DERR-2024-007726

SOUTHWEST JORDAN VALLEY GROUNDWATER CLEANUP PROJECT Natural Resource Damage Trustee
Public Hearing Agenda
September 25, 2003
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
168 North 1950 West, Salt Lake City
REPORTED BY: SUSIE LAUCHNOR, RPR, CSR

1 September 25, 2003, 4:02 p.m.
2
3
4 P R O C E E D I N G S
5
6
7 MS. NIELSON: Good afternoon. I'm Dianne
8 Nielson. I'm the executive director of the Department
9 of Environmental Quality and I also serve as the
10 natural resource damage trustee for the State of Utah.
11 I want to welcome you all today and thank you for
12 coming to learn more about the project for cleaning up
13 groundwater in the southwest Jordan Valley consistent
14 with a project that is being proposed by Kennecott and
15 the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District.
16 Let me talk for just a minute about the
17 process we're going to follow this afternoon. First,
18 we'll have power point presentation, a summary of what
19 the project consists of that will be presented by
20 Paula Doughty with Kennecott, and John Cherry and
21 Richard Bay with the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy
22 District.
23 We'll take some time for any questions,
24 clarifying questions regarding that presentation and
25 then we'll begin the public comment period. When you
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 2

1 came today there was a sign-in sheet for attendance
2 that will enable us to contact you if we have further
3 information to follow up. There was also a sign-up
4 sheet if you were interested in providing comment
5 today. If you are interested in doing so and you
6 haven't signed up, I would like to invite you to go
7 back to the table by the door and do that so that as
8 we walk through the introductions -- I'm sorry, as we
9 walk through the identification of commenters tonight
10 or this afternoon that we provide an opportunity for
11 everybody who's interested to be able to speak.
12 The process we will use for public comment
13 will be initially to ask each individual as they speak
14 to keep the time of their comments to five minutes. I
15 realize that there's a lot to be said and that you may
16 want to address comments and recommendations or
17 suggestions for more than that five-minute period, but
18 in the interest of giving everybody an opportunity to
19 talk within the time frame that we designated for the
20 public comment, I would ask that you please hold your
21 initial comment to five minutes. If at the end of
22 that time you still want to provide additional public
23 comment on the record, I'm going to ask that you stop
24 at that point, sit down and let me proceed through the
25 list of individuals who have signed up to comment, and
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 3

1 then at the end of that time we'll provide additional
2 time for anyone who wants to provide additional
3 recommendations or comments to the trustee.
4 I want to also make you aware of the fact,
5 and I realize that many of you may already know of
6 this, we have extended the public comment period for
7 this issue by 30 days. What that means is the comment
8 period will now run through November 1, 2003. That
9 means that you'll be able to submit comments on the
10 record in the hearing today, you can also submit
11 comments by e-mail, by letter, or by fax, and the
12 important consideration is that they be received at
13 the address that is provided on the information
14 sheets, which is the address here at DEQ, by midnight
15 on November 1st. That means that the comments should
16 either reflect a transmittal time, if they are
17 e-mailed or faxed, of midnight November 1st or they
18 must have a postmark by midnight November 1st. But
19 we've provided the additional, extra 31 days with the
20 hope that it will provide more opportunity for
21 individuals to review the documents, ask questions,
22 get answers and be able to provide comments to us.
23 Along with that extension we have also
24 arranged for two public information periods
25 specifically focused on providing information to
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 4

1 individuals who have private water wells or concerns
2 regarding their wells and the impact of this project.
3 There were a number of questions at the
4 first public hearing that we held regarding the impact
5 that might occur or could occur to individual wells
6 and what the process was for addressing that impact if
7 it occurred. It seemed to us, as we talked about that
8 after the hearing, that it would be helpful to hold a
9 couple of information sessions on different days to
10 try and make them as accessible for interested
11 individuals as possible to specifically address those
12 issues, and those two times will not be times when
13 we're taking public comment or reported comment as we
14 are today for the hearing. But there will be an
15 opportunity to discuss the proposal and understand
16 what the process is that is in place for dealing with
17 individual water rights.
18 The trustee for natural resource damage
19 does not have the authority to be able to resolve
20 issues with respect to private rights or individual
21 wells, but we do want to make that information
22 available to you as part of the comment period so that
23 you can more fully understand what the process is and
24 what the remedies are if there are concerns or if
25 there are problems.
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 5

1 On the back table there is a notice of
2 extension of public comment and that notice also
3 references the two times when we will be holding those
4 open discussion sessions. One is Tuesday, September
5 30th, from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. here in this room. The
6 other is Wednesday, October 22nd, from 7:00 to
7 9:00 p.m. here in this room. But I would also
8 encourage you, if you have questions at other times,
9 if we can be of assistance, that you give us a call,
10 let us know what the issue or the concern is so that
11 we can provide the information to you.
12 I want to take this time to recognize Eva
13 Hoffman, who's here with EPA region eight. Eva, will
14 you stand up for a moment?
15 Thank you.
16 Eva has been the EPA representative
17 responsible for the work that has been conducted at
18 Kennecott both in the circle process that has been
19 applied and in the associated work in reviewing the
20 remedial investigation feasibility study establishing
21 the record of decision and coordinating the cleanup
22 work going forward from the EPA's perspective.
23 I would also like to introduce Doug Vagan,
24 who is the co-chair of the technical advisory
25 committee. Doug is an employee of the Department of
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 6

1 Environmental Quality. The technical advisory
2 committee is the committee made up of technical staff
3 from the state agencies, EPA, local government
4 officials. There are environmental representatives on
5 that committee. It is the committee that has been
6 used as we've worked through the proposal, evaluated
7 options, looked at the cleanup and reviewed the
8 technical aspects of the documents that you're now
9 reviewing in public comment.
10 I would like to provide a moment for Doug
11 to introduce other members of the team who are here
12 today and who are available to answer questions both
13 today and any time that you may have questions and
14 want to contact someone. So Doug...
15 MR. VAGAN: Thank you, Dianne.
16 Good day. I'd just quickly like to
17 introduce the state team members on the TRC. With us
18 this evening we have Dan Hall with is the Division of
19 Water Quality and the Groundwater Protection Program.
20 We have Chris Ambrodio with the Division of Water
21 Quality UPDES program. We have Bill Mulmer with the
22 Division of Water Quality, waste load allocations. We
23 have David McCleary with the Division of Solid and
24 Hazardous Waste. We also have Jared Manning with the
25 state engineer's office, Division of Water Rights. We
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 7

1 have Frank Roberts with the Division of Drinking Water
2 and we also have Wayne Headburg with the Division of
3 Oil, Gas and Mining, Department of Natural Resources.
4 We're all here and available this evening to assist
5 and address any questions, or into the future as well.
6 MS. NIELSON: Thank you very much, Doug.
7 With that I would like to begin with the power point
8 presentation summary of this project and provide some
9 information for you to better understand what's
10 proposed and the basis for that proposal.
11 This is a map of the zone A and zone B
12 sulfate plumes. Is this easily visible for everybody?
13 You will note two colored zones, one just
14 up from Herriman, which is the zone A plume, and the
15 different colors reflect sulfate contamination. The
16 red part of that plume is the acid core or the most
17 contaminated zone. That's not a zone that the trustee
18 is dealing with in terms of the treatment and
19 production of municipal quality drinking water. That
20 is a zone that Kennecott is pumping and is responsible
21 for extracting and removing from the groundwater so
22 that it won't create further contamination.
23 There is another plume to the right by the
24 word South Jordan which is the second sulfate plume.
25 The objective of this project is to remove the sulfate
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 8

1 contaminated waters from the groundwater in this area,
2 in the area that we call the infected area, to be able
3 to have that water treated and provided to through the
4 community drinking waters that are being provided by
5 South Jordan, Riverton, West Jordan and Herriman to
6 the citizens in this area. That's what is required in
7 part by the consent decree that was signed in 1995.
8 My objective as trustee is to ultimately
9 approve a plan that will be the best mechanism for
10 extracting that water, treating it and being able to
11 produce municipal quality drinking water, to be able
12 to use that resource again by treating it and to limit
13 the contamination ultimately, as you'll see through
14 this presentation, to reduce the area of contamination
15 so that in the future we will be able to extract clean
16 water from these areas.
17 It is important to recognize that if the
18 trustee were to do nothing at this point, if there
19 were no cleanup plan for this area, what would happen
20 is that those blue contaminated zones on the map, the
21 high sulfate contaminated water would continue to move
22 not just through that affected area in the
23 groundwater, but beyond that area to contaminate
24 additional water that right now is not contaminated
25 with sulfate. And so it is important that we move
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 9

1 forward with the project and that we do it in a manner
2 that limits the spread of contamination, that removes
3 contamination and restricts the zone of contamination
4 in the future and that provides municipal quality
5 drinking water for the individuals in this affected
6 area. That's the objective that we're attempting to
7 reach through the proposed plan.
8 At this time I'm going to -- thank you, I
9 almost forgot about that part. I want to explain to
10 you the letter of credit which was the financing for
11 being able to accomplish this.
12 In 1995 with the consent decree there were
13 two components of funding that were established by
14 Kennecott in accordance with the consent decree for
15 the use of the natural resource damage trustee. The
16 first was an irrevocable letter of credit and in 1995
17 that letter of credit was worth $28 million with a
18 seven-percent annual increase. Now that letter of
19 credit in September of 2003 is worth $48.1 million.
20 A second component of the payment was what
21 was called lost use payment. This was a cash payment
22 that was made to the natural resource damage trustee
23 which has been placed -- was placed in an account
24 where it remains. It was worth $9 million at the time
25 it was received in 1995 and it is now worth
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 10

