluoride (F- ) T lack of baseline data, may occur at
elevated levels
4 mg/L 2 mg/L Std 4500F- E C/300.0 0.2 mg/l
Sulfate (SO42-) T plume indicator 1000 mg/L* 250 mg/L E 375.2, 375.3, 9036 5 mg/l
Nitrate (NO3--N) T has drinking water standard, to
document low levels
10 mg/L Y E 353.2 0. 2 mg/l
Calcium (Ca) T general chemistry E 200.7 1 mg/l
Magnesium (Mg) T plume indicator E 200.7 1 mg/l
Potassium (K) T general chemistry E 200.7 0.1 mg/l
Sodium (Na) T general chemistry E 200.7 1 mg/l
Alkalinity (ALK) - general chemistry Std 2320B, E 310.1 10 mg/l
Acidity (ACD) - general chemistry Std 2310B 10 mg/L
Aluminum (Al) TD above background conc., needed for
mineral acidity calculation
0.05 to 0.2
mg/L
Y E 200.7, 200.8 200 µg/l
Arsenic (As) TD above background concentration 0.05/0.01
mg/L **
Y E 200.7, 200.8, 200.9, 6010B,
6020
5 µg/l
Barium (Ba) TD to document low levels 2 mg/L E 200.7, 200.8, 200.9, 6010B,
6020
10 µg/l
Cadmium (Cd) TD plume indicator 0.005 mg/L Y E 200.7, 200.8, 200.9, 6010B,
6020
2 µg/l
Chromium (Cr) TD above background concentration 0.1 mg/L Y E 200.7, 200.8, 6010B, 6020 10 µg/l

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 30 -
Table 3-3. Analytical Suite for Groundwater Samples.
Parameter T/D Rational For Sampling Primary
Drinking
H20 Std.
Secondary
Drinking
H20 Std.
Has
Aquatic
Std?
Analytical Method Target
Detect.
Limit
Copper (Cu) TD above background concentration 1.3 mg/L 1 mg/L Y E 200.7, 200.8, 220.1, 6010B,
6020
20 µg/l
Iron (Fe) TD plume indicator, needed for mineral
acidity calculation
0.3 mg/L Y E 200.7, 236.1, 6010B 300 µg/l
Lead (Pb) TD above background concentration 0.015 mg/L Y E 239.1, 200.8, 200.9, 200.7,
6010B, 6020
5 µg/l
Manganese (Mn) TD plume indicator 0.05 mg/L E 200.7, 243.1, 243.2, 200.8,
6010B, 6020
10 µg/l
Mercury (Hg) T to document low levels 0.002 mg/L Y E 245.1, 200.8 0.2 µg/l
Nickel (Ni) TD plume indicator 0.1 mg/L Y E 200.7, 200.8, 200.9, 6010B,
6020
30 µg/l
Selenium (Se) TD to document low levels 0.05 mg/L Y E 200.7, 200.8, 200.9,
Mod7742, 6010B, 6020
3 µg/l
Silver (Ag) TD to document low levels 0.1 mg/L Y E 272.1, 272.2, 200.8, 200.9,
200.7, 6010B, 6020
1 µg/l
Zinc (Zn) TD plume indicator 5 mg/L Y E 289.1, 289.2, 200.7, 200.8,
200.9, 6010B, 6020
10 µg/l

NOTES: N/A = Not Applicable; E = EPA Method Number; Std = Standard Methods, 20th edition, method number. T/D = Total or Dissolved concentrations.
*If sulfate is >500 mg/L or TDS is > 1000 mg/L, it must be demonstrated that no better quality water is available.
**The MCL for As has been lowered from 0.05 mg/L to 0.01 mg/L, but implementation of the change is scheduled over several years.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 31 -
Monitoring Locations

One-hundred wells have been selected for long-term water quality sampling. Wells were selected based
on (a) their three-dimensional location in relationship to the acid and sulfate plumes and (b) their
historical water-quality trends. The name, location, screen depth and rationale for sampling for each site
are given in Table 3-4. Monitoring locations are denser in the acid plume and the sulfate extraction areas
than in less contaminated areas because these are the areas that will be critical to monitor for changes
during plume extraction (Figure 3-7). The margin of the sulfate plume between the sulfate extraction area
and West Jordan’s municipal well field also will be monitored. Other areas to be monitored include the
Herriman area, around the clean water production well (well ID LTG1139) where clean water production
is critical, and along the base of the Oquirrh Mountains where recharge to the alluvial aquifer occurs.

Monitoring locations may be added or subtracted as necessary to monitor the acid and sulfate plumes with
respect to vertical and lateral migration and based upon historical water level trends.

Sampling Frequency

The sampling frequency for each well listed in Table 3-4 is the minimum frequency at which these wells
will be monitored in the beginning of the monitoring program. Some of the wells listed are sampled more
frequently as part of existing monitoring programs, but the frequency listed is that which we think needs
to be in place to successfully monitor the remedial action. For wells sampled more frequently than
shown in Table 3-4, all additional data will be included in groundwater evaluations and annual reports.
Frequency may increase or decrease in subsequent years based on data gathered from this monitoring
program. Recommendations for changes to the monitoring frequency, location or analytical suite will be
included in annual reporting.

Sampling frequency was determined using several criteria: 1) wells near pumping centers will be sampled
more frequently than areas more distant from pumping, 2) wells with historically more rapid or frequent
water quality changes will be sampled more frequently than those with stable water quality, and 3) wells
in areas where the degradation of water quality would be most serious (i.e. near drinking water wells; at
the property boundary).

Table 3-4. Locations and Frequency for Groundwater Chemistry Monitoring
Site ID

Freq. Sampling Rational KUC
northing
KUC
easting
Screen
Top
Screen
Bottom
W22 A Herriman water quality -1534 23091 80 350
K26 A source area (large reservoir) 16448 25287 204 224
K72 A alluvium near recharge area 13841 18189 10 240
W107 2 property boundary 20440 43285 215 460
W189 A property boundary 18943 39481 350 637
P190A A 1500 mg/L SO4 contour, property boundary 12580 37968 286 296
P190B 2 1500 mg/L SO4 contour, property boundary 12570 37976 529 539
P193B A 1500 mg/L SO4 contour, property boundary 17606 40766 224 234
P208A A acid plume margin 12512 25005 300 308
P208B A acid plume margin 12512 25036 401 412

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 32 -

P241B A acid plume margin 12351 29699 530 570
P241C A 1500 mg/L SO4 contour, property boundary 9804 32427 385 405
P244A A alluvium near recharge area 2285 16110 37 47
P244B A bedrock recharge 2278 16123 63 73
P244C A bedrock recharge 2266 16139 107 127
P248A A alluvium near recharge area 15485 17875 80 100
P248B A bedrock recharge 15491 17849 120 140
P248C A bedrock recharge 15496 17828 175 195
P279 A acid plume core 14156 24053 395 415
W361 A West Jordan well field 25805 37702 225 620
W363 A West Jordan well field 23509 37928 380 590
W387 A West Jordan well field 23373 35197 379 690
W409 A Herriman water quality -4079 27132 140 505
LRG910 A source area (large reservoir) 16038 18754 77 136
LRG911 A source area (large reservoir) 15231 18914 77 136
LRG912 A source area (large reservoir) 16539 19577 77 136
ECG917 A alluvium near recharge area 6289 18385 150 190
ECG922 A alluvium near recharge area 7677 18058 142 181
SRG946 A source area (small reservoir) 16988 21598 120 179
B1G951 A source area (large reservoir) 16322 21727 92 131
ECG1113A A clean water source area 8508 21783 138 178
ECG1115A A acid plume core 14603 24663 538 578
ECG1115B A acid plume core, base 14603 24663 838 858
ECG1115C A acid plume core, base 14601 24700 898 938
ECG1117A A acid plume core 15047 25243 438 478
ECG1117B A acid plume core, base 15047 25243 758 798
ECG1118A A acid plume core 13882 27446 598 638
ECG1118B A acid plume core, base 13882 27446 818 858
BSG1119B A acid plume, leading edge 13853 32358 538 558
B1G1120A A acid plume core 16141 26693 493 532
ECG1121A A acid plume core 14957 26824 600 640
BSG1125A A 1500 mg/L SO4 contour, property boundary 8494 32397 280 320
HMG1126A 2 Herriman water quality 2682 31045 280 320
HMG1126B 2 Herriman water quality 2682 31045 380 420
ECG1128A A acid plume margin 12249 25795 418 458
BSG1130A A 1500 mg/L SO4 contour 10114 34557 340 380
BSG1133A A 1500 mg/L SO4 contour 12400 34000 390 410
BSG1133B A 1500 mg/L SO4 contour 12400 34000 600 620
HMG1134A A Herriman water quality 5503 41670 160 180
BSG1137A A 1500 mg/L SO4 contour 15300 38000 377 397
BSG1137B A 1500 mg/L SO4 contour 15300 38000 637 657
LTG1139 A clean water source area 6989 24166 330 980
LTG1140A A clean water source area 6984 23149 220 240
LTG1140B A clean water source area 6984 23149 330 350