1 $13.2 million.
2 Those funds are being requested, the total
3 of what is now $61.3 million are being requested to be
4 used as part of this project to restrict the
5 contamination in the groundwater and treat it and
6 produce municipal quality water and Pauls Doughty and
7 Richard Bay will talk a little bit more about that and
8 the broader financial aspects of this project. But
9 this money was provided specifically for this purpose
10 and part of the proposal is that the trustee would use
11 this money to be able to implement the proposed
12 project.
13 At this point I would like to turn the
14 time to Paula Doughty with Kennecott and then she will
15 turn some time to Richard Bay with the District to
16 talk about the proposal.
17 MS. DOUGHTY: Thank you. The purpose of
18 the joint proposal that Kennecott and the District
19 came to propose to the state trustee was that we
20 did -- a lot of this Dr. Nielson has gone over, but we
21 do seek to use all portions of the trust fund. We
22 also want to complete all the obligations that have
23 been outlined in the national resource damage claim as
24 well as through CERCLA, and some of those include
25 excising the contaminated groundwater from the acid
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 11

1 plume at a minimum five-year rolling average at 400
2 acre-feet per year. That requirement, it actually
3 began in 1995 and we have been -- we have been
4 fulfilling that requirement since that time. Also,
5 that we would complete a series of source control
6 measures that I'll go over in a minute; that we would
7 produce 8,235 acre-feet per year of municipal quality
8 water from the extracted water and from the plume and
9 treat that by reverse osmosis treatment; also that we
10 would deliver that water to the affected
11 municipalities -- that we're going to do through the
12 District distribution system; and that we would
13 contain the sulfate contaminated groundwater at
14 concentrations greater than 1,500 milligrams per liter
15 on Kennecott property via the extractions that we're
16 going to be doing, as well as that we prevent the
17 spread of the contaminated aquifer.
18 Again, you saw this map just a minute ago.
19 To get you oriented, this is the Jordan River here on
20 the right side of the map. The area over here are the
21 Oquirrh Mountains. The cross hatched land here is the
22 property that is owned and controlled by Kennecott
23 Utah Copper. Kennecott owns approximately 100,000
24 acres in the Oquirrh Mountains, obviously with some
25 knolls of property that go out into the valley.
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 12

1 Mining in the vicinity of the Bingham pit
2 began in the early 1860s, and obviously at that time
3 it had nothing to do with Kennecott Utah Copper.
4 Kennecott Copper actually became involved in 1935 when
5 we purchased Utah Copper at that time.
6 There was leaching going on the waste rot
7 dumps that when you look to the west of the valley you
8 see. There was leaching going on beginning in about
9 1913 and when Kennecott purchased Utah Copper we went
10 in to actually improve the collection systems that
11 were already in place. So what we did is we
12 constructed a series of evaporation ponds located in
13 this area here, and there were about 25 evaporation
14 ponds covering approximately 500 acres that were
15 receiving water coming out of Bingham Creek here, and
16 that was in 1936.
17 In 1965 we also went to improve the
18 collection systems by constructing a reservoir in this
19 area here. And although both of the sets of
20 reservoirs were built to the standards of the time,
21 quite frankly, there really weren't any standards of
22 the time. The Clean Water Act didn't hit until 1997
23 and so there weren't really any regulations out there
24 that controlled this type of activity and both of
25 these sets of reservoirs did leak and did release
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 13

1 contaminants into the groundwater and those are what
2 we're talking about here today.
3 The evaporation ponds are the primary
4 source of the zone B plume that we're seeing here. It
5 has sulfates that average roughly about 750 milligrams
6 per liter. This outer contour here is the sulphate
7 above 500 milligrams per liter.
8 The zone A plume here, as Dr. Nielson
9 indicated, has a core acid plume to it that has
10 sulfates greater than 20,000 milligrams per liter.
11 Its acid pHs range from three and a half to four and a
12 half and it is not involved in the joint proposal that
13 we're talking about today. It is not the water that
14 we will be extracting for treatment and providing it
15 back to the affected communities.
16 The outer area here are sulfates, again,
17 that are above 500 milligrams per liter and this is
18 the area that we're extracting the water from for
19 treatment.
20 The source control activities that we did,
21 which I've kind of already gone over a little bit, is
22 we went back in the mid 1990s and installed an east
23 side collection system along the waste rot dumps in
24 the base of the Oquirrh Mountains. So in a series --
25 and basically every drainage that you see along the
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 14

1 Oquirrh Mountains, the mountains there at the south
2 where the waste rot dumps are, we constructed cutoff
3 walls where we went down and drilled into bedrock and
4 built basically underground dams to where water is
5 percolating through those waste rot dumps. It is
6 collected in these underground dumps and brought back
7 into our processed water system.
8 We also replaced that large reservoir that
9 was the source of the acid portion in the zone A. We
10 replaced that, went back in, removed all the soils,
11 removed the old reservoir and constructed a triple
12 lined new reservoir system with leak detection
13 systems, monitoring wells and so it's a
14 state-of-the-art facility that's out there right now.
15 We also terminated active leaching of
16 those dumps in September of 2002 and we continue to
17 see the reduction in the flows that are coming out of
18 the waste rot dumps today and there was a series -- I
19 say series, a tremendous amount of contaminated soil
20 that has been removed and excavated and put into
21 repositories, protected repositories over the last 10
22 years. Actually, that started in about 1991. To date
23 Kennecott has spent roughly about $350 million on
24 those source control activities.
25 Also, the source of the zone B plume,
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 15

1 those South Jordan evaporation ponds, those as well
2 were consolidated with some of the soils removed.
3 The proposal that the District and
4 Kennecott have out there today is that -- it has three
5 main components. We plan on constructing two reverse
6 osmosis treatment plants. One, the zone A plant which
7 is going to address the zone A plume and it is funded
8 by Kennecott with a portion being funded by the
9 District. It will be owned and operated and
10 constructed by Kennecott on Kennecott land, and I'll
11 show a picture of it in a minute.
12 We also out of that plant will produce
13 3,500 acre-feet per year of municipal quality water
14 from Kennecott water rights and as that water is
15 produced it will go back to the Jordan Valley
16 Conservancy District for their distribution out to the
17 public.
18 The second portion is the zone B plant
19 which will be addressing that plume that is further to
20 the east, a little bit closer to the Jordan River. It
21 will be constructed, owned and operated by the
22 District itself and Richard is going to talk about
23 that in a minute when we get to the zone B section.
24 It as well is going to be producing 3,500 acre-feet
25 per year of municipal quality water from water rights
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 16

1 that are owned by the District now.
2 There's also a lost use component. When
3 the natural resource damage claim was initiated it was
4 determined that there was 8,235 acre-feet per year of
5 water that was the damaged resource. The dollar
6 amounts that Dr. Nielson went through were based upon
7 that volume of water over a period of time and what
8 they looked at was a treatment to that damaged
9 resource and what that would be, and when they looked
10 at it, they looked at reverse osmosis treatment and in
11 the reverse osmosis treatment there is a component of
12 the water that is lost.
13 So when you put 8,235 acre-feet of water
14 through a treatment plan, not 8,235 feet of water
15 comes out of it. There is a component that is lost to
16 the treatment process and that is the lost use
17 component here and that is also the portion of the
18 trust fund that Kennecott paid that initial $9 million
19 for that the trustee has put in an irrevocable letter.
20 The lost use component, the District as
21 well intends to utilize that portion of the trust fund
22 to make up that lost use component and they'll be
23 producing between 1,235 and 2,300 acre-feet per year
24 of water out of the zone B plant. This is kind of a
25 joint plant here that will treat all this water. All
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 17

1 that water, again, is going to be delivered to the
2 District's distribution system.
3 Out of the zone A plant we -- these are
4 the various products that actually come out of the
5 plant and the one here is the treated water and what
6 we expect to see, the quality of the water that we
7 expect to see coming out.
8 This middle column here is drinking water
9 standards, and as you can see by comparing the product
10 water to the drinking water standards, everything is
11 well below any levels -- well below the drinking water
12 standards out there.
13 There also is the waste or the by-product
14 that comes out of that treatment plant which primarily
15 is the concentrated pollutants and this is the quality
16 of that water here. That concentrate or that
17 by-product is going to be discharged into Kennecott's
18 tailings line for transportation down to our tailing
19 impoundment. We do have neutralization capacity in
20 the ore that comes out of the mine and that
21 neutralizes water and it mixes -- to tell you the
22 truth, we actually discharge about 40- to 45,000
23 gallons a day of tailings to our tailings impoundment.
24 We will see probably somewhere around 400 gallons a
25 minute coming out here versus the 40,000 gallons a
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 18

1 minute of this quality, which will go into the
2 tailings impoundment. We do have a permanent
3 discharge off of our tailings impoundment and these
4 are the permitted limits. So as you can see, we're
5 well below our permitted limits as well off the
6 tailings impoundment. There is a good portion of that
7 water that will be recirculated back to Kennecott
8 after the solids settle out of the tailings
9 impoundment.
10 This is the location of the zone A reverse
11 osmosis treatment plant looking west. You can see the
12 waste rot dumps there in the background. This is a
13 plant that Kennecott constructed many years ago as a
14 demonstration plant and what we're doing is we're
15 going to utilize the shell of that plant. Right over
16 here is the Bingham Canyon itself. So it's just to
17 the south of Bingham Canyon, up to the west there on
18 the hillside.
19 This is, again, a little bit more cartoony
20 picture of the zone A and zone B plumes here with the
21 infrastructure that is either in place or will be in
22 place. For the zone A plume, this is the site that
23 we're going to be utilizing that shell that I showed
24 on the previous slide here. That is the location
25 there.
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 19

1 We have three wells here that are the
2 wells that we're going to be extracting the sulfate
3 water from the contaminated zone of the groundwater
4 here and these wells have been used since the 1960s in
5 Kennecott's process. So it's water that we've been
6 extracting historically for use in our process systems
7 up on the hill. But at the time that we get the
8 reverse osmosis treatment plant completed and
9 constructed, that water will be diverted to the plant
10 so that we can make the drinking water for the public.
11 These locations here are the locations of
12 the acid wells. Again, it's not part of this project
13 but we are extracting the acid plume's water and that
14 water as well is going to the tailings line for
15 transportation down to the tailings facility there.
16 Project actions to date, that portion
17 Richard Bay is going to go over in a minute.
18 These are the actions that have been
19 completed to date. We have completed all of the
20 source controls that have been identified and all
21 those are up and running and operating. Those include
22 the cutoff wells, the new reservoirs and whatnot.
23 We've also being extracting the sulfate contaminated
24 water at a rate of about 3,200 gallons per minute from
25 the zone A plume. Again, that's been going into
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 20

1 Kennecott's process system to this date.
2 We've extracted -- we are currently
3 extracting about 1,500 gallons per minute of the acid
4 plume water and that is six times the natural resource
5 damage minimum. The 400 acre-feet per year
6 requirement that we have, we are extracting that acid
7 plume at a higher rate than that.
8 And to date, just last year we extracted
9 98 million pounds of sulfate from the contaminated
10 plume so we're well on our way to cleaning up the
11 aquifer.
12 We have seen significant reductions of
13 sulfate concentrates in the majority of the plumes, so
14 we are seeing a contraction of the plumes from that
15 initial map that we showed you and we've completed
16 pilot testing on both the zone A and zone B reverse
17 osmosis treatment plant. The District has completed
18 their pilot studies as well as Kennecott has and
19 definitely is a proven technology at this point.
20 The final remedial design was submitted to
21 the EPA, DEQ and the technical review committee.
22 There was a technical review committee that was
23 established in 1991, I believe.
24 Is that right, John?
25 Anyway, the technical review committee was
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 21

1 established, I believe, in 1991, which has a variety
2 of experts on it that include a variety of the
3 regulators that Dr. Nielson had stand up earlier
4 today. It as well had representatives from some of
5 the environmental groups in the area, as well had
6 community leaders surrounding the Kennecott locations
7 as well as some educators and whatnot, and through
8 that this process has gone on with kind of a review
9 step all along the way by working with the technical
10 review committee. So the final remedial design
11 actually went to these groups at the end of 2002.
12 The design and construction of the zone A
13 RO plant is under way and we anticipate that by the
14 end of this year, 2003, that it will be at about
15 50-percent capacity. Unfortunately, that water will
16 not be going back to the public for another couple of
17 years as we are kind of phasing up the plant to full
18 scale, but it is water that we are treating with
19 reverse osmosis and it kind of allows Kennecott to do
20 the operations and maintenance and work out any bugs
21 prior to it going out to the public.
22 With that I'm going to turn it over to
23 Richard.
24 MR. BAY: I would like to talk about the
25 zone B and the lost use portions of the project. This
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 22

1 is the project proposed by Jordan Valley Water
2 Conservancy District and Kennecott Utah Copper
3 Corporation.
4 This photograph shows the location of the
5 zone B combined with the lost use treatment plant
6 with -- it's located in West Jordan and the plant
7 would be in this area of land that has been acquired
8 and is owned by Jordan Valley. The land use approvals
9 have already been acquired from West Jordan City in
10 the planning for that plant and the operations and
11 maintenance buildings of the District on the left.
12 Looking back at this generalized map
13 showing the facilities that are proposed for this
14 project, Paula talked about the zone A, the western
15 facilities. Of those, the treated water from the
16 reverse osmosis plant in zone A will extend northward
17 to about 102nd South and 70th West to a
18 three-million-gallon storage tank that Jordan Valley
19 currently operates in its system.
20 The zone B facilities shown to address the
21 zone B portion of the plume include seven deep wells
22 known as the zone B wells with two in the center of
23 that plume area on 27th and 3200 West and then a group
24 of five on 13th West street from 114th South to about
25 8700 South.
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 23

1 The collection pipes are shown in white
2 collecting that deep well water into the plant site
3 that we just looked at on the photograph.
4 In addition, the lost use portion of the
5 project will be from the shallow aquifer, from these
6 five shallow wells located just west of the Jordan
7 River and also collected to the combined treatment
8 plant building.
9 The treated water pipeline will extend
10 westward on 78th South to the Jordan aqueduct, which
11 is a large diameter treated water pipeline serving
12 most of the west side of Salt Lake Valley and portions
13 of the east side and the by-product pipeline will
14 extend northward probably along 13th West to about
15 2900 South.
16 The distributions of those waters can be
17 made through existing infrastructure that's also shown
18 here in the tan colors and especially the zone A water
19 at high elevation can be delivered in these areas
20 through this pipeline on 5600 West that Jordan Valley
21 operates to West Jordan, South Jordan, Herriman areas
22 and Riverton, and then the Jordan aqueduct will be a
23 main delivery source of zone B waters to the four
24 cities, including Riverton City.
25 The reverse osmosis process is a membrane
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 24

1 process that uses pressure, water pressurized and
2 driven through thin membranes to separate the ions in
3 water and it results in two streams that Paula talked
4 about, a larger stream that is more pristine and less
5 saline, and a smaller by-product stream that is more
6 saline with more ions known as the by-product or
7 concentrate stream. This is an example of a reverse
8 osmosis groundwater treatment plant in Colorado.
9 To give you an idea of how the treatment
10 process will work and the quality of the waters that
11 will result, this table shows some of the key
12 parameters that are of note. For example, this
13 treated water or product water column, just as the
14 previously one that Paula referred to, shows the
15 quality of some key parameters in the treated water,
16 specifically the total dissolved solids and overall
17 feel for the solidity of the water is shown as 250
18 milligrams per liter or parts per million or less.
19 That is Jordan Valley's goal through an enhancement of
20 the treatment process that Jordan Valley is funding
21 and that brings the water to a near pristine quality
22 on par with the Provo River that is currently imported
23 and on par with the groundwater in the southeast and
24 eastern portions of Salt Lake Valley.
25 Some other parameters of note: Sulfate,
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 25

1 the key ion to be removed from mining practices
2 reduced to 56 parts per million and most of the
3 parameters, especially the metals, to nondetectable.
4 The by-product stream, that second smaller
5 stream involving about 15 percent of the flow coming
6 into the plant has qualities shown here. And, again,
7 taking a look at some noteworthy parameters, the total
8 dissolved solids or overall solidity would be
9 concentrated to about 8,300 parts per million, the
10 sulfates concentrated to about 3,100 and selenium at
11 20.
12 This table also shows the standards that
13 are applicable to these two sets of water qualities,
14 for the treated water are the drinking water standards
15 shown here. And as before, the water being in
16 pristine quality is well within all of those limits.
17 On the right are permit limits of the
18 discharge permit that has been issued for the zone B
19 water by-product stream with the parameters that are
20 permit related. For example, the 48.5, a very
21 conservative parameter selected for selenium and the
22 limit for TDS at 8,350 and, as you can see, the stream
23 would be well within those permit limits as well as
24 the other Jordan River standards that are shown here.
25 This next table similarly shows the lost
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 26

1 use qualities. The treated water you can see is very
2 similar. Again, 250 parts per million solidity.
3 There is, again, a sulfate comparable to the zone B
4 deep groundwater and meeting all drinking water
5 standards shown in this column, the by-product also
6 quite similar with a TDS very comparable with, again,
7 a selenium comparable and the concentrated sulfate
8 about half of that in the deep groundwater and, again,
9 well within the standards and the permit limits.
10 In allocating the water, the consideration
11 is being given to the requirements of the consent
12 decree that requires that the treated water will be
13 produced for the benefit of the public in the affected
14 area and so the proposal splits the deep groundwater
15 in two halves. The zone A will have a specific
16 allocation. The zone B will be more open.
17 The zone A water will be allocated
18 specifically to the four affected cities that will
19 distribute this to the public in the affected area.
20 Those are West Jordan City, South Jordan City,
21 Riverton City and Herriman City. The allocations of
22 that zone A half of the treated deep groundwater,
23 3,500 acre-feet per year, are shown in this table at
24 the bottom with the percentage allocations, the volume
25 allocations in acre-feet per year and, in the final
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 27

1 column, flow rate allocations or limits in million
2 gallons per day.
3 These allocations have been derived
4 through looking at a series of methods that include
5 three important parameters. One is the population
6 that is affected in each of the cities, second is
7 surface area of the city under which the affected area
8 lies and the third is the holding of municipal
9 groundwater rights in the deep aquifer by any of these
10 four cities.
11 Taking those parameters and looking at
12 them in various ways has resulted in this allocation
13 to the cities. The zone A water allocations are
14 important because in this proposal there is also a
15 noteworthy discount or subsidy in the normal pricing
16 of this water. It's available at very high elevation
17 at the westernmost growing areas of these four cities,
18 at an area where it's quite expensive for Jordan
19 Valley to pump treated water from other sources to
20 those high elevations and there is a formula that will
21 be updated annually resulting in a discount initially
22 in the range of 15 to 20 percent below normal
23 wholesale rates and that gap could easily widen over
24 time as that formula is followed and the water pricing
25 is updated each year.
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 28

1 The other half of the deep groundwater and
2 also that shallow groundwater resulting from the lost
3 use component are allocated and reserved for the four
4 affected cities, but without specific allocation.
5 That water is available for contracting by those four
6 cities so that they can then distribute it for the
7 benefit of the public and it also has a cost
8 efficiency that results from the funds from the trust
9 fund and, as a result, the pricing of zone B water
10 will be at normal wholesale rates.
11 I would like to comment that the trust
12 fund in conjunction with the funds that will be
13 provided in addition by Kennecott and by the District
14 allow this water to be available to the public at
15 prices that are neutral with respect to current
16 pricing. It results in neither a profit to the
17 District or to the District's member agencies, nor
18 becomes a great burden to the member agencies of
19 Jordan Valley because it allows the pricing of this
20 water to fall within the current range of pricing and
21 it reflects the cost that Jordan Valley would have
22 incurred absent contamination to develop its
23 groundwater rights in this area.
24 The schedule for the project could slide
25 another month with the extension that Dr. Nielson has
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 29