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 33 -
ECG1144A A acid plume core 13855 26003 440 460
ECG1144B 2 acid plume core 13855 26003 560 580
ECG1145A A acid plume core 13049 25373 420 440
ECG1145B A acid plume core 13049 25373 760 780
ECG1145C A acid plume core, base 13049 25373 810 830
ECG1146 Q acid plume core 13467 25673 500 750
LTG1147 S 1500 mg/L SO4 contour 7067 29725 400 590
BSG1148A A acid plume margin 11276 28859 510 530
BSG1148B 2 acid plume margin 11276 28859 580 600
WJG1154A S SO4 extraction area, West Jordan well field 20510 36367 310 350
WJG1154B A SO4 extraction area, West Jordan well field 20510 36367 400 420
WJG1154C A SO4 extraction area, West Jordan well field 20510 36367 730 750
LTG1167B 2 Herriman water quality 553 28415 300 320
WJG1169A A 1500 mg/L SO4 contour, West Jordan well field 19501 30501 400 420
WJG1169B A 1500 mg/L SO4 contour, West Jordan well field 19501 30501 470 490
WJG1170A A SO4 extraction area, West Jordan well field 19110 35012 375 395
WJG1171A S SO4 extraction area, West Jordan well field 20426 37696 430 450
COG1175A 2 acid plume margin 18070 26823 390 410
COG1175B A acid plume margin 18070 26823 600 620
B2G1176A A acid plume margin 16148 30121 555 575
BSG1177A A acid plume margin 13826 30357 525 545
BSG1177B A acid plume margin 13826 30357 680 700
COG1178A 2 sulfate plume margin 20468 27158 390 400
BSG1179A A acid plume margin 12358 29633 440 460
BSG1179B A acid plume margin 12358 29633 685 705
BSG1179C A acid plume margin 12358 29633 805 825
BSG1180B A acid plume, leading edge 13817 31356 660 680
BSG1180C A acid plume, leading edge 13817 31356 798 818
ECG1183A A alluvial bedrock contact 579 18992 35 65
ECG1184 A Butterfield Canyon alluvial recharge to Herriman -1538 17816 60 80
ECG1186 A alluvium near recharge area 9647 18578 36 136
ECG1187 A alluvium near recharge area 7540 18458 54 164
ECG1188 A alluvium near recharge area 10109 18567 38 118
ECG1189 A alluvium near recharge area 13054 19990 205 265
ECG1190 A alluvium near recharge area 11715 118 198
LTG1191 A alluvium near recharge area 3749 20549 20 100
B2G1193 S SO4 extraction 15378 33485 451 881
BFG1195A A SO4 extraction area 16434 33104 558 578
BFG1195B A SO4 extraction area 16434 33104 679 699
BSG1196B S acid plume, leading edge 13825 31860 470 490
BSG1196C A acid plume, leading edge 13825 31860 650 670
B3G1197A S SO4 extraction area, West Jordan well field 17661 38129 340 360
B3G1197B A SO4 extraction area, West Jordan well field 17661 38129 460 480
BFG1198A A 1500 mg/L SO4 contour, property boundary 17580 30793 400 420
BFG1200 S SO4 extraction 17570 34841 420 800
19026

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 34 -
HMG1856 2 Herriman water quality 657 33611 200 280
Note: Under frequency “A” means annual sample, “2”semi-annual.

3.2.3.6 Analysis and Results

Data will be compiled into data sets and analyzed by project personnel. Analysis may include the
application of statistical methods and computer-software contouring programs. Results of long-term
groundwater monitoring will be reported in the annual report for the GCMP. Figures to illustrate the
status of the contaminant plume may include iso-concentration contour maps of sulfate, pH, and selected
trace metals and potentiometric maps. Also included will be an analysis of changes in vertical hydraulic
gradients, if any, and the status of water level changes in the Southwestern Jordan Valley. Hydrogeologic
cross-sections depicting water quality may be used to show the vertical distribution of groundwater
contamination.

3.3 Water Treatment and Delivery System for Treated Waters and Concentrates

3.3.1 Introduction

From 1995 through 1997, KUCC conducted a RI/FS of mining-related groundwater contamination in the
southwestern Jordan Valley. As part of this work, KUCC studied various technologies for treating
contaminated groundwater. One of the treatment technologies investigated by KUCC was membrane
filtration (MF). During the last ten years, membrane filtration, especially reverse osmosis (RO), has
become an established water treatment process. However, the chemistry of the sulfate plume water is
significantly different from typical municipal and seawater desalination RO Plants used to provide
drinking water. The near saturation conditions for calcium sulfate and silica make scaling and its
prevention a more tedious task. Therefore there was limited external experience available with these
critical aspects of processing this water using RO technology and producing drinking water.

In 1995, a bench and pilot scale test program was started, which led to the purchase of a small-scale RO
system (capacity 800 gallons per day). This system was installed at the South End Engineering Services
offices near Copperton and has been in use since then. The unit provided the opportunity to gain first-
hand experience with RO filtration of sulfate plume water, in addition to producing low conductivity
water for the laboratory.

In 1999, KUCC modified the design of its nanofiltration pilot plant for leach water and acid plume water.
As a result, nine pressure vessels (with six membranes each) of the former stage two of the nanofiltration
skid became available for additional RO demonstration-scale testing of sulfate plume water treatment.
These vessels were arranged in a two-stage configuration, six vessels in first stage, and three vessels in
second stage. High-pressure feed pump, prefiltration, and antiscalant dosing were added, and the
demonstration unit was started up in July 1999 with water from the deep wells K60 and K109 being fed to
the plant by submersible pump from the Yosemite pump station. In the first year of operation, the
original nanofiltration membranes were used. In May 2000, these membranes were replaced with RO
membranes. The RO system has been in operation since then with feed rates of up to 312 gpm. The
design of the Zone A Reverse Osmosis Plant presented in this document is based on the experience
gained from this pilot and demonstration scale operation.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 35 -
Figure 3-7 RD Water Chemistry Monitoring Locations

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 36 -

3.3.2 Design Criteria

In compliance with the ROD, which was issued by the USEPA on December 13, 2000 and the NRD
settlement from 1995, the Zone A Reverse Osmosis Plant is designed to produce 3,500 acft of treated
municipal quality water per year. The produced water will meet, at a minimum, Municipal Water Quality
standards (MWQ) and will be delivered to the distribution system of JVWCD or other water purveyor(s).
The membrane filtration concentrate from the Zone A RO Plant will be conveyed by system pressure to
KUCC’s Eastside Reservoir, where it will be mixed with a small volume of meteoric leach water to
precipitate calcium sulfate. The combined concentrate/leachwater will flow by gravity to the WDPS,
where it will be pumped to the tailings line.

A stream factor of 85% is used as basis for the RO system design. The core of the plant are two RO skids
with a feed water capacity of 1,500 gpm each. The skids are each arranged in two-stage arrays in which
the concentrate of the first stage becomes the feed to the second stage, which uses half the number of
pressure vessels as the first stage. An average permeate flux rate of 13 gallons per square foot per day
(gfd) was used as design basis for the required membrane area for Rack 3 (11.1 gfd for Rack 4). The
permeate recovery will be in the range of 75% to 80%, depending on the feed water quality as shown in
the demonstration plant in operation from May 2000 to date.

The process design of the Zone A RO Plant incorporates the experience from process optimization
learned from operating membrane filtration facilities on KUCC specific waters for the last seven years.
During design, construction, and operation of KUCC’s membrane filtration plants, extensive
consultations with experts from membrane and RO system suppliers as well as manufacturers of
antiscalants and wash chemicals took place. The members of the Technical Review Committee reviewed
the Preliminary Design for the plant. An independent third party engineering review by Montgomery
Watson Harza endorsed the design.

The site for building the Zone A plant (Figure 3-8 Site Key Plan, Dwg. 456-M-0200) is adjacent to the
existing nanofiltration plant. This is a central location for the various water sources to be processed at the
plant, namely deep wells B2G1193 (K60), BFG1200 (K109) and the sulfate extraction well LTG1147.

The feed water pipeline from the tie-in near the Copperton cemetery to the feed water tank at the RO
Plant will be built in compliance with applicable National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) and American
Water Works Association (AWWA) standards. The permeate pipeline from the RO Plant to the
distribution system of the JVWCD will also comply with these standards.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 37 -
Figure 3-8 Zone A RO Plant General Arrangement

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 38 -
3.3.3 Project Delivery Strategy

The project delivery strategy for the Zone A Reverse Osmosis Plant foresees three phases. Phase 1
consists of constructing and installing the first full-scale RO skid (Rack 3) in the existing KUCC
membrane filtration building. Components of the shut down nanofiltration system, such as pressure
vessels, prefiltration feed pump and vessels, instrumentation and control system, wash system, permeate
tank and pump, will be used as feasible. A Feed water pipeline (supplying water from the deep wells
(B2G1193 & BFG1200) to the plant), the feed water tank and pump will be installed. A portion of the
permeate pipeline will be installed in a common trench with the feed water pipeline to reduce costs of
Phase 3, when this pipeline will be completed. The first degasifier will also be installed in this phase.
Upon completion of Phase 1, the first RO skid will be operated at 1,500 gpm feed flow. The produced
permeate will be delivered to the Copperton Concentrator to be used as mill water but will be continually
monitored to confirm operations performance and compliance with drinking water standards. Existing
piping with minor modifications will be used to convey permeate and concentrate. The RO concentrate
will be conveyed by system pressure to KUCC’s Eastside Reservoir, where it will be mixed with a small
volume of meteoric leach water to precipitate calcium sulfate. The combined concentrate/leachwater will
flow by gravity to the WDPS, from where it will be pumped to the tailings line. Preoperational testing
and start-up of the first RO skid (1500 gpm) are scheduled for the third quarter of 2003.

Phase 2 consists of erection of the new building for the Zone A RO Plant, the installation of the second
RO skid (Rack 4) and the related prefiltration equipment, and relocation of Rack 3 and its prefiltration
system and feed pumps into the new building. The feed water tank and pump will also be relocated in
this phase. Upon completion of this phase, the process capacity will be 3,000 gpm and will be operated
from the existing control room with the existing programmable controller and color graphics interface.
The produced permeate will be delivered to the Copperton Concentrator to be used as mill water. The
existing wash system will be used for membrane washing. The design of Phase 2 is scheduled to start in
fall of 2003, construction will take place in 2004, and the start-up is scheduled for the fourth quarter of
2004.

Two options for implementation of Phase 3 are being considered. Phase 3a assumes that KUCC or a
subcontractor continue to operate the Zone A RO Plant. Phase 3b describes additional activities required
if JVWCD took over the operation of the plant after completion of the negotiated optimization period.

Phase 3a consists of relocation of the first degasifier, the installation of the second degasifier, chlorination
and corrosion control systems, and the preparation of the plant for delivering drinking water to the
JVWCD. In this option, the plant will continue to be operated from the existing control room in the
membrane plant building using the existing PLC system. The control room and other auxiliary facilities
in the new building would not be completed in this option. Permeate and concentrate pipelines will be
completed. The design for Phase 3a is scheduled to begin in the first quarter of 2004, and start-up will be
in March of 2005.
In Phase 3b, all facilities would be finalized and the plant would be completed to function in a stand-alone
fashion. A new PLC system would be installed in the electrical room and the whole plant operation will
be controlled from the new control room. A separate wash system would be installed and the plant water
tank would be relocated. The power supply will be resourced from Utah Power & Light to provide power
to the facility, as KUCC is restricted from selling power to third parties.

A detailed time schedule is presented in Section 3.3.6.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 39 -

3.3.4 Results of Demonstration Plant Operation

3.3.4.1 Process Description

In August of 1999, nine pressure vessels of the original second stage of Nanofiltration Skid # 1 were
rearranged in order to test membrane filtration of sulfate plume water. Figure 3-9 presents a process
block diagram of the Demonstration Plant. A two-stage configuration was selected with six vessels in the
first stage and three vessels in the second stage (ref. Figure 3-10: Membrane Array). Originally,
nanofiltration membranes from Osmonics-Desal were used in this skid. In May of 2000, these
membranes were replaced with Hydranautics CPA3 reverse osmosis membranes in order to provide an
opportunity to gain operating experience with the RO filtration of sulfate plume water. The RO
membranes experienced an abnormally short life due to chlorine damage from a chlorinated water source
that was not intended to feed into the water supply to the demonstration plant. The chlorinated water
damaged the membranes and made them more susceptible to damage by chemical washing. Chlorine
exposure is prevented now by administrative control. In March 2002, the CPA3 membranes were
replaced with Hydranautics ESPA2 membranes.

A submersible pump feeds water from wells K60 (B2G1193) and K109 (BFG1200) from the Yosemite
Pump Station to the membrane plant. Bag and cartridge filters are used for pre-filtration. After injection
of an antiscalant, the water is fed to the RO skid by a vertical turbine pump. The combined permeate
from both stages is pumped via the Bingham Tunnel Booster Pump Station to the Copperton Concentrator
to be used as mill water. The concentrate is conveyed by system pressure to the Bingham Creek pipeline
and from there via WDPS to the tailings line.

3.3.4.2 Production Data

The total volume of sulfate plume water processed through the membrane filtration demonstration plant
was 993 acft (331 acft in 2000, 332 acft in 2001, and 330 acft in 2002). The 2001 production data cover
the time from January 1st through September 25th. At the end of September refurbishing of the electrical
switchgear and control system at the deep wells was started. This required the shutdown of each of the
two wells for about six weeks. As a result there was insufficient water available for the continuous
operation of the RO demonstration plant for the remainder of 2001. The 2002 data cover the time from
January through November, the time of finalizing this report.

The total volume of permeate produced was 765 acft (247 acft in 2000, 269 acft in 2001, and 249 in
2002). In the frame of on-going process development, feed rate and permeate recovery were increased
gradually throughout this time in order to establish optimal operating parameters. Feed rates of 260 to
312 gpm and permeate recoveries of 75% to 85% were tested. The operating stream factor was 69% in
2000, 91% in the operating period of 2001, and 83% in 2002. Table 3-5 presents an overview of
production and average performance data for the demonstration plant.

Typical analyses of Sulfate Plume Water, RO permeate, and concentrate are summarized in Table 3-6.
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (UPDES)
Limits are included for comparison.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 40 -

Demonstration Plant for RO Filtration of Sulfate Plume Water

Table 3-5. Production and Average Performance Data

Year Production Data Average Process Data
Run Down Stream Feed Permeate Concentrate Permeate Temp. Feed Diff. Pressure Avg. Conductivity
Time Time Factor Flow Vol.Flow Vol.Flow Vol.Recovery Pressure Stage 1 Stage 2 Flux Feed Conc.Perm.
hrs hrs % gpm acft gpm acft gpm acft % (oF) psi psi psi gfd mS/cm mS/cm mS/cm

2000 6,045 2,739 69%297 331 223 247 75 83 76%59.4 190 25 19 14.9 2.5 8.8 0.10

2001 5,940 611 91%304 332 246 270 58 63 81%58.6 211 30 20 16.4 2.6 10.0 0.24

2002 6,683 1,327 83%271 330 205 249 57 31 75%58.7 194 32 17 13.1 2.7 9.6 0.02

Total 18,669 4,678 993 765 177

Avg. 81% 291 331 225 255 63 59 77% 58.9 198 29 19 15 2.6 9.5 0.12

Notes:
1) 2001 data are for the time from January through September (plant was shut down for the rest of the year due to maintenance work on the deep wells.
arch - November).2) 2002 production data are for the period from January through November; average process data are for the ESPA2 membranes (M

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 41 -

Demonstration Plant for RO Filtration of Sulfate Plume W ater
Table 3-6: Typical Water Analyses
Comparison to MCLs and UPDES
Sulfate Plume RO Maximum RO
Water Permeate Contaminant Concentrate 30-day Daily
Levels 2)Avg.Max.
Alkalinity mg / l 189 5 UR 861
Arsen ic µg / l < 5 < 5 50 23 250 500
Calcium mg / l 452 1 UR 2,054
Cadmium µg / l < 1 < 1 5 < 1 50 100
Chloride mg / l 150 5 250 680
Copper µg / l < 20 < 20 1,300 27 150 300
Iron µg / l < 300 < 300 300 < 300
Lead µg / l < 5 < 5 15 < 5 300 600
Magnesium mg / l 136 1 UR 620
M anganese µg / l < 10 < 10 50 < 10
Potassium mg / l 4 < 1 UR 19
Selenium µg / l 3 < 2 50 14 na 54
Sodium mg / l 65 6 UR 294
Sulfate mg / l 1,314 5 1,000 5,971
Zinc µg / l 5 < 10 5,000 22 224 500
TDS µS / cm 2,270 33 2,000 10,317
pH su 7.1 5.4 1)6.5 - 8.5 7.3
Notes:
UR = unregulated; UPDES = Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
1) The pH of the RO perm eate averaged 5.4 without decarbonation. Pilot tests showed that decarbonation will raise the
pH above 6.8.
2) W ater Quality Maxim um Contaminant Levels (MCLs) as in effect on August 1, 2001 (Rule R309-103, Utah Administr. Code).
UPDES
6.5 - 9.0

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 42 -

Permeate
Permeate
Pump
Plant Water
Tank
Antiscalant
Pump
56 gpm
260
gpm
Wash
System
Concentrate Membrane
Array # 2
High Pressure
Feed Pump
Pre-
Filtration
Feed
Pump
via Tailings Line
to Tailings
Impoundment
Sulfate Plume Water
from wells K60 & K109 via
Yosemite pump station
204 gpm mixed with Bingham
Tunnel Water to Concentrator
for use as mill water
RO Filtration of Sulfate Plume Water
Figure 3-9: Demonstration Plant Block Diagram

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 43 -

Stage 2: 3 vessels; 6 membranes each
Stage 1: 6 vessels; 6 membranes each
Permeate Recovery 79%
204 gpm 25 gpm / vessel
148 gpm
19 gpm / vessel
56 gpm
19 gpm / vessel
Concentrate 56 gpm
37 gpm / vessel
112 gpm
Recovery 50%
Stage 2:
Recovery 57%
Stage 1:
43 gpm / vessel
Feed 260 gpm
RO Filtration of Sulfate Plume Water
Figure 3-10: Demonstration Plant Membrane Array

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 44 -
3.3.5 Final Design of the Zone A Reverse Osmosis Plant

3.3.5.1 Building

The site for building the Zone A RO Plant (ref. Figure 3-11, General Arrangement Site Plan, Dwg. 456-
M-0201) is adjacent to KUCC’s existing membrane filtration plant. This is a central location for the
various water sources to be processed at the plant, namely deep wells B2G1193 (K60), BFG1200 (K109)
and the sulfate extraction well LTG1147. In the phased development of the plant this site also provides
synergies with KUCC’s existing membrane filtration plant operation.

The building will be a pre-engineered style steel building with an eave height of 20’0”. The roofing and
siding material will be high tensile steel with a silicon polyester finish. The structure shall be closed and
sealed for weather tightness. Building finish color shall match the existing structures in the area. The
roof shall have a slope of a minimum of 2” rise to 12” run. There will be a covered breezeway between
the existing membrane filtration building and the Zone A RO Plant building. A 12’ x 12’ roll-up door
provides weather-protected access from the breezeway on the west side of the building. Chemical
deliveries can also be received at access doors on the north side of the building.

The interior of the building shall be insulated with a fiberglass batt insulation system. A control room,
electrical room, conference/lunch room, mechanical room, lab, locker room, and restroom facilities will
be constructed inside the building. The building shall be adequately lighted, vented, heated and all
normally occupied areas air-conditioned. A concrete utility service trench will be cast into the floor of the
main operations area. All operation floors will slope to the service trench. The trench shall serve as a
pipe way and spill containment basin for the process. The RO building utility service trench shall be
sloped and connected to the existing Membrane Filtration utility service trench. The trench floor will be
at an elevation to stop liquid from flowing back from the Membrane Filtration utility service trench. All
wastewater will be pumped and disposed of by the existing Membrane Filtration building sump pump.
There is a 15” diameter emergency gravity overflow line connected to the existing Membrane Filtration
utility service trench to ensure that no wastewater will overflow the service trench. The overflow gravity
line drains to KUCC’s desilting basin located in Bingham Canyon.

Facility design and construction shall comply with federal, state, and local regulatory agencies for items
such as design, earthquake, flood, fire, safety, and handicap access requirements. A septic tank / leach
field system will be provided for waste water (sewage) from the plant.

The building layout is shown on the general arrangement plan Figure 3-12 (Drawing No. 456-M-0202).
The general building dimensions are summarized in Table 3-7. Building elevations are presented in
Figure 3-13 (Dwg. No. 456-M-0203).

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 45 -

Table 3-7. Zone A RO Plant - Building Dimensions

Length
ft
Width
ft
Area
ft2
Main Process Area 106 48 4,800
Wash System / Antiscalant 100 20 2,000
Chlorination 25 20 500
Electrical Room 60 20 1,200
Control Room 20 20 400
Laboratory 20 11 220
Auxiliary Facilities 1.
2.
52
20
20
20
1,040
400

Degasifier & UV Disinfection 28 42 1,176

Total

11,736

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 46 -
Figure 3-11 Zone A RO Plant General Arrangement Site Plan, Dwg. 456-M-0201
SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 47 -

Figure 3-12 Zone A RO Plant Arrangement Plan, Dwg. No. 456-M-0202

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 48 -
Figure 3-13 Zone A RO Plant Building Elevations, Dwg. No. 451-M-0203
SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 49 -

3.3.5.2 Process

This section describes the major process steps and the respective equipment. The process flow diagram is
presented in Figure 3-14 (Drawing No. 456-F-0101).