1 mentioned, but it's anticipated with the public
2 hearing, this second public hearing in September and
3 now with the two in October -- or September and
4 October, sorry, that if the final agreements reach
5 final approval and execution in the fourth quarter of
6 this year, that design and construction would
7 immediately proceed, with construction being completed
8 by the fourth quarter of 2006 and the facilities all
9 in operation in early 2007. Zone A could easily be
10 two years ahead of that, with completion in late 2005.
11 I would like to talk about how this
12 proposal meets the requirements of the consent decree
13 and exceeds those requirements. First, let me talk
14 about some standards that the consent decree has
15 established. It requires treatment of contaminated
16 water and requires delivery of at least 8,235
17 acre-feet of municipal quality water per year to a
18 local water purveyor. These are accomplished in this
19 proposal.
20 This proposal provides a sustainable
21 40-year supply to the affected municipalities and to
22 the public in the affected area. It provides it at
23 reduced rates and prevents and reduces the spread of
24 contamination, ultimately decreasing the size of the
25 contaminated plume areas.
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 30

1 The project will restore the natural
2 resource for the benefit of the public in the affected
3 area and it replaces the water lost as a result of the
4 membrane treatment process and restores that to a
5 water resource available to the public in both zones A
6 and B.
7 I would like to now comment on some
8 additional aspects of the proposal that exceed and go
9 beyond those required specifically in the consent
10 decree and that are possible because of the economies
11 of scale, the efficiencies and some of the assets made
12 available by Kennecott and the District to this
13 specific proposal.
14 There are additional contributions of
15 lands and the water rights for this project, land for
16 the plant sites and for some of the well sites by
17 Kennecott and the District. This proposal provides an
18 integration with the effort that the EPA is overseeing
19 under CERCLA efforts to provide remediation of the
20 acid plume area and diminishing of that plume size.
21 This project has a water quality
22 enhancement in the treated water that goes beyond that
23 required in the consent decree. The consent decree
24 has a standard of TDS ranging from 500 to 800 parts
25 per million and as we saw, Jordan Valley will fund the
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 31

1 additional process elements required to reduce the
2 TDS, the solidity, to 250 parts per million in all
3 areas of the project. It will use Jordan Valley's
4 existing and future supply as a backup in case there's
5 a pause or difficulties in operating the treatment
6 plants for the benefit of the public and it uses
7 existing treatment infrastructure to back up this
8 project.
9 One of the other noteworthy aspects of the
10 proposal is the funding that goes beyond that
11 available in the trust fund made available through the
12 consent decree. You will see from this table the
13 irrevocable letter of credit amounts in this column
14 allocated half to zone A and half to zone B with the
15 total that Dr. Nielson mentioned currently at
16 $48.1 million and the lost use portion, which is in a
17 cash amount, currently totaling $13.2 million
18 allocated to the lost use component.
19 Additional funds are provided by Kennecott
20 and by the District, by Kennecott largely for
21 operation and maintenance costs in zone A over the
22 40-year period with some additional contributions to
23 the zone B portion totaling $19.3 million and by
24 Jordan Valley additional contributions to fund the
25 process enhancements and to provide funds to
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 32

1 supplement the funds over the 40 years operation in
2 terms of operation and maintenance costs in each
3 component of the project totaling $23.3 million in net
4 present value over the 40 years, bringing the project
5 total to just under a $104 million project. This is
6 noteworthy in enhancing what the trust fund can
7 accomplish in terms of a project to benefit the
8 public.
9 Some additional benefits are the use of
10 Jordan Valley's storage and distribution facilities.
11 These are in place and are intended to deliver water
12 supplies and this becomes a new supply to meet those
13 purposes to benefit the public in this affected area.
14 There's a commitment by Kennecott to accept and
15 dispose of the zone A and also, if necessary, the zone
16 B concentrate stream using the tailings infrastructure
17 that Kennecott operates for mining purposes.
18 We think that Jordan Valley's experience
19 and expertise in operating a major water system brings
20 an economy of scale and a benefit to this project and
21 the fact that Jordan Valley is a public agency that
22 requires no return on investment brings to the project
23 the use of the funds without a profit motive or profit
24 component.
25 With the future growing population in Salt
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 33

1 Lake County we see future membrane treatment processes
2 being important. This will gain experience early on
3 for Jordan Valley and for all providers in the valley
4 on the use of reverse osmosis to treat other waters.
5 Some of the issues that have been
6 considered and have arisen from comments in the
7 technical review committee and interested groups are
8 shown here.
9 One of the questions has gone to what are
10 the impacts to the shallow aquifer. This is a shallow
11 zone that generally extends to 140 to 150 feet below
12 the ground surface in the Jordan River Valley area and
13 is separate from the deep principal aquifer.
14 The five lost use wells will operate
15 probably about 100-feet depth each pumping ground
16 water from this Jordan River shallow aquifer zone.
17 Our modeling has indicated the drawdowns are well
18 within the standards that the state engineer has set
19 as reasonable, but beyond that they don't extend east
20 of the Jordan River, the Jordan River acting as a
21 hydraulic barrier so they can be contained locally.
22 The principal aquifer, the deep
23 groundwater impacts have been considered. Kennecott
24 has constructed a groundwater digital model and
25 simulated the operation of this project. The
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 34

1 result -- you've probably seen the poster over here,
2 this second poster on my left and what we find is that
3 taking into account the steadily declining groundwater
4 levels currently in the zone A area and the fairly
5 stable groundwater levels in the zone B area, there
6 will be some increment of additional drawdown that
7 seems to be well balanced with the remediation
8 purposes of this proposal which involve capturing,
9 containing and shrinking the plume areas.
10 Of course, the migration and the movement
11 of the contaminants in the groundwater has been a
12 concern from the beginning and the modeling has
13 enabled us to understand where those areas would move
14 to and expand to without the project. The modeling
15 shows that with the project operating in the deep
16 groundwater zone, the zone A and zone B plumes are
17 diminished dramatically within 40 years. We
18 anticipate that Kennecott and the District will extend
19 operating agreements and operate well beyond the 40
20 years, but just in the 40 years dramatic reduction is
21 shown.
22 Concerns have been expressed about
23 discharges of the by-product streams. These will be
24 from the zone A, the zone B and the lost use treatment
25 processes using reverse osmosis that concentrate the
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 35

1 ions in the water in those streams.
2 Kennecott and the District have performed
3 many studies, have held many discussions with Division
4 of Water Quality and permits have been issued that are
5 well within the limits of the receiving bodies.
6 Kennecott has received a discharge permit under the
7 UPDES system for the zone A discharge into the tailing
8 pipeline and to the Magna impoundment. Jordan Valley
9 has received a discharge permit for the zone B
10 combined with the lost use by-product stream to be
11 discharged northward to the Jordan River at 29th
12 South. Again, the limits are observed and the limits
13 have been very conservatively chosen to be well within
14 the standards set for the Jordan River.
15 Dianne, I think that's a good summary of
16 the project.
17 MS. NIELSON: At this time I would like to
18 ask if there are any clarifying questions that anyone
19 has regarding the proposal and the information.
20 First over here and then here and let's --
21 if you want to stand and if people can hear you and if
22 they have trouble you can come up here and use the
23 mic.
24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: This is probably
25 addressed to Paula. Is Kennecott Utah Copper the same
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 36

1 as Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation?
2 MS. DOUGHTY: Yes.
3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: They are the same
4 entity?
5 MS. DOUGHTY: Yes.
6 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I mean, they are
7 not a subsidiary anywhere, it's the same line?
8 MS. DOUGHTY: No, it's all the same.
9 MS. NIELSON: Sir.
10 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I have a question
11 on the funding that JVWCD is providing. Where is that
12 money coming from? Who supplies that money through
13 JVWCD?
14 MS. NIELSON: Can everybody hear that
15 question okay? Where does the money that the Jordan
16 Valley Water Conservancy District is providing for
17 this project, where does that come from.
18 MR. BAY: That money comes from revenues
19 that will be derived annually from the sale of water
20 for operation of maintenance costs. The capital
21 portions will come from reserves generated through
22 revenues and, in part, through bonding.
23 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So in layman's
24 terms, is that my water bill that's supplying parts of
25 that money?
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 37

1 MR. BAY: Yes.
2 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So my water bill
3 supplies the money for you to give Kennecott to clean
4 up their problem?
5 MR. BAY: No. The revenues provide
6 ability to develop and deliver sources of water from
7 all sources and that's how Jordan Valley has operated
8 for 50 years and so this falls in the same scheme, the
9 same method of generating capital, the same method of
10 using annual revenues for operation and maintenance
11 expenses, the same level of costs to the customers.
12 MS. NIELSON: I'll come back to you in a
13 minute, Tom. I think I have two questions here.
14 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: My concern here, I
15 think this is a beautiful thing. Cleaning up the
16 groundwater, that's beautiful. But I think the ugly
17 part is discharging the water with all the
18 contaminants down the Jordan River out in the marshes
19 around the Great Salt Lake.
20 Now, the river doesn't carry this
21 discharge to the Great Salt Lake. It disperses it out
22 to thousands of acres of marshland where waterfowl
23 congregate, have to eat and feed and drink in there.
24 Now, I know it's been said that the contaminants, that
25 the parts per million as it's being flushed down the
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 38