The following design parameters were used:
Stream Factor: 85%;
Feed Water Quality Limits: TDS < 3,000 ppm; Sulfate < 1,500 ppm; Turbidity < 0.5 NTU; SDI < 0.3.
RO recovery rate: 75 – 80%;
Permeate flux rate: Rack 3: 13 gfd; Rack 4: 11.1 gfd;
Process Flows: well water 3,216 gpm; RO feed 3,000 gpm; by-pass water 216 gpm; permeate 2340 gpm;
product water: 2,556 gpm; concentrate 660 gpm;
Antiscalant dosage: 7 ppm;
Chemical cleaning frequency: 6 – 12 times per year;
Chemical cleaning: flow rate 40 – 50 gpm per vessel; wash tanks: 3,500 gal;
Degasifier: efficiency > 80%; air: water ratio 22 – 30 : 1 ft3 / ft3;
Product water will meet appropriate drinking water standards and will have a slightly positive Langlier
Saturation Index (LSI).

The presently foreseen water sources for the Zone A RO Plant are deep wells B2G1193 (K60), BFG1200
(K109), and the sulfate extraction well LTG1147. The clean water well LTG1139 will be piped to the
plant as an additional source for blending if needed. Water from these wells will be delivered to the feed
water tank at the plant by the well booster pumps. The focus of blending the waters from three wells is to
keep the sulfate concentration in the feed water to the Zone A RO Plant below 1,500 ppm. During Phases
1 and 2, the produced permeate will be pumped through existing piping to the Copperton Concentrator.
In Phase 3, the permeate pipeline will be constructed from the Zone A plant to a mutually agreed upon
point of delivery with the JVWCD. After completion of Phase 3 and an initial process optimization
phase, delivery of municipal quality product water to JVWCD will begin. The produced concentrate will
be conveyed by system pressure to KUCC’s Eastside Reservoir, where it will be mixed with a small
volume of meteoric leach water to precipitate calcium sulfate. The combined concentrate/leachwater will
flow by gravity to the WDPS, where it will be pumped to the tailings line.

Deep well water from the feed water tank will be pumped through prefiltration for removal of suspended
solids to the high-pressure pumps, which convey the water through the RO system. Sodium bisulfite may
be injected upstream of the prefilters in case biological fouling cannot be controlled sufficiently by UV
disinfection. The RO filtration process uses spiral wound polyamid membranes, which separate the
pressurized feed water stream into two streams, namely permeate and concentrate. The permeate passes
through the semipermeable membranes and is characterized by very low TDS concentrations, as the RO
membranes reject dissolved solids at rates of 95-99%. The balance of the feed water passes across the
outer surface of the membrane and becomes the concentrate, which contains the constituents that have
been rejected by the membranes. An antiscalant is injected into the feed water to the RO system in order
to minimize scale formation in any of the piping and equipment that it contacts.

The RO permeate is chlorinated using on-site produced sodium hypochlorite. Water analyses performed
by JVWCD have shown that Sulfate Plume Water from the deep wells has no organic contamination and
therefore chlorination is only required to provide the residual chlorine needed to avoid microbiological
growth in the distribution system. Then the RO permeate is degasified to remove carbon dioxide and
radon and lower the corrosivity. Subsequently, the permeate is blended with filtered feed water to

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 50 -
achieve the desired product water TDS and the pH is raised by injecting a small amount of sodium
hydroxide to lower the corrosivity.

The membrane wash system consists of tanks for alkaline and acidic wash solutions, the wash pump, and
a bag filter to remove suspended solids from the circulating wash solution. Depending on the type of
foulant, either alkaline or acidic wash solutions will be prepared in their respective tanks and heated to
40ºC. The skid that requires washing will be taken off line and flushed with RO permeate. Then the
spool pieces that guarantee the separation of wash water and wash permeate from product water will be
installed. Subsequently, the wash solution will be circulated through the membranes for several hours.
An alkaline wash may be followed by an acidic wash or vice versa. Permeate flushes will be performed
between and after washes. For this purpose, a plant water tank is installed in order to store RO permeate
for washing and flushing.

Feed Water Blending

Water from deep wells B2G1193 (K60) and BFG1200 (K109) and the sulfate extraction well LTG1147
will be delivered to a feed water tank at the RO Plant by well pump pressure. Pressure control valves will
be installed in the existing pipelines for these waters in order to maintain sufficient line pressure to deliver
the waters to the feed tank. The intention is to maintain TDS concentration in the feed water to the Zone
A Plant below 3,000 ppm by blending the waters from these wells. Table 3-8 shows a potential blending
scenario with recent water chemistries for these wells. Wells K60 and K109 are expected to increase in
TDS over time as the acid plume moves towards these wells. The blending ratio of the various feed
waters will have to be adjusted accordingly. Water from the clean water well LTG1139 will only be used
in case the sulfate extraction well LTG1147 is inoperable due to maintenance.

Feed lines from K60/K109 and sulfate/clean water wells will be equipped with flow meters and flow
control valves. The flow control valves will achieve the proper blending ratio of the various feed waters
resulting in the desired feed water composition. Blending will be controlled to a predetermined
conductivity set point. The turbidity of the inflow to the feed water tank will be monitored. In case the
turbidity exceeds 0.5 NTU, the feed flow to the RO Plant can be diverted to the KUCC water system and
allowed to clear up. Before entering the feed water tank, the water will pass through UV disinfection
reactors in order to minimize the potential for biological fouling in the RO Plant. Another possibility for
controlling biological fouling is the injection of sodium bisulfite into the feed stream to prefiltration.

The feed water tank provides a reservoir of water, which will be used to automatically purge concentrate
from the membrane skids and flush the membranes in case of an automatic shutdown or a power outage.
Spring-loaded valves will open the feed water supply to the skids for flushing. The resulting flush water
will be dumped into the trench inside the building, from where it can be discharged by sump pump to the
Eastside Reservoir.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 51 -
Figure 3-14 Zone A RO Plant Process Flow Diagram, Dwg. No. 456-F-0101

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 52 -
Z

LT

one A Reverse Osmosis Plant
Table 3-8: Feed Water Blending
pH Cond.Temp.TDS Alk Cl SO4 Ca Mg K Na Flow Volume Ratio
su uS/cm o C mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l gpm acft/yr
K60 (B2G1193)7.0 3,217 15.8 2,707 213 163 1,757 549 164 4.2 81 1,500 2,056 47%
K109 (BFG1200)7.3 2,333 16.3 1,923 194 142 1,121 366 100 3.6 71 1,500 2,056 47%
G1147 7.3 2,293 15.3 1,707 224 218 734 338 83 5.0 91 200 274 6%
Feed Mix 7.2 2,745 16.0 2,277 204 156 1,395 450 129 4.0 77 3,200 4,387 100%
Stream Factor 85%

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 53 -

Table 3-9: Blending of RO Permeate with Filtered Feed Water
to achieve 250 ppm TDS
pH Cond Temp TDS Alk Cl SO4 Ca Mg K Na Flow Volume
su uS/cm o C mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l gpm acft/yr
RO Permeate 7.3 200 15.8 102 29 33 7 11 3 0.9 21 2,400 3,290 93%13.3
Feed Mix 7.2 2,624 15.2 2,125 210 173 1,219 420 117 4.3 81 180 247 7%1.0
Product Water 7.3 369 15.8 243 41 42 92 40 11 1.1 25 2,580 3,537 100%
Stream Factor 85%
A typical composition of RO permeate is used in this table. The actual composition will change over the life of the membranes as their salt
rejection changes.
Ratio

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 54 -
Prefiltration

A centrifugal pump delivers water from the feed water tank to the first process step, which is the
prefiltration. This will be accomplished in two stages. The first stage consists of polypropylene filter
bags (rating: nominal one micron; 7” diameter; 32” length; typical flow capacity 100 gpm per bag). This
stage is designed to protect the more expensive second stage prefilters from sudden bursts of suspended
solids, which can occur when well pumps are being started and stopped repeatedly or when pipe scale
breaks loose. The second stage prefiltration uses polypropylene cartridges (rating: nominal five micron;
2.5” diameter; 39” length; typical flow capacity 20 gpm per cartridge; or 4.5 micron absolute; 6”
diameter, 40” length; typical flow capacity 350 gpm per cartridge).

A slip stream of prefiltered feed water (200 – 500 gpm) will be blended with the RO permeate for TDS
adjustment (ref. Table 3-9). It is also possible to use separately prefiltered water from the sulfate well or
clean water well for blending.

Antiscalant Addition

The concentrations of dissolved calcium sulfate and silica in Sulfate Plume Water approach saturation.
As this water becomes more concentrated in the membrane filtration process, gypsum saturation is
exceeded up to 700%. Silica saturation will also be exceeded. To avoid membrane fouling due to
precipitation of these compounds in the feed spacer of the membranes, antiscalants are being added to the
membrane feed. A chemical dosing pump (one operating, one standby) pulls antiscalant from a 275 gal
tote bin and injects it into the feed water upstream of the high-pressure pump. The addition rate is
monitored by flow meter. The antiscalants to be used are certified under ANSI/NSF Standard 60 for
drinking water production. They are compatible with the membranes and have been tested extensively at
the Demonstration Plant.

RO System

The RO System consists of the high-pressure feed pumps and the two membrane skids (Racks # 3 & 4).
The high-pressure feed pumps (one per skid) are vertical turbine pumps of all stainless steel construction.
Totally enclosed fan cooled (TEFC) motors with variable-frequency drives (VFD) will be used.

Two membrane skids of nominal 1,500 gpm feed rate will be installed. The skids will use two-stage
arrays, with 36 pressure vessels in the first stage and 18 pressure vessels in the second stage (ref. Figures
3-15a & b: Membrane Array, and Figures 3-16 a & b: Vessel Rack General Arrangement Drawing No.
456-M-0205 & 206). The first stage will consist of six rows of six vessels each. The second stage will
have three rows of six vessels each. The pressure vessels will have the ASME Section X Code Stamp. A
common feed header from the high-pressure pump will supply the six rows in the first stage. A common
header from the concentrate discharges of the first stage shall feed the second stage. By reducing the
number of vessels in the second stage, the cross-flow velocity will be increased to minimize membrane
fouling. The permeate from both stages will be collected in one common header. The structure to
support vessels and piping will be fabricated from carbon steel and will be epoxy coated. The rack will
contain feed and discharge piping required for membrane washing. Appropriate means to guarantee the
isolation of wash solution and wash permeate from product water will be installed, i.e. removable spool
pieces. Pipe connections shall be made by easily removable couplings. All of the pipe on the rack will be
stainless steel.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002

- 55 -

In the first RO skid (Rack 3) pressure vessels from the shut down nanofiltration skid will be used. These
vessels have a diameter of 8 inches and house six membranes, providing 2,400 square feet of membrane
area per vessel. In the second RO skid (Rack 4) pressure vessels housing seven membranes each will be
used. The total membrane area per vessel will be 2,800 square feet. These vessels were not available at
the time the nanofiltration skid was built. The seven-membrane units provide a larger membrane surface
area at only slightly higher capital cost, thereby giving increased operating flexibility.

The membrane skid will also be equipped with the required instrumentation for fully-automated
operation, such as flow and pressure transmitters for feed, permeate, and concentrate, conductivity meters
for feed and permeate, and concentrate flow control valve.

Various types of polyamide membranes designed for brackish feed water have been evaluated for their
usage in this project. At present, two membranes from Hydranautics are being considered; the energy-
saving ESPA and the composite polyamide CPA. Testing of the ESPA2 membranes will continue in the
Demonstration Plant. The two skids of the Zone A Plant can be equipped with two different types of
membranes and thereby a good comparison of their performance can be achieved. The question of
membrane optimization will be an ongoing issue as membrane manufacturers develop new and more
effective and less costly products.

Chlorination

Product water disinfection will be achieved by chlorination. Water analyses performed by JVWCD have
shown that Sulfate Plume Water from the deep wells has no biological contamination and therefore
chlorination is only required to provide the residual chlorine of 0.3 ppm to avoid microbiological growth
in the distribution system. The chlorination equipment will be designed to provide 2 ppm for shock
chlorination. Disinfection byproducts (DBP) are not a concern due to the lack of organics in the feed
water.

Chlorination will be accomplished using an on-site sodium hypochlorite generation system. The principle
of operation is the electrolytic conversion of sodium chloride to sodium hypochlorite. This technology
has the advantage over the traditional use of chlorine gas that no hazardous materials are involved. The
only chemical stored on site will be salt, which will be stored in the chlorination room in 50 lb bags on a
pallet. The concentration of the produced sodium hypochlorite solution is < 1.0%. The system consists
of a brine tank and proportioning pump, the electrolytic cells, the hypochlorite storage tank (capacity: one
day’s usage), and the metering pumps. The metering pumps inject the sodium hypochlorite solution into
the product water line and the residual chlorine is measured with a respective meter. In case a component
failure occurs in the chlorination system and cannot be resolved within a day, commercial sodium
hypochlorite solution can be purchased, diluted 15:1, and fed into the system.

Degasification

The degasifier serves two purposes:
1) Removal of excess carbon dioxide from the permeate product water; thereby, reducing the
amount and cost of sodium hydroxide needed to bring the product into compliance for release to
JVWCD, and
2) Removal of radon to a level that meets drinking water standards.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002

- 56 -
Zone A Plant for RO Filtration of Sulfate Plume Water
Figure 3-15a: Membrane Array Rack 3
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
108 14.0 72%of total perm.4.5 8.5%
Feed gpm 1,500 2.3 840 Permeate gpm 1,170 108 Annual Production
gpm/vessel 41.7 56.0%23.3 gpm/vessel 78.0%acft / yr
1,608 Total Product gpm 1,278 1,752
660 gpm
Stream Factor 85%
79%
18.3 11.0 28%of total perm.overall yield
2.0 330.0 gpm
50.0%18.3 gpm/vessel
660
36.7 330 gpm
Membranes: Hydranautics ESPA2 18.3 gpm/vessel
Membrane Surface ft2 400 Concentrate
Vessels Membr. /
vessel
Membranes Membrane Area
ft2
Permeate
Recovery
Concentration
Factor
Permeate Flux
gfd
Stage 1 36 6 216 86,400 56.0%2.3 14.0
Stage 2 18 6 108 43,200 50.0%2.0 11.0
Total 54 324 129,600 78.0%4.5 13.0
filtered feed water by-pass

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 57 -
Zone A Plant for RO Filtration of Sulfate Plume Water
Figure 3-15b: Membrane Array Rack 4
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
108 12.0 72%of total perm.4.5 8.5%
Feed gpm 1,500 2.3 840 Permeate gpm 1,170 108 Annual Production
gpm/vessel 41.7 56.0%23.3 gpm/vessel 78.0%acft / yr
1,608 Total Product gpm 1,278 1,752
660 gpm
Stream Factor 85%
79%
18.3 9.4 28%of total perm.overall yield
2.0 330.0 gpm
50.0%18.3 gpm/vessel
660
36.7 330 gpm
Membranes: Hydranautics ESPA2 18.3 gpm/vessel
Membrane Surface ft2 400 Concentrate
Vessels Membr. /
vessel
Membranes Membrane Area
ft2
Perm eate
Recovery
Concentration
Factor
Permeate Flux
gfd
Stage 1 36 7 252 100,800 56.0%2.3 12.0
Stage 2 18 7 126 50,400 50.0%2.0 9.4
Total 54 378 151,200 78.0%4.5 11.1
filtered feed water by-pass

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 58 -
Figure 3-16a Zone A RO Plant Membrane Arrangement – Plan & Elevations, Dwg. No. 456-M-0205

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 59 -

Figure 3-16b Zone A RO Plant Rack 3 General Arrangement – Elevations, Dwg. No. 56-M-0206

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 60 -

Carbon Dioxide Removal

Since the membranes are permeable to gasses, excess carbon dioxide, dissolved in the well water as
carbonic acid, passes through to the permeate product. Pilot testing has shown that this excess carbon
dioxide can be purged from the permeate by passing water through a packed degasification tower counter
current to an air stream.

Radon Removal

Analyses of water samples from the deep wells B2G1193 and BFG1200 indicated radon concentrations of
700 to 840 pico Curies per liter (pCi/L). Pilot testing showed 97% removal of radon. The radon
concentration in the degasified permeate was below 20 pCi/L radon, which is the method detection limit.

These results show that degasification will be effective in both excess carbon dioxide and radon removal.

In the Zone A RO Plant, a forced draft degasifier will be used to remove carbon dioxide and radon from
the RO permeate. In the degasifier, the inflow is sprayed into the top of a tower filled with packing
material. While the water flows in a thin film over the packing material surface, a centrifugal fan (5 HP;
4,500 cfm) blows air into the sump below the packing. The air intake to the fan is filtered with a high
efficiency particulate arrestance (HEPA) filter. Carbon dioxide and radon are released and vented
through the top of the degasifier. The degasified water flows by gravity from the clear well of the
degasifier to TDS adjustment and corrosion control.

Total Dissolved Solids Adjustment

Due to the fact that RO permeate has very low TDS, a slip stream of prefiltered feed water will be
blended with the permeate to achieve the desired TDS concentration in the final product water. Table 3-9
presents one possible blending scenario.

Corrosion Control

Based on testing performed at the Demonstration Plant, a small amount of sodium hydroxide is required
to neutralize corrosive characteristics of the final product water. A chemical dosing pump pulls NaOH
from a 275 gal tote bin and injects it into the blended product water. The addition rate is monitored by
pH. The Rothberg, Tamburini & Winsor Model for Water Process & Corrosion Chemistry will be used to
assess corrosion and scaling parameters.

Membrane Wash System

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 61 -
The membrane wash system consists of tanks for alkaline and acidic wash solutions (3,500 gal each,
FRP), two wash pumps (flow rate up to1,000 gpm; stainless steel), a bag filter (10 bag unit; rating:
nominal one micron; 7” diameter; 32” length; typical flow capacity 100 gpm per bag) to remove
suspended solids from the circulating wash solution, and PVC wash piping. Depending on the type of
foulant, either alkaline or acidic wash solutions will be prepared in their respective tanks and heated up to
40°C. After taking the skid that requires washing off line, the skid will be flushed with RO permeate.
Then the spool pieces that guarantee the separation of wash water and wash permeate from product water
will be installed. Subsequently, the wash solution will be circulated through the membranes. The first
stage can be divided into two sections (18 vessels each), which will be washed separately. The second
stage will also be washed separately. An alkaline wash may be followed by an acidic wash or vice versa.
Permeate flushes will be performed between and after washes. For this purpose, a plant water tank is
installed in order to store RO permeate for washing and flushing. Spent wash solutions will be
discharged to the Eastside Collection System where they will be mixed with meteoric leach water and
pumped to the tailings pipeline. The amount of wash chemicals is minute in comparison to the tailings
stream and no impact on the tailings line is expected as result of this process.

Control System and Instrumentation

An SLC 500 Allen-Bradley Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) with color graphics operator interface
will be installed to operate the plant with all its equipment and functions. The plant will be equipped with
the appropriate instrumentation to permit fully automated operation with minimum requirements for
operator interference. The PLC will also be instrumented with a modem to allow remote control of the
operation. In case an alarm condition occurs during unattended operation, the PLC will be programmed
to page the operator on call and alert him/her of the alarm condition. The operator on call will have a
laptop computer with which (s)he can connect to the plant via modem to determine the cause and nature
of the alarm. In most cases the operator will be able to remedy the alarm condition via modem. In case
the operator cannot resolve the problem from the laptop computer, (s)he then will drive to the plant to
correct the situation. Should the operator on call fail to respond to the alarm, the PLC will page the next
person on the call list. In case the alarm condition is not taken care of and the plant operation deviates
farther from its set points, the plant can be shut down and put through an automatic permeate flush, after
which the equipment will be parked in a stand-by mode until further instructions from the operator are
received. This approach allows remote operation and protects the whole plant in case of unusual
circumstances.

3.3.5.3 Piping System

Water from wells B2G1193 (K60), BFG1200 (K109), the sulfate extraction well LTG1147, and the clean
water well LTG1139, will be delivered to the plant by pressure from the well booster pumps. In Phase 1,
a new 20” HDPE feed line will be installed from the existing deep well water pipeline to the feed tank at
the plant (5,280 linear feet). In Phase 2, a new 12” pipeline will be installed from the booster pump
station to the Zone A RO Plant.

In Phases 1 and 2, existing piping will be used to convey the produced RO permeate to the Copperton
Concentrator for use as process water. In Phase 3, the permeate pipeline will be completed to supply the
Zone A RO Plant product water to the JVWCD delivery point.