1 river are going to equal the standards, but also in
2 the papers that I read, at the end of the day when
3 this is through there's going to be 22,000 tons more
4 of salts and 146 pounds of selenium that is going to
5 be discharged total. This water takes it down, this
6 water evaporates and it's gone, these contaminants are
7 left out there in marshes where they're going to kill
8 the marsh plants and make it a dead zone or it's just
9 going to kill the birds that live there, I don't know.
10 They want it to go straight to the Great
11 Salt Lake and it seems like the state continually
12 wants to use the Great Salt Lake as a cesspool because
13 nobody drinks the water out there. Well, then it's
14 probably the best thing rather than the marsh where
15 there's living things growing and wildlife there. I'm
16 here with Mr. Jensen. He's the water master for the
17 lower Jordan River and he's talked about another way
18 to get this discharge out to the Great Salt Lake
19 without running it through the marshes. It's never
20 been explored and it should be looked at. However, I
21 think the best way for it would be for Kennecott to
22 pump it into their pond where they evaporate it, have
23 it plastic lined, and after it's evaporated, take it
24 out to the west desert and bury these contaminants at
25 a HazMat site. That's all I have to say.
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 39

1 MS. NIELSON: Thank you.
2 Again, if we could keep comments right now
3 to questions that you may have about the presentation.
4 I want to be sure that we allow an opportunity for
5 individuals who want to provide comments on the
6 project to be able to come to the podium so we can get
7 your name and your comment and the recorder can fully
8 record them. But right now just if there are
9 clarifying questions about the project.
10 Sir?
11 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's sort of an
12 extension of his comment, but this is a question. I
13 don't understand why the zone A effluent is going to
14 the Kennecott sedimentation ponds and the zone B
15 effluent is being dumped into the river. Why aren't
16 they both going to the sedimentation pond?
17 MR. BAY: Extending the zone B by-product
18 stream would include a pump lift of well over 1,000 to
19 1,200 feet from the center of the valley up into the
20 Oquirrh foothills and the great capital expense with a
21 discharge pipeline extending west. It is just a
22 cost-effectiveness question.
23 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 1,200 feet
24 elevation?
25 MR. BAY: Yes.
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 40

1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's hard to
2 believe.
3 MS. NIELSON: A question?
4 MR. BELLCHECK: Thank you. I'm Tom
5 Bellcheck. This slide that we have on the screen now,
6 is that a change from the slide we had in our last
7 presentation or is it exactly the same? The top one
8 where it says southwestern Jordan Valley aquifer.
9 MR. BAY: I think that's the same.
10 MR. BELLCHECK: I wanted to point out that
11 I made a comment last time that Jordan Valley is the
12 name of a special service district. This is our
13 aquifer that we're talking about, the Jordan Valley
14 aquifer. I think we've come to the agreement that
15 it's the Salt Lake Valley on the surface and it's the
16 Jordan Valley aquifer on the subsurface. Is that
17 where we're at?
18 MR. BAY: No.
19 MR. BELLCHECK: We're not there?
20 MR. BAY: This is probably a technical
21 point.
22 MR. BELLCHECK: Very important.
23 MR. BAY: Most hydrologists refer to Salt
24 Lake Valley, in speaking about hydrology or
25 groundwater systems as Jordan Valley, but it can be
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 41

1 Salt Lake Valley too.
2 MR. BELLCHECK: Can we change the document
3 so that it says Salt Lake Valley when it refers to the
4 Salt Lake Valley and when it refers to aquifer it
5 refers to the Jordan Valley aquifer?
6 MS. NIELSON: We'll take note of that and
7 the trustee will do that as we move forward and if the
8 agreements are --
9 MR. BELLCHECK: I would really appreciate
10 it just for clarification and communication purposes.
11 MR. DANZY: My name is Rod Danzy. I think
12 I know the one answer. Paula said that 98 million
13 pounds of sulfates had been removed from water in the
14 last year. I assume that went to the Kennecott
15 tailings ponds; is that right?
16 MS. DOUGHTY: Yes.
17 MR. DANZY: I've got three little points.
18 The next clarification question is with regards to the
19 national resource degradation trust fund. The words
20 you used, you keep changing them just a little bit.
21 You say the water is going to go back to the affected
22 area and you said the natural resource degradation
23 trust agreement required that it go back to the public
24 water purveyors and then in the next slide you said
25 municipalities and I believe that's something that
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 42

1 Kennecott and Jordan Valley have added since that
2 consent decree and I think that needs to be reviewed
3 again and you know the reasons why. But that's
4 something I noticed in the presentation today. It's
5 kind of weasel wording it just a little bit.
6 And then the other question that I had is
7 with regard to the --
8 MS. NIELSON: Do you want me to answer the
9 second question?
10 MR. DANZY: Yeah.
11 MS. NIELSON: It is not the intent of the
12 trustee to be changing the terms and I apologize if
13 I've created confusion in the process of doing that,
14 Mr. Danzy. The terms in the consent decree are the
15 terms that the trustee is responsible for applying to
16 a solution. So if you have particular questions or
17 concerns about them, I would suggest you take a look
18 at the consent decree because that's what I'm going to
19 look at when I measure this agreement and if you have
20 questions after that, we've talked about this, I'd be
21 happy to discuss it further with you.
22 MR. DANZY: The other question that came
23 to my mind is with regard to the trust consent
24 agreement that we're trying to fulfill. That's one of
25 the obligations of this proposal, to fulfill the
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 43

1 consent decree. But I hear various words saying we're
2 going to take care of some CERCLA, and I don't know
3 the exact terms, I read this, and EPA requirements.
4 So we're rolling all of those into one package there
5 to end this Kennecott pollution problem. It's not
6 just the consent decree, there's CERCLA requirements
7 and other EPA requirements. I think you're telling me
8 as trustee we're trying to meet the consent decree in
9 this project and then we're going to roll in CERCLA
10 and EPA requirements. I'm concerned whether we're
11 meeting all of those and I would like to make sure
12 that that's clarified as we go along. Would you
13 clarify that, the requirements we're trying to meet
14 that go beyond your responsibilities as trustee?
15 Thank you.
16 MS. NIELSON: Thank you. I'll try to do
17 this and if Eva thinks that I need to describe it
18 differently, if there's something I need to add, feel
19 free to let me know. Okay.
20 The consent decree includes requirements
21 which the natural resource trustee is going to be
22 implementing and it is those requirements that I'm
23 considering as I review the proposals that are out for
24 public comment regarding the treatment of the sulfate
25 contaminated groundwater and the production of that
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 44

1 water as municipal quality drinking water to be
2 provided to citizens in the affected area.
3 The consent decree also discusses some
4 responsibilities that are not specifically the
5 responsibilities of the trustee. That includes the
6 east side collection system, which Kennecott has
7 implemented, it includes --
8 MS. DOUGHTY: Just all the source
9 controls.
10 MS. NIELSON: -- the source control
11 measures that Kennecott has identified. It includes
12 the requirement for Kennecott to produce water at a
13 specific rate, or at least at that specific rate from
14 the acid plume, from that red zone in the core. Those
15 are not responsibilities of the trustee for natural
16 resource damage, but they are responsibilities that
17 have been included within the consent decree and that
18 are also part of what is called the record of decision
19 that was issued in December of 2001 -- 2002 Eva tells
20 me.
21 There are requirements in the record of
22 decision which was based on remedial investigation and
23 feasibility studies that include cleanup of the
24 Kennecott site and they go beyond the treatment of the
25 sulfate contaminated groundwater. Kennecott is
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 45

1 responsible for those, but the responsibility in that
2 case rests with the EPA and with the Department of
3 Environmental Quality in conjunction with EPA in
4 reviewing and ensuring that Kennecott meets those
5 requirements.
6 But those are principally our requirements
7 that come out of the consent decree and the record of
8 decision and the authorities that the US Environmental
9 Protection Agency has through a federal law called
10 CERCLA.
11 The reason that these two projects are
12 combined is because they both deal in large part with
13 groundwater quality and we realized in the early '90s
14 that if we were going to be effective in cleaning up
15 the groundwater in the most efficient and
16 cost-effective manner, we needed to be able to work
17 together and develop those remediation plans for the
18 federal law, CERCLA, and the remediation plans that
19 the trustee would look for to clean up the
20 groundwater. We needed to be able to move forward and
21 plan for those together because we were dealing with
22 the same groundwater aquifer.
23 So that's why some of these two
24 responsibilities, in a regulatory sense, are combined.
25 It's because of the nature of the contamination,
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 46

1 because there's some overlap. Normally in a CERCLA
2 cleanup what would happen is that you would go through
3 the US EPA requirements, the CERCLA requirements, and
4 you would implement those based on, again, the record
5 of decision and then at the end of the project you
6 would come back and determine whether the natural
7 resource damage concerns had been addressed and if
8 they had not, you would move forward with the natural
9 resource damage claim at that point.
10 That wouldn't have worked well in this
11 situation because we were dealing with the same
12 aquifer, with the same groundwater, with the same
13 contamination. So we attempted to deal with them at
14 the same time and make sure that the solutions that we
15 were implementing would not have an adverse impact on
16 the other requirements and that we could most
17 effectively and in the shortest period of time and
18 with the least total cost be able to solve the problem
19 of groundwater cleanup.
20 Any other clarifying questions? Eva, did
21 you want to provide a comment on that before we go to
22 questions?
23 MS. HOFFMAN: Dianne did a pretty good job
24 of explaining how all this works together, but the way
25 I like to put it is a matter of objectives. The EPA
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 47

1 was interested in getting the contaminated water out
2 of the ground, out of the aquifer before it could
3 spread any further. We were interested in removing it
4 and containing it so that it didn't contaminate more
5 of the valley.
6 Now, what happened to the water afterwards
7 was not so much of our concern, but this is where the
8 trustee, because the natural resource was damaged, and
9 they were interested in if some good should come of
10 the water that we withdraw, that then they stepped in
11 and said, hey, maybe we ought to be thinking about
12 this together, taking care of EPA's objectives, which
13 is just to get it out of the ground and to keep it
14 from spreading, to then actually being able to do
15 something to make it easier for the municipalities to
16 use the water afterwards. So it made logical sense to
17 combine forces to see if we could come up with one
18 plan that did both things.
19 So in some cases the spacing of these
20 wells was done for the purposes of the EPA, but the
21 treatment may be done for the trustee. So that's kind
22 of how it fits together. It's just two different
23 objectives we're trying to achieve and put the two
24 pieces together.
25 MS. NIELSON: Thank you, Eva.
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 48