The RO concentrate will be conveyed by system pressure to KUCC’s Eastside Reservoir, where it will be
mixed with a small volume of meteoric leach water to precipitate calcium sulfate. The combined
concentrate/leachwater will flow by gravity to the Wastewater Disposal Pump Station, from where it will
be pumped to the Tailings Line. In Phase 3a, 5,200 linear feet of 8” pipeline will be added to
accommodate the higher flow of concentrate.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 62 -
3.3.6 Time Schedule

The time schedule for the three construction phases of development of the Zone A Reverse Osmosis Plant
is presented in Figure 3-17. The scope of the three phases is:

Phase 1:
- installation of feed water pipeline and feed water tank;
- installation of antiscalant injection system;
- modification of existing prefiltration units (bag and cartridge filters);
- installation of prefiltration feed pump and high-pressure RO feed pump;
- installation of the first 1,500 gpm RO Skid (Rack 3) in the existing Membrane Filtration Plant,
using existing pressure vessels and instrumentation;
- installation of permeate degasifier for carbon dioxide and radon removal;
- modification of the membrane wash system to meet the requirement of guaranteed separation of
wash medium and wash permeate from RO feed and permeate;

Preoperational testing and start-up of the first RO skid are scheduled for the third quarter of 2003.

Phase 2:
- construction of the shell of the Zone A Plant building;
- relocation of feed water tank;
- installation of antiscalant injection system;
- modification of existing prefiltration units (bag and cartridge filters);
- installation of prefiltration feed pump and high-pressure RO feed pump;
- installation of the second 1,500 gpm RO skid (Rack 4) in the new building;
- relocation of Rack 3 to the new building.

Design of Phase 2 is scheduled to start in the fall of 2003, construction will take place in 2004, and the
start-up is scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2004.

Phase 3a:
- installation of permeate degasifiers 2 & 3 and relocation of degasifier 1;
- installation of chlorination system;
- construction of the product water pipeline to the JVWCD reservoir;
- construction of the concentrate pipeline to the Waste Water Disposal Pump Station;

Start-up of Phase 3a is scheduled for mid 2005. After an initial optimization period the delivery of
municipal quality product water to JVWCD will begin.

Phase 3b:
This phase is optional and will only be implemented in case the plant operation will be turned over to
JVWCD.

- completion of the interior facilities of the new building, including control room, conference/lunch
room, laboratory, locker room, and rest room;
- installation of new wash system with tanks, mixers, pumps, and filter;
- relocation of Plant Water Tank;
- installation of separate PLC and color graphics operator interface;
- installation of power line from UP&L grid.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 63 -
Figure 3-17 Zone A RO Plant – Time Schedule

Activity
ID
Activity
Description
Start
Date
Finish
Date
Dur
(Days)
ZONE A REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT
PHASE 1
RO001015 COMPLETION OF FEED & PERMEATE PIPING DESIGN 02JAN03 03MAR03 52
RO001000 PHASE 1 COMPLETION OF DETAILED DESIGN 02JAN03*31MAR03 76
RO001005 PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION 01FEB03 30JUN03 126
RO001020 INSTALLATION OF FEED & PERMEATE PIPING 04MAR03 31MAY03 75
RO001010 PHASE 1 PRE-OP TESTING & START-UP 01JUL03 29AUG03 50
PHASE 2
RO001035 PHASE 2 DETAILED DESIGN 01OCT03*01MAR04 129
RO001040 PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION 29JAN04 25OCT04 231
RO001045 PHASE 2 PRE-OP TESTING & START-UP 26OCT04 23DEC04 51
PHASE 3A
RO001025 PIPING DESIGN SULFATE & CW WELLS 04MAR03 01MAY03 50
RO001030 PIPING INSTALLATION SULFATE & CW WELLS 02MAY03 30JUL03 74
RO001050 PHASE 3A DETAILED DESIGN 01MAR04 02AUG04 132
RO001055 PHASE 3A CONSTRUCTION 26JUN04 24MAR05 231
RO001060 PHASE 3A PRE-OP TESTING & START-UP 25MAR05 22JUN05 77
RO001065 START FULL SCALE PRODUCTION OF DRINKING WATER 23JUN05 0
RO001070 PHASE 3A PROCESS OPTIMIZATION 23JUN05 19DEC05 153
PHASE 3B
RO001105 PHASE 3B DETAILED DESIGN 01DEC07*01MAR08 78
RO001110 PHASE 3B CONSTRUCTION 03MAR08 30AUG08 155
CONTINUING OPERATION
RO001085 PHASE 1 OPTIMIZATION & CONTINUING OPERATION 30AUG03 09DEC04 397
RO001090 PHASE 2 OPTIMIZATION & CONTINUING OPERATION 24DEC04 03FEB05 35
RO001140 PHASE 2 OPTIMIZATION & CONTINUING OPERATION 11FEB05 22JUN05 113
RO001100 PHASE 3A PROCESS OPTIMIZATN & CONTINUING OPERATN 23JUN05 19DEC05 153
RO001095 CONTINUING OPERATION 20DEC05 30DEC06 320
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
03MAR0302JAN03
31MAR0302JAN03*
30JUN0301FEB03
31MAY0304MAR03
29AUG0301JUL03
01MAR0401OCT03*
25OCT0429JAN04
23DEC0426OCT04
01MAY0304MAR03 01JAN05 31MAR05
Late Dates
30JUL0302MAY03 01APR05 30JUN05
Late Dates
02AUG0401MAR04
24MAR0526JUN04
22JUN0525MAR05
23JUN05
19DEC0523JUN05
01MAR0801DEC07*
30AUG0803MAR08
09DEC0430AUG03
03FEB0524DEC04
22JUN0511FEB05
19DEC0523JUN05
30DEC0620DEC05
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
PHASE 3A
PHASE 3B
© Primavera Systems, Inc.
Run Date 11DEC02 13:42
Data Date 20NOV02
ROP1 KENNECOTT UTAH COPPER
ZONE A REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT
Phase
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
PHASE 4
PHASE 3A
PHASE 3B
CONTINUING OPERATION
RACK OUTAGES

CONTINUING OPERATION
SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 64 -
3.4 Management of Acidic Waters and RO Concentrates in KUCC Tailings Circuit

3.4.1 Overview of Water Management in Tailings Circuit

While the mine is operating, KUCC will convey the following mining-affected waters to the Magna
Tailings Impoundment in two existing tailings pipelines:

• Acid plume water;
• Meteoric drainage from the Eastside Collection System;
• RO Concentrates from treatment of the Zone A sulfate plume;
• Mildly acidic waters from dewatering of the open pit.

The first three types of water are commingled in and pumped through the WDPS. The mine dewatering
flows are pumped directly to the process circuit through two different lines. Figure 3-18 is a schematic
diagram of the process circuit showing the routing of waters and providing recent estimates of water
flows in the system. Geochemical studies evaluating the chemical impacts of the proposed disposal
method are described in the final geochemical report attached to this document (Appendix C). Appendix
C provides all the data for additional field studies and experimental work. KUCC performed the
geochemical studies to (a) close data gaps identified after the RI/FS process, (b) demonstrate that KUCC
can operate the system in a manner that controls pH and attenuates metals and other solutes to levels that
will allow compliance with UPDES permits, and (c) demonstrate that the addition of acidic water will not
compromise the long-term geochemistry of tailing in the Magna Impoundment nor re-leach metals that
have been controlled by initial reactions in the tailing line.

After mine closure, effluents from the treatment systems will be conveyed to the Great Salt Lake via a
concentrate discharge line, provided the water chemistry at that time meets regulatory discharge limits.
Bench-scale testing of this alternative is presented in Appendix C, Section 6.3. Results of that test work
indicate that disposal of the treated waters to Great Salt Lake is technically feasible without exceeding
current UPDES discharge criteria or generating aesthetic issues due to low-density precipitates. If one or
both of the concentrates is not suitable for direct discharge, then additional treatment (e.g., lime addition)
or alternative disposal (e.g., evaporation) will be needed. If concentrate from treatment of Zone B wells
cannot be discharged to the Jordan River, these concentrates may also be delivered to the KUCC system.

For both the operational and post-mining periods, KUCC has developed a performance-based Final
Remedial Design for the management of acidic waters and water-treatment concentrates.

3.4.2 Operational Conditions

3.4.2.1 Performance Criteria

A. Flow
When fully operational, the tailing process circuit (see Figure 3-18) must be able to handle the following
maximum flows with 90% availability:

• Tailings: 120,000 to 200,000 tpd
• Acid Plume Water: 1000 to 2500 gpm
• Meteoric Leach Water: 800 to 1,500 gpm
• Zone A RO Treatment Concentrates: 600 to 800 gpm

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 65 -
B. Solution Chemistry in the Tailing Line

The system must be able to maintain a fluid pH of 6.7 or greater as measured at the North Splitter Box
(Sample Point MCP2536) with 90% availability to ensure dissolved metal precipitation and sequestration
in the tailings impoundment.

C. Integration with Tailing Disposal System

1. KUCC will meet all UPDES discharge criteria at Outfall 012 from the North Impoundment to
Great Salt Lake (or other permitted outfalls).
2. If the monthly average Net Neutralization Potential (NNP, calculated using the Modified Sobek
Procedures) of the Copperton Concentrator General Mill Tailings (GMT) is less than 5 t
CaCO3/kt or if the Neutralization Potential Ratio (NPR) is less than 1.1, then the average
monthly NNP of samples collected from the tailings North Splitter Box must have an NNP and
NPR that are equal to or higher than the Copperton Mill Tailings for the month. If the monthly
average NNP of the Copperton Concentrator General Mill Tailings is greater than 5 t CaCO3/kt
or the NPR is more than 1.1, then the average monthly NNP of tailings samples collected from
the North Splitter Box must have an NNP of at least 5 t CaCO3/kt. The monthly NNP value will
be determined based on a rolling six-month average from monthly composite samples collected at
the GMT and tailings impoundment discharge locations.

3.4.2.2 Project Delivery Strategy

A. In February 2002, KUCC completed modifications to the tailing discharge line. The new, larger
diameter pipe is intended to mitigate the impacts of scale build-up on operations of the discharge
lines and to permit simpler, faster and more effective de-scaling in the future. Operational history
during 2002 shows that these goals have been met.
B. In Q1 2002, KUCC modified its existing lime-treatment capabilities at the Copperton
Concentrator and from the Concentrator to Drop Box NP-6A to permit lime addition on a 24-
hr/day basis. For the purposes of this portion of the Preliminary Design, the area from the
Concentrator to NP-6A will be called the “Concentrator Complex”.
C. In Q1 2002, KUCC established standard operating procedures, including on-going maintenance
and calibration tests, for the in-line pH sensors at North Splitter Box and for the telemetry system
that connects those sensors to the lime-addition system at the Concentrator complex.
D. By the end of Q4 2003, KUCC will have in place at the Concentrator Complex the capability of
adding up to 200 tpd lime (as CaO) to the tailing line.
E. KUCC and its contractors will continue the geochemical studies and sampling program needed to
monitor the chemical system performance during Remedial Action.

3.4.2.3 Drawings and Sketches

The configuration of the Tailings Circuit is shown schematically in Figure 3-18. The figure shows the
sampling and monitoring locations that have been used in the Remedial Design and will be used for
monitoring during the Remedial Action, at least through the operations of the mine.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 66 -

3.4.2.4 Monitoring

For purposes of performance monitoring during Remedial Action, KUCC proposes four monitoring steps:

• Daily pH monitoring at North Splitter Box (MCP2536). The pH at MCP2536 will be recorded
continuously using the South Facilities Water Management System’s PI recorders and database.
Results will be plotted as time-series using 15-minute averaging and compiled in weekly series.
The time-series charts will show the pH 6.7 control limit to show KUCC’s compliance with the
performance criterion for pH control.
• Monthly chemical monitoring at the monitoring points shown on Figure 3-18 for the following
parameters: pH, TDS, Alkalinity/Acidity, Ca, Mg, Cl, SO4, Al, Cd, Cu, Fe, Mn, Zn. Metals will
be analyzed and reported on a dissolved basis.
• Monthly monitoring for Net Neutralization Potential (by GCMP standard methods) from General
Mill Tailings and a grab sample from the North Splitter Box (MCP2536).
• UPDES discharge monitoring at Outfall 012 as required by other KUCC permits.

Monitoring data will be maintained in reviewable databases, and KUCC will provide all updated data
(including time-series charts for pH and statistical summaries of the analytical data) to EPA and the TRC
in annual monitoring reports.

In addition to the performance monitoring, KUCC may establish additional, operational sampling to help
understand and control the tailing-discharge system. Such monitoring may be short- or long-term, and the
establishment of such sampling does not constitute a commitment by KUCC to long-term sampling.
While such sampling is on-going, KUCC will maintain the data in the project database, and those data
will be available for TRC, State and EPA review.

3.4.3 Post-Mining Conditions

Because mining will continue until at least 2013 (and perhaps until 2030), it is not necessary at this time
to have a plan for post-mining conditions that is developed to the same level of detail as that needed for
operational conditions. Appendix A to this report is KUCC’s description of the post-mining treatment and
management system at the level of a Preliminary Design. The report shows that the acidic water can
easily be neutralized with lime, which produces gypsum sludge. The nature and characteristics of the
neutralization process and resulting sludge are described in detail in the appendix. What is demonstrated
in the report is that water treatment to acceptable levels is easily achieved but the longer-term issue that
needs further investigation is the management and disposal of the gypsum sludge. Fortunately, this is not
a critical issue until closure. The plan for post-mining water management will be updated formally as part
of the 5-Year Reviews during Remedial Action. Through the update process, there will be a final
engineering design for all aspects of post-mining conditions prior to the actual end of mining act Bingham
Canyon, which is expected to be some time between 2013 and 2030, depending on long-term mine
planning.

Management of Zone-A sulfate waters will continue through the reverse-osmosis water-treatment that
also applies to the operational period (Section 3.3 above).

The current KUCC plan for post-mining management of acidic flows, which also constitutes a
contingency plan were mining to terminate prematurely, is based on alkaline treatment of acidic waters
with sequestration of reaction products (i.e., gypsum sludge). Test work to date indicates that lime,

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 67 -
applied as milk of lime (Ca(OH)2) slurry is the most cost effective alkaline additive. Gypsum sludge, the
resulting by product of neutralization, would be disposed of in a prepared facility. Possible locations for
sludge disposal include (a) a disposal cell on the Magna North Impoundment, (b) disposal cells on top of
the waste dumps, (c) the Bingham or Melco pits, or (d) new, engineered disposal cells on either the South
or North ends of the KUCC property. KUCC will continue to investigate alternative treatment
technologies, particularly ones that have the potential to decrease both lime consumption and sludge
volumes. Experimental tests conducted to date (Appendix C, Section 6.3) show that clarified lime-
treatment overflow solutions and reverse-osmosis concentrates are chemically compatible with disposal in
the Great Salt Lake and meet current UPDES permit discharge limits. KUCC will evaluate this matter,
too, during the early years of Remedial Action, while operational mining and co-disposal with tailing
continues.

4.0 PERMITS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS

To the extent that facilities associated with the Remedial Action are located on-site and are part of a
CERCLA remedy, they are exempt from federal and state permitting requirements pursuant to CERCLA
section 121(e)(1), which provides: “No Federal, State or local permit shall be required for the portion of
any removal or remedial action conducted entirely on-site, where such remedial action is selected and
carried out in compliance with this section.” Based on comments received from various State and Federal
agencies in correspondence and meetings, it has been determined that various permits and/or revisions to
existing permits may be obtained. Based on this foundation, the next steps in the permitting process are:

• Identification and collection of required permit information
• Organization and presentation of the required information as permit application or revision
submittals
• Application submittals
• Coordination with jurisdictional agencies during the permit review and approval process

The following sections summarize permit information requirements and timetables (where specified) for
each jurisdictional agency and permit.

4.1 New Permits

4.1.1 Drinking Water Permit(s)

Because the Zone A RO treatment facility will be producing drinking water that will be consumed by the
public, the most rigorous application of the State Drinking Water Regulations (UAC R309-102) will be
applied. Among other things, this will include submittal of Preliminary Evaluation Reports (PERs) and
Source Protection Plans (SPPs) which must be approved by the State Division of Drinking Water (DDW).
In addition, the RO treatment plant design and construction must be reviewed and approved by the DDW
at which time KUCC will receive a permit to operate the facility as designed and provide drinking water
to the JVWCD for distribution to affected communities. Assuming that this final design is approved,
KUCC will begin the permitting process with DDW during the first quarter of 2003.

4.1.2 County Conditional Use and Building Permit

Salt Lake County Code requires that a building permit be obtained before construction activities may
commence on any building or structure. The Development Services Division of the Salt Lake County
Department of Public Works is responsible for various aspects of development. It issues Salt Lake

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 68 -
County approval for the construction of buildings or structures, inspects construction for compliance with
building codes, and enforces building code requirements. The building permit is issued only after all
zoning and conditional use requirements have been satisfied. Phase 1 of the RO treatment facility (~50
percent of the production capacity) will be constructed in an existing building with the majority of the
work focusing on piping changes and membrane replacements. During Phases 2 and or 3, a new
conditional use and building permit will be obtained for the final building that will house 100 percent of
the production capacity.

A Building Permit application will be generated for the RO treatment plant and must contain the
Conditional Use information, a detailed site plan showing existing facilities and proposed improvements.
The application must demonstrate that the building conforms to all applicable codes and that the building,
structure and land use are consistent with zoning ordinances. Typical length of time to obtain a building
permit ranges from two to five weeks, depending on the workload in the Development Services Division
of the County.

4.1.3 Construction Permit

R309-102-2 details the requirements that pertain to the construction of a public drinking water system.
This section lists the approval process for engineering plans and specifications as well as acceptable
design and construction methods. Complete plans and specifications for the system, as described in
R309-102-2.3, will be approved in writing by the Executive Secretary prior to the commencement of
construction. The regulations indicate that a 30 day review period should be assumed. This process will
be initiated during the first quarter of 2003.

4.1.4 Well Drilling/Construction Permits

As shown in Figure 3-2 and table 3-1, additional acid extraction wells will be constructed to the east of
the current acid extraction well. Additional monitoring wells may also be necessary within and adjacent
to the plume(s). Construction of these wells will follow current State rules (R655-4), which require well
drilling permits and completion certificates.

4.2 Permit Modifications

4.2.1 UPDES Permit No. UTD0000051

KUCC’s UPDES Permit was renewed and modified in May 2001 to include flows from deep wells
B2G1193 and BFG1200, the sulfate extraction and Lark wells and water from the acid extraction well
into KUCC’s process and wastewater systems. No changes in discharge parameters are expected due to
these additions. Therefore, no additional modifications are believed necessary at this time.

4.2.2 Air Emissions Permit

Controlling fugitive dust per State rule (R307-215) during construction activities has been identified as a
known air emission that must be controlled. As the remedial action is implemented, potential air
emission sources will be evaluated and communicated to UDEQ to determine if a permit is required. One
potential that has been identified for review with Division of Air Quality personnel is the degasification
unit for the RO Plant that will generate carbon dioxide and small quantities of radon.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 69 -
4.2.3 Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (DOGM) - Notice of Intent

There are several reasons why the Zone A RO treatment plant and associated pipelines will not need to be
included in KUCC’s existing DOGM permitting and bonding. The Zone A treatment plant serves a dual
purpose: 1) to meet the objectives of the NRD consent decree and CERCLA remediation and 2) to make
municipal quality water for delivery to the affected communities. As such, it is not a “mining operation”
as that term is defined in UCA 40-8-4(8). DOGM has requested, and KUCC has agreed, to provide
DOGM with a copy of the joint agreement between KUCC and JVWCD upon finalization, which
documents the long term funding for the operation and maintenance of this perpetual water treatment
facility whether operated by KUCC or JVWCD.