1 MR. HINKLEY: Dave Hinkley, and we're one
2 of the few farmers left in the northwest quadrant of
3 this county and I'm wondering why the Jordan River was
4 chosen and what other alternatives were explored
5 before the Jordan water was chosen to be the site of
6 the garbage.
7 We've got garbage dumps all over the west
8 side, some of them being reclaimed, some of them being
9 built, and for this to be dumped just before the North
10 Point Canal water is drawn out and that canal water
11 irrigates approximately 8,000 acres and are we
12 spreading this or are we containing it? And that --
13 what other alternatives were explored? Thank you.
14 MR. BAY: Other alternatives considered
15 were pumping to Kennecott's tailings pipeline. That
16 was possible for the zone B deep groundwater, but not
17 for the lost use shallow groundwater because of
18 organics content. Discharged to the Great Salt Lake
19 was considered.
20 We considered that -- we came up with the
21 Jordan River in our evaluations because these ions
22 would arrive in the Jordan River in a distributed
23 fashion without this project through the natural flow
24 of the groundwater systems as the deep and shallow
25 groundwaters all drained to the Jordan River and also
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 49

1 because it could be done well within conservative
2 standards accepted for the Jordan River.
3 MR. HINKLEY: How does that change the
4 salt content of the Jordan River, it's content today,
5 which it flows a lot of salt anyway?
6 MR. BAY: Well, it concentrates at a
7 single point a discharge which otherwise would arrive
8 in the Jordan River in a distributed fashion as the
9 groundwater systems drain to the Jordan River.
10 MR. HINKLEY: Why 29th South instead of
11 below 21st South? Why not 20th South?
12 MR. BAY: Do you want me to go ahead and
13 answer these?
14 MS. NIELSON: Let me suggest this,
15 Richard. If you can provide a short answer now -- I
16 understand that this is an issue for which there are
17 questions and probably even beyond the questioning
18 you've asked. I would like to suggest that this might
19 be a better time to receive the public comments this
20 evening. Richard will be here after the hearing, as
21 will other members of the technical review committee,
22 and can talk with you further then and provide
23 answers, but I want to make sure, also, that we have
24 sufficient time for comment tonight. But I do want to
25 make sure we get an answer to your questions.
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 50

1 MR. HINKLEY: Thank you.
2 MR. BAY: Maybe just for sufficient flow
3 rate in the Jordan River.
4 MR. HINKLEY: See, that's before the North
5 Point Canal comes out of the Jordan River so you're
6 cutting that flow rate in half basically by going down
7 the serp and down the Jordan. So you want to spread
8 it down the serp and down the Jordan River.
9 MS. NIELSON: Let me suggest, just to make
10 sure we capture that fully, are you already signed up
11 for comment tonight?
12 MR. HINKLEY: No.
13 MS. NIELSON: Well, if you would like to,
14 remind me before we conclude the comment period
15 tonight. If you want to make those comments on the
16 record, I'll make sure we have an opportunity to fully
17 capture them with a microphone.
18 Are there any other clarifying questions
19 before we go forward?
20 MS. DEFRATIS: I'm Lynn Defratis, Friends
21 of Great Salt Lake and probably Richard or maybe even
22 John Cherry, you had made a statement about the
23 principal impacts of the deep water on the deep water
24 aquifer when you were talking about zone A and I was
25 wondering, you mentioned some models that Kennecott
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 51

1 has used to determine, I guess, drawdown over an
2 extended period of time. Richard, you made mention of
3 some increment of drawdown on the deep water aquifer.
4 What is some increment of drawdown, not having a
5 relative understanding of what kind of drawdown is
6 currently happening, and what kind of drawdown could
7 we expect to happen? What does that mean?
8 MR. CHERRY: Let me point to this map
9 here. This drawing that we have right here, this is
10 our drawdown map based on an odd flow model. It came
11 out of the USGS model. USGS looked at this. But what
12 this map represents is 45 years from now this shows
13 that the water level will be lower than where it is
14 today based on the current pumping that's going on
15 right now in the valley as well as the remediation
16 program.
17 So, for example, in the year 2047, as
18 shown down here at this line right here, we would
19 expect the aquifer to be 10 feet lower than it is
20 today, 45 years from now. So if you want to take the
21 time to look through this and I would be happy, after
22 we're done here, to answer any specific questions.
23 Also, this is a good map for people to look at. The
24 private well owners, if you have concerns about that,
25 look at where your well falls in relationship to this
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 52

1 and you should be able to see, at least according to
2 the model, what we would predict those levels to be at
3 in the future.
4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What's the year on
5 that model?
6 MR. CHERRY: This shows projections to
7 2047.
8 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What is the year
9 the model was created?
10 MR. CHERRY: It's based on this year.
11 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 2003?
12 MR. CHERRY: 2002-2003. 2002 data.
13 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 2002, thank you.
14 MS. NIELSON: Thank you, John.
15 Did you have a question, sir?
16 MR. HARTVIGSEN: David Hartvigsen. I have
17 a quick question about the water rights that are going
18 to be used. Richard indicated that the water rights,
19 or at least some, were coming from Kennecott and one
20 of the slides said that they were Jordan Valley's
21 water rights and I would just like to have that
22 clarified, where they are coming from, and I would
23 like to know if there is a listing of the water rights
24 that will be used in some of the documentation
25 somewhere.
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 53

1 MR. BAY: Yes. The project proposal
2 that's available on DEQ's Web site has a section
3 talking about the water rights and it lists those by
4 water right number. Generally, Kennecott will provide
5 all the water rights for the deep groundwater in zone
6 A, the 3,500 acre-feet. The District will provide all
7 of the water rights under municipal groundwater rights
8 in the deep principal aquifer for zone B and the
9 District will provide the water rights for lost use in
10 the shallow aquifer and those are made available
11 through some irrigation shares in the Utah and Salt
12 Lake canal company and through an improved change
13 application that the District holds.
14 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What were those
15 totals again? 3,500 zone A, 3,500 zone B, and how
16 much for lost.
17 MR. BAY: Between 1,235 and 2,300
18 acre-feet per year for lost use.
19 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 1,200 to 3,500.
20 MR. BAY: 1,200 to 2,300.
21 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay.
22 MS. NIELSON: Thank you, Richard.
23 I'm not seeing any other questions. I'd
24 like to suggest that --
25 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I have one
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 54

1 question. My question is, being that we pooled this
2 project into a lot of governing agencies, is there any
3 regulations that have been put in place to oversee and
4 to also notify all of the new growth that's happening
5 out in this area in zone A and zone B? It's an area
6 that is having a lot of commercial as well as
7 residential growth in it and as we talk about the
8 lands being contaminated and not wanting to spread
9 that, what type of protection is in place right now so
10 that this doesn't expand. In 40 years it all sounds
11 like it might be great, but in the real time right now
12 what's in place and what's happening so that this
13 doesn't progress anymore?
14 MS. NIELSON: Okay. Let me clarify that
15 the contamination we're talking about here is
16 contamination to the groundwater, to subsurface water.
17 There is not contamination on the surface of the land.
18 The water rights, I'm understanding from Richard's
19 discussion and depending on how water rights and what
20 water rights may go or, perhaps, don't go with new
21 development, but the water rights we're talking about
22 in terms of the extraction of the water in zone B are
23 basically Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District
24 rights and the rights in zone A are Kennecott water
25 rights.
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 55

1 Now, I don't know, John, whether it's easy
2 to bring up the map and basically talk about where
3 Kennecott's lands are. There's some portion of this
4 area that is not subject to the development. John,
5 can you define roughly what that is?
6 MR. CHERRY: Yeah. If we look at the map
7 here, this area that's hatched in here, this is all
8 Kennecott land and we control the development in those
9 areas. Project Sunrise -- or project Daybreak is down
10 here in this area and they're working with the
11 District specifically on water production issues down
12 there.
13 MS. NIELSON: Now, in the past there was
14 some contamination along Bingham Creek that I think
15 has been fully cleaned up, remediated at this point
16 and so there is no surface contamination remaining.
17 Jason in the back and then Tom. One
18 question and then we're going to go to Tom.
19 MR. GRONWOLD: My name is Jason Gronwold.
20 One question I have is what happens if during the
21 cleanup project, the groundwater, drinking water
22 standards change for the contaminants that you're
23 attempting to clean and then the second question I
24 have is for the long-term maintenance of the cleanup
25 project itself. Is it anticipated that there is a
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 56

1 point in time at which the cleanup will be done and no
2 longer will need to be maintained or is there a longer
3 term concern over whether or not the contaminants
4 would continue to leach and contaminate into the
5 aquifer?
6 MS. NIELSON: Okay. I'm going to take a
7 crack at the first one and let Paula or John do the
8 second.
9 Regarding the first proposal on production
10 and municipal quality water, that's defined based on
11 the drinking water standards right now. There are not
12 specific standards, tables of standards in the consent
13 decree. It is municipal quality drinking water. So
14 if the drinking water standards change, it will be the
15 responsibility of Kennecott and the District to
16 produce drinking water to meet that new standard. The
17 same goes for any discharge permits, the MPDS or UPDES
18 discharge permits. If the standard changes in terms
19 of discharge it will be the responsibility of
20 Kennecott or the District to be able to meet that
21 standard.
22 With regard to cleanup and the mechanisms
23 in place now to capture contamination off the
24 tailing --
25 MS. DOUGHTY: Okay. Was that what your
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 57

1 question was off our tailings impoundment or the
2 sources of the contamination that we're seeing?
3 MR. GRONWOLD: I guess I'm wondering if
4 those tailings will eventually filter into the aquifer
5 as well.
6 MS. DOUGHTY: The tailings that some of
7 this water is going to down to the north? No, there
8 is an artesian effect there at the tailings impound.
9 We've been depositing tailings in that area since the
10 turn of the last century and there are groundwater
11 permits that are regulated, there's a series of
12 monitoring that goes on around the perimeter of the
13 impoundment as well as all the waters that go to the
14 impoundment and that will continue long after
15 Kennecott operations exist.
16 But for purposes of the location up here,
17 all those sources have been removed. That's all the
18 source controls that were part of the cleanup.
19 MS. NIELSON: Tom, did you have a final
20 question?
21 MR. GRONWOLD: I'm ready to go to public
22 comment, but I thought there was a reasonable question
23 here about the surface contamination and there is some
24 surface contamination that's currently being moved.
25 It's approximately 2.2 million cubic yards. It's
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 58

1 important to state that, I suppose.
2 Now, the lady also asked the question is
3 there any oversight on the cleanup of the soil and I
4 suppose someone at DEQ is watching that carefully to
5 make sure the 2.2 million cubic yards aren't moved and
6 there is the groundwater.
7 Now, the question is, with regard to
8 oversight, is there oversight in the process as to
9 state unequivocally where the water goes once it gets
10 into the distribution system and I question if there
11 is any oversight because I read in the document --
12 which is hard to get through, but I'm working on it --
13 I see that there are two parties to be on the
14 oversight and part of the question would be a
15 clarifying question is why is there not a public -- a
16 member of the public on the oversight committee? It
17 would appear there is not.
18 MS. NIELSON: That was a lot more than one
19 question.
20 Regarding the regulatory responsibilities,
21 the Development of Environmental Quality and the EPA
22 have the responsibility. EPA because the US EPA is
23 the regulatory authority for CERCLA. Department of
24 Environmental Quality because we are the entity in the
25 state that has responsibility both for the Clean Water
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 59

1 Act in terms of surface impacts, but especially for
2 the state groundwater protection law.
3 MR. GRONWOLD: So are you saying it's the
4 US EPA then?
5 MS. NIELSON: No. It's the US EPA for the
6 CERCLA cleanup responsibility. They are the principal
7 entity responsible for all of the cleanup work
8 associated with CERCLA and DEQ works with them to make
9 sure that that work is constructed, oversighted and
10 monitored properly. But the groundwater contamination
11 is regulated under a law that is a state law. It is
12 not a federal law. That's the Utah Groundwater
13 Protection Act.
14 And so regarding the groundwater
15 contamination, it is the State of Utah and the
16 Department of Environmental Quality, division of water
17 quality that has the authority for the groundwater
18 cleanup and staff from that division that have
19 reviewed these documents would be responsible for the
20 monitoring and the assurance of the cleanup and the
21 other requirements as part of the plan, if it's
22 approved. They are also the division that's
23 responsible for the surface discharges under permit,
24 the UPDS or UPDS permits.
25 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So a clarifying
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 60

1 question to my clarifying question. The EPA is
2 supervising the 2.2 million cubic yards under CERCLA
3 or is it a private act? Who is supervising and who
4 makes sure that 2.2 million cubic yards of soil that
5 are contaminated with sulfate, arsenic and lead are
6 moved out of the area that the homes are going to be
7 built on top of the water?
8 MS. NIELSON: Eva?
9 MS. HOFFMAN: We did an initial cleanup,
10 supervised Kennecott'S initial cleanup back in 1994 of
11 this area that you're talking about and that was at
12 the time when Kennecott thought that the land would be
13 enough real land. Since then Kennecott has wanted to
14 change the land use and they have submitted to us a
15 different operation and maintenance plan and are
16 further cleaning up the area and this is done under an
17 operation and maintenance plan that has been submitted
18 and approved by EPA and is also, I believe, submitted
19 to DEQ as well. So your answer is that I guess I'm
20 responsible.
21 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I've got one more,
22 just a short clarifying question, I apologize. It
23 comes back to what Tom's been talking about and what
24 Eva's been talking about.
25 Paula made the statement that prior to
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 61

1 1977 there was no requirements on water being
2 discharged from mining operations, 1965 when they
3 built the reservoirs and 1936. I question that and
4 I'm concerned that if there aren't some regulatory
5 requirements, that we can revert back to that today.
6 In other words, the big reservoir leaked. I think in
7 1965 there were requirements, common sense if nothing
8 else, and I am concerned that we do need more
9 oversight with regard to that. In other words, DEQ
10 and the agencies were there but we do have a big plume
11 as a result of something happening and I'm concerned
12 about it.
13 MS. NIELSON: And then to clarify, the
14 environmental laws that we're talking about right now,
15 CERCLA, the Clean Water Act, Utah's Groundwater
16 Protection Program are all laws that are in place now
17 and to the best of my understanding, unless Don tells
18 me wrong, were not in place prior to 1977.
19 And I would like to just take a moment
20 before I open the hearing to introduce Don Ostler.
21 Don is the division director for the Division of Water
22 Quality for DEQ.
23 Okay. I want to take an opportunity at
24 this point to open the hearing and again to remind you
25 that what we will do -- what I will do is provide each
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 62

1 speaker up to five minutes to speak. I will interrupt
2 you when we get to five minutes so that everybody has
3 an opportunity to talk and if you want to say
4 something additionally, I'm going to ask you if you
5 would please be seated at that time and then at the
6 end of the list of individuals who have indicated they
7 would like to provide comments, I'll be happy to allow
8 you additional time to make further comments.
9 I realize that there may be some interests
10 with individuals providing some of their minutes and I
11 would ask that instead of doing that, that we please
12 respect the individuals who have signed up take up to
13 the five minutes right now and then I'll provide extra
14 time at the end if you have further comments that you
15 want to make.
16 Let me just read a statement here so we've
17 got the correct information right up front on the
18 beginning of the hearing.
19 I would like to call this hearing to order
20 on September 25, 2003. The hearing was advertised in
21 the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News on Tuesday,
22 September 2, 2003, and Sunday, September 7, 2003.
23 Since this is a public hearing we will have with us a
24 court reporter from Depomax to transcribe this
25 proceeding. The transcript from this hearing, once
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 63

1 prepared, will be available for review at the
2 Department of Environmental Equally located at 168
3 North 1950 West in Salt Lake City. That's the
4 location where you are here. Those wishing to review
5 the transcript are welcome to contact the DEQ records
6 coordinator at [phone] to arrange a time to
7 review the document. A copy of the transcript will
8 also be placed in the information repository located
9 in the West Jordan City recorder's office at 8000
10 South Redwood Road in West Jordan and the transcript
11 will also be made available on the DEQ Web site www
12 dot DEQ dot Utah dot gov by a link under the header
13 issues to watch.
14 The comments raised today will not be
15 addressed directly today as you proceed with public
16 comment. As state trustee I will address these
17 comments at the end of the comment period, provide a
18 comment response document which will also be posted on
19 the DEQ Web site and hard copies will be available at
20 the Utah Department of Environmental Quality and at
21 the West Jordan City recorder's office. This document
22 will be drafted at the end of the public comment
23 period and will provide the response from the trustee
24 to the official comments that I receive during these
25 public hearings by e-mail, by fax and in written
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 64

1 correspondence by midnight on November 1st of 2003.
2 I would like to begin this hearing first
3 by asking if there are elected officials in the
4 audience who would like an opportunity to speak and
5 provide them a first opportunity. First, are there
6 any local elected officials, any state elected
7 officials? Or any federal elected officials? Okay.
8 Seeing none, I'm going to proceed now on the comment
9 request record in the order that people signed in and
10 if I incorrectly pronounce your name it's because my
11 eyes aren't reading your signature as you intended and
12 so please don't hesitate to correct me.
13 I think the first individual is GM -- is
14 it Ziter.
15 MR. ZOLER: Zoler.
16 MS. NIELSON: Mr. Zoler.
17 MR. ZOLER: And I've already sang my song,
18 so I guess I'll waive.
19 MS. NIELSON: Okay. Is there anything
20 further that you would like to share with us?
21 MR. ZOLER: No, I pretty well said it in
22 that earlier comment.
23 MS. NIELSON: We'll go on to the next
24 individual then. And let me just ask as you come up
25 if you would speak from the podium and make sure that
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 65

1 the microphone is kind of close so that we can totally
2 hear your comments in the back of the room because
3 sometimes the acoustics in here are a little bit
4 difficult.
5 The second person I think is Lynn Jensen.
6 MR. JENSEN: We can't move the podium over
7 here, can we?
8 MS. NIELSON: I can give you this and I'll
9 let you speak right into that if that would make it
10 easier.
11 MR. JENSEN: My name is Lynn Jensen. I'm
12 the lower Jordan River water commissioner.
13 MS. NIELSON: Excuse me, Mr. Jensen. You
14 need to hold that by your mouth so the recorder can
15 fully hear you.
16 MR. JENSEN: My name is Lynn Jensen. I'm
17 the lower Jordan River water commissioner. I take
18 care of the water from 21st South down into the great
19 Salt Lake through all the Dutch bluffs to Farmington
20 Bay and to the water users, irrigators and everybody
21 that uses the water. My job is to see that the water
22 gets distributed and it's our job when there isn't
23 hardly any water like when the drought's down, to see
24 there's plenty of water.
25 I would like to ask just one question here
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 66

H19

1 before you continue and I would like to talk to the
2 young lady from Kennecott. You take water into
3 Kennecott from 90th South in the Jordan River. It's
4 the north Jordan canal; is that true?
5 MS. DOUGHTY: I'm not exactly sure.
6 MS. NIELSON: I think you're going to have
7 to ask the question and if you're going to respond we
8 need to put you on the microphone.
9 MS. DOUGHTY: Okay.
10 MR. JENSEN: You don't know if that's
11 right or not?
12 MS. DOUGHTY: From 90th south and the
13 Jordan River, I believe that's true.
14 MR. JENSEN: It's the north Jordan and it
15 gravity feeds to Kennecott and they use the water at
16 Kennecott, right?
17 MS. DOUGHTY: Yes.
18 MR. JENSEN: This gentleman said they have
19 to lift water 1,200 feet to get to Kennecott. The
20 tailings aren't that high from ground zero out there,
21 is it? Anyway, that was the question.
22 I'm all for this project. The only thing
23 I don't like is putting it in the lower Jordan. No
24 matter how you look at it, you're adding salt. If it
25 goes out, if you flush it down the river with a big
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 67

H19-1 If the reverse osmosis
concentrate were pumped from the
Zone B treatment plant uphill to the
west to Kennecott’s tailings pipeline
near the Oquirrh Mountains, JVVCD
has indicated that the pump lift would
be 1,000 to 1,200 feet. See discussion
in the text of this public meeting, page
40 of this transcript. If a concentrate
pipeline is routed north from the Zone
B treatment plant and west to the North
Tailings Impoundment, at the north end
of the valley, the pump lift is much less.

H19-2 See the Response to Common
Comment No. 8.

H19-1

H19-2

1 storm that's fine, but in these wetlands you can't
2 flush them. It's serious. Just like Morton Salt,
3 they put the water in, it evaporates and leaves the
4 salt and then they harvest it. That's what we've got
5 in these wetlands. You can't get rid of it. You
6 can't flush it. There ain't enough water to flush it.
7 If you flushed it from one headgate across and link
8 together it would just cut a channel, which it does,
9 and leaves all the rest of the area undisturbed. Over
10 40 years you're talking, my gosh, you ain't going to
11 have any wetlands out there.
12 I guess it looks like everything is in
13 cement here, already put in cement and you can't
14 change it. But I had a lot of questions, but five
15 minutes, I guess my time is about up. Thank you.
16 MS. NIELSON: I know we said that I wasn't
17 going to provide comment, but let me just simply
18 provide a clarification. Everything is not cast in
19 cement. The reason that we're holding a public
20 comment hearing is so that I can receive your comments
21 and your recommendations, understand what the concerns
22 are and what the opinions are so that I can make a
23 final decision and it is possible and within the
24 authority of the trustee to accept the entire
25 proposal, to ask for revisions and changes to it based
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 68

1 on comment. This is not a hearing on the decision
2 that has already been made and I very much appreciate
3 your comments. Thank you.
4 The next name I think is -- it looks like
5 maybe JW -- is it Athen?
6 MR. ATHENS: Athens, excuse me. I think
7 anybody can hear me.
8 MS. NIELSON: The problem is the recorder
9 can't and she's the most important person that needs
10 to hear you because she's going to capture your
11 comments.
12 MR. ATHENS: My name is Jack Athens and
13 I'm president of one of the 10 or 12 duck clubs around
14 the south end of the Salt Lake and our major concern
15 is what happens to the stuff that comes out of this
16 treatment plant. It seems to me it -- as has already
17 been mentioned, that saying you have to elevate the
18 effluent 1,200 feet to get to the tailing ponds just
19 doesn't make sense. But be that as it may, our major
20 concern is the long-term effects of salts, heavy
21 metals, whatnot that will be deposited in the marshes
22 of the Great Salt Lake.
23 I'm on very shaky ground here, but my
24 recollection is that the salt in the sea has had this
25 problem over many years. They have selenium
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 69

H20-1 See the response to H19-1,
page 67 of this transcript.

H20-2 High salinity, not selenium
concentrations, limits the aquatic life
in the Great Salt Lake to brine shrimp.
The wetlands of the Great Salt Lake
host a variety of waterfowl. Utah has
established a selenium standard for
fresh water rivers and lakes in the
state. The Division of Water Quality

H20

H20-1

H20-2

1 approaching terribly toxic levels and wildlife can't
2 exist there anymore.
3 In addition, I would like to compliment
4 the various speakers on the quality of their
5 presentations. They've been informative and
6 enlightening and brief. Thanks.
7 MS. NIELSON: Thank you very much.
8 Lynn Defratis and she will be followed by
9 I think Wayne Lantz.
10 MS. DEFRATIS: Thank you. My name is Lynn
11 Defratis. I'm the president of Friends of Great Salt
12 Lake. Friends is a nonprofit organization that works
13 on behalf of the preservation and protection of the
14 Great Salt Lake ecosystem through education, research
15 and advocacy.
16 I would like to thank the Department of
17 Environmental Quality for extending the commenting
18 deadline to November 1st on an extremely complex issue
19 and one that is very, very important as evidenced by
20 the turnout here today.
21 From a Friends of Great Salt Lake
22 perspective, we certainly try to be mindful of the
23 fact that Great Salt Lake is a terminal lake. It is
24 the recipient of everything that comes downstream and
25 although there are ongoing studies about the chemistry
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 70

and the recently established Great
Salt Lake Water Quality Standards
Steering Committee are working to
establish a numeric selenium
standard for the Great Salt Lake.
See also the Response to Common
Comment No. 9.

H21

1 of the lake and the physics of the lake, the depth of
2 the field of research about the lake is still quite
3 shallow, if you will.
4 Our concern from a watershed perspective
5 with that relationship of Great Salt Lake receiving
6 everything is the fact that as we look at this
7 project, and specifically with the zone B plant and I
8 guess the selection because of cost to send the
9 contaminants into the Jordan River, it's disappointing
10 that given the fact that we are able to do so many
11 incredible things technologically, that for some
12 reason our shortsightedness in this instance is
13 embarrassing and I would like to encourage or
14 emphasize to the Department that I believe a provision
15 or a revision for the project to more strongly
16 consider channeling the contaminants from zone B back
17 into ultimately the tailings repository is a much more
18 prudent long-term decision, I believe.
19 Again, I want to thank you for extending
20 the comment period and thank you for this opportunity
21 to speak.
22 MS. NIELSON: Thank you very much.
23 Mr. Lantz.
24 MR. LANTZ: My name is Wayne Lantz,
25 L-a-n-t-z. I'm representing LANCE Consulting Group,
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 71

H21-1 As indicated in the Response to
Common Comment No. 8, the plan to
discharge reverse osmosis (RO)
concentrates to the Jordan River has been
withdrawn. Discharge of (RO)
concentrates from the Zone B aquifer to
the tailings impoundment is a prudent
long term decision. As noted in
Response to Common Comment No. 7,
concentrates from any RO treatment of
the shallow aquifer cannot be deposited
in the tailings impoundment.

H21-1

H22

1 LC, and that's spelled L-A-N-C-E.
2 I want to address a couple of things and
3 the first thing I would like to address is the
4 irrevocable letter of credit, or the ILC as it's
5 called. I have some concerns on that. In the consent
6 decree it says it was originally in 1995 at
7 28 million, now up to 48 million, and my concern is
8 that we're breaking that ILC into two separate ILCs
9 and we're changing the terms of consent decree, one,
10 by creating two ILCs and the one is we're changing how
11 we're getting paid the interest on that ILC. If we
12 take a look at it -- and the other thing is the time.
13 It's 30 days. As soon as this thing is signed, within
14 30 days we've got two separate ILCs.
15 One of the things that concerns me is,
16 according to the agreement, that's the agreement among
17 the trustee for natural resource for the State of
18 Utah, Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District and
19 Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation, and that is we're
20 going from an agreement that requires Kennecott to
21 pay -- or the ILC to accrue interest at seven percent
22 to go to a fund, the PTIF fund, which is the Public
23 Treasurers Investment Fund, which right now is giving
24 one point -- let's see, what it is -- 1.5 percent
25 annually. It doesn't make sense to me.
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 72

H22-1 See the Response to Common
Comment No. 12 regarding the requirements
of the Consent Decree with respect to the
Trust Fund. In accordance with the Consent
Decree, Kennecott can convert the ILC to
cash, creating a cash trust fund without any
required interest rate. The Consent Decree
does not prohibit the establishment of the
two Irrevocable Letters of Credit (ILCs).
Nor does the Consent Decree prohibit
establishment of the proposed interest rate
for the ILCs.

H22-1

1 Let me read a letter from the Utah State
2 Treasurer, Ed Alter, and it's the Utah Public
3 Treasurers Investment Fund quarterly update dated June
4 30, 2003. It says, "The fed lowered the fed funds
5 target an additional 25 basis points to one percent on
6 June 25, 2003. The June PTIF does not fully reflect
7 this change in rate but as portfolio turnover and
8 prices in the next 90 days, we will see the impact of
9 lower interest rates on the rate paid by the PTIF. We
10 do not anticipate an upward movement of interest rates
11 in the future."
12 So basically we're taking a seven-percent
13 yield, which I think if you have an investment seven
14 percent is a pretty good, safe return, and we're
15 taking it down to one percent. I don't understand
16 that. Even if we take a look at it and say, well, it
17 could improve, we would have to go back over 10 years
18 because this is going to be an average based from June
19 to July or July to June of the previous year, we have
20 to go back 10 years even to get to the rates we're
21 getting right now and that's in the public report. So
22 like I said, that does not make sense. Seven percent
23 sounds pretty good.
24 So if we did that, based on the last
25 year's yield, we would be getting 1.9 percent on that
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 73

H22-2 The 7% interest rate has been an
important tool , increasing the value of the
trust and our ability to cleanup the
groundwater. The Trust was well designed to
meet these needs. Now it is time to put the
money to work. Now the measure is not the
interest rate but the rate of cleanup. The
money and the interest and the additional
money commited for the Joint Prosposal needs
to be put to work to clean the aquifer and
provide municipal-quality drinking water.

The Replacement ILC's do contain a 10% cap.
The 3-Party Agreement has been modified to
provide that if the interest rate goes above
10% and the Bank does not adjust the full
increase, Kennecott shall obtain additional
ILC's or provide cash for the difference. See
paragraph II.B. of the 3-Party Agreement.

H22-2

1 irrevocable letter of credit. That may not make any
2 difference anyway. According to the agreement that's
3 proposed, it can't go over 10 percent in the
4 irrevocable letter of credit