Impacts of concentrate disposal on the currently approved reclamation plan for the KUCC tailings
impoundment (Permit M/035/015) have been shown to be minimal. In fact, the total mass of remediated
products (gypsum sludge and metals) is less than two percent of the mass of tails deposited in the
impoundment on a daily or annual basis. Section 3.4.2.1 discusses the performance criteria established for
the integration of the RO concentrate and neutralization of acidic solutions within the tailings disposal
system. The system will be maintained with a minimum fluid pH of 6.7 or greater at the North Splitter
Box to achieve permitted water-quality discharge limits. Additionally, the NNP, as calculated using the
Modified Sobek Procedures, of tailings discharge at the impoundment (which will include RO concentrate
inflows) will be maintained such that they have an NNP and NPR that are equal to or higher than the
General Mill Tails (GMT) if the GMT is less than 5 t CaCO3/kt. Therefore, no degradation in tailings
geochemistry that could affect the long-term reclamation of the tailings is anticipated due to the addition
of concentrate or neutralized acidic waters. KUCC will conduct monitoring described in Section 3.4.2.4
to ensure that RO Plant concentrate and neutralized acid waters and resultant sludges are not having a
negative impact on process waters, tailings deposition or waters to be discharged. Should the studies or
sampling indicate any unanticipated negative consequences of the concentrate addition to the tailings
circuit that would have an impact on final reclamation of the impoundment, KUCC will address the issue
with DOGM.

KUCC and DOGM, as well as other agencies, have agreed to continue discussions regarding permitting
implications for post closure management of gypsum sludges produced from post-closure water treatment
facilities.

4.3 Groundwater Use Restrictions

Restrictions on the use of water from existing wells, restrictions on the installation of new wells and a
moratorium on new water rights within and adjacent to the project area will be established through the
State Engineer and Department of Water Resources as needed. KUCC has already petitioned the State
Engineer to implement the moratorium on new water rights that will minimize the effects of aquifer
drawdown and movement related to the containment and extraction remedial strategy approved in the
ROD. KUCC is currently working with the largest extractors of water from the aquifer to manage the
current over drafting situation that is occurring.

A related issue that has been expressed by several members of the TRC is the development of a plan to
address water right impairment issues related to the Remedial Action extraction program. For example, if
someone’s well goes dry during the Remedial Action, what is the plan to determine if the decreased water
levels are a result of the Remedial Action, other non-KUCC extractions and/or drought conditions and
what is KUCC’s response going to be if it is related to the Remedial Action. To address this issue, the
following flow chart (Figure 4-1, Water Right Management Plan) was prepared and presented at the

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 70 -
November 13, 2002 TRC meeting. The TRC agreed that implementing the options outlined in the
flowchart would address this issue.

Figure 4-1 Water Rights Management Plan
Third Party
WR Holder
State
Engineer’s
Office
KUCC
Contacts
Evaluate
quantity and
seniority
(KUCC/SEO)
Are impacts
caused by
KUCC
Remediation
Program?
Evaluate best
means of
Reparation
KUCC
Implements
Reparation
Notify affected
water right holders
in area and State
Engineer
Collectiv ely
evaluate and
implement
mitigation strategy
YESNO
Review with
State Engineer
and TRC
Potential Mitigation Opts
•Reduced pumping
•Replacement water
•Injection
•Deeper well installation

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 71 -

4.4 Water Rights

A key element to the containment and extraction program is the necessary water rights to extract and put
to beneficial use extracted water. KUCC has obtained or filed applications with the State Engineer for the
required water rights to extract the required amount of water for containment and drinking water
production. Table 4-1 below lists the applicable water rights, quantities and current status.
Table 4-1. Summary of Water Right Information

Water Right # Priority Date Change
Application/Date
Volume
(acre feet)
Points of
Diversion
59-1042 12/13/1962 Existing
K60/109 wells
59-1653 11/21/1961 a24720/7-12-00
(approved)
6487 five acid wells
59-5314 12/13/1962 ECG1146
already in place
59-1352 1/22/1958 a25109/4-6-01
(approved)
136.45 Change
applications
moved WRs to
59-1671 4/26/1962 A25110/4-6-01
(approved)
66.13 LTG1147

a26312

2/5/2002

a26312
(approval pending)
0 Add two points
of diversion to
a24729 for wells
LTG1147 and
LTG1139
59-945 5/8/1951 a26074/10-22-01
(approval pending)
2476 Change
application
moves WR to 4
of the five acid
well sites
Total 9165.58

5.0 DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTAITON QUALITY CONTROL

This is a unique remediation project and remedial design. The majority of the containment and extraction
system were designed, installed and tested during the RI/FS process. The first acid extraction well was
installed and successfully tested at approximately 500 gpm and is now operating at 900 gpm. Currently
the only additional construction associated with the acid plume containment will be new acid wells and
associated piping and pumping systems to bring the total acid extraction to 1000 to 2500 gpm. A second
acid-extraction well is planned for early 2003 and will initially be tested at approximately 500 gpm.

The containment wells for the sulfate have been in operation for decades supplying process water to the
Copperton concentrator. After the design and construction of the RO Plant, these wells will continue to
be pumped, but will be routed to the RO Plant rather than the concentrator. Since this system will be
producing drinking water, the design and construction of this are subject to the review and approval of the

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 72 -
UDEQ Division of Drinking Water as part of the process of obtaining a drinking water permit. To avoid
duplicative oversight, the Division of Drinking Water will provide the primary review for this system as
part of the overall remedial action.

QA/QC procedures outlined in the Preliminary Design were followed to ensure that the Final Design is
technically sound, cost-effective, biddable, constructible and that the design meets the remedial action
goals for the site. Although some detailed engineering remains to be completed for the RO Plant, this
Final Design report represents approximately a 95 percent complete design document. It should be noted
that some of the detailed design drawings and specification have intentionally been left out of this report
for the sake of efficiency. However, these drawings and specifications will be included, as necessary, as
part of various permit applications.

To ensure quality control during installation, each contract that is awarded for various tasks (well
installation, piping, construction, etc.) will include additional quality control and quality assurance
provisions.

6.0 PROGRESS MEETINGS AND REPORTS

6.1 TRC Meetings

At the last TRC meeting (November 13, 2002) it was suggested that the group meet on a minimum basis
of every six months or more frequently if needed. TRC meetings will serve as the main form of
communication to the group regarding the progress of the Remedial Action. These meetings will be
documented with written minutes that will be distributed to the TRC. The TRC meetings will continue on
a semi-annual basis during which the following topics will be covered:

• Progress of containment and extraction program (including monitoring results)
• Progress of construction, startup and operation of the Zone A RO Plant
• Progress and results from acid neutralization in tailings system
• Plan for the next six months

6.2 Remedial Action Reports

Previously in this report, several reports were described that will be completed as part of the Remedial
Action. In summary, the following written reports will be provided to EPA and DEQ throughout the
Remedial Action program.

Report Frequency

Groundwater Level, Chemistry and Modeling Monitoring Report Annual
Subsidence Monitoring Report Annual
Tailings Chemistry Monitoring Report Annual
Groundwater Extraction Report Annual
Five Year Remedial Action Review Report Every 5 Years
Drinking Water Permit Reports As required by permit

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 73 -
7.0 SCHEDULE FOR REMEDIAL DESIGN ACTIVITIES

7.1 Summary of Deliverables

A list of various deliverables identified during the RDWP and Preliminary Design to be submitted during
the remedial design phase is shown on Table 7-1. Those documents not previously submitted have been
attached as appendices to this Final Design Report.

7.2 Schedule

• The schedule for implementing the Remedial Action is shown in Figure 7-1. It outlines the
timing for the major pieces of the Remedial Action including permitting, construction of the Zone
A RO Plant, acid well construction and operation and the monitoring and reporting program.

• This schedule focuses on the next five years of operation and is not intended to imply that the
project ends in 2008. By 2008, as part of the five-year review process, a revised schedule
outlining the next five years will be presented. Essentially the Remedial Action will operate as
described in this plan until closure of mining operations, with the exception of constructing
additional acid wells. Closure may be as early as 2013 or as late as 2030. Therefore, we have
taken the approach of providing a detailed five year schedule recognizing that through semi
annual TRC meetings, annual reporting and five year reviews, the schedule will become a living
document that is constantly modified. Anticipated elements of the five-year review report include
an assessment of the initial success of the Remedial Action program with an emphasis on the
containment and extraction of contaminated groundwater. Additional information also will be
provided in that report which updates the preliminary post closure water management plan.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 74 -
Table 7-1. Summary of Remedial Design Phase Deliverables

Document Name

Status

Final Remedial Design Work Plan

Completed 8/6/01

Final Data and Records Management Plan

Completed 10/30/01

Final Work Plan for Tailings Geochem Study

Completed 4/15/02

Final Work Plan for Groundwater Study

Completed 3/21/02

Final Groundwater Monitoring Plan

Completed 8/14/01

Alkali Treatment Plan

Completed 3/21/02

Final Report for Tailings Geochem Study

Attached to this report as Appendix C

Final Report for Groundwater Study

Attached to this report as Appendix B

Baseline Groundwater Monitoring Report

Attached to this report as Appendix D

Preliminary Post Closure Water Management Plant

Attached to this report as Appendix A
Preliminary Remedial Design Completed 1/31/02
Final Remedial Design Completed 12/31/02

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 75 -

Figure 7-1 Remedial Action Schedule

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 76 -

8.0 REFERENCES

Kennecott Utah Copper (KUCC), 1998a, Final draft remedial investigation report for KUCC south
facilities groundwater plume, southwest Jordan Valley, Utah. Version B, March, 1998, variously paged.

Kennecott Utah Copper (KUCC), 1998b, Final draft feasibility study report for KUCC south facilities
groundwater plume, southwest Jordan Valley, Utah. Version B, March, 1988, variously paged.

Environmental Protection Agency and Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 2000, Record of
Decision, KUCC South Zone, Operable Unit 2, Southwest Jordan River Valley Groundwater Plumes,
December 13, 130 p.

Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation, 1999a, Standard Operating Procedures for Water Sampling, Version
4, December, 309 p.

Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation, 1999b, Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Groundwater
Characterization and Monitoring Plan, Revision 5, December, 29 p.

Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation, 2000, Groundwater Characterization and Monitoring Plan, revision
6, April, 91 p.

Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation, 2001, Data and Records Management Plan for the KUCC South
Facilities Groundwater Remedial Design - Version A. October 30.

Shepherd Miller, Inc., 1997, Determination of Constituents Above Background and Baseline
Concentrations in Groundwater, Southwestern Jordan Valley, Utah. June, 51 p. plus appendices.
(Included as Appendix B to the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Report, KUCC, 1998).

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2000, Record of Decision for Kennecott Sough Zone,
Operable Unit 2, Southwest Jordan River Valley Ground Water Plumes, December 13, 2000.

SOUTH FACILITIES VERSION A
RA FINAL DESIGN December 2002
- 77 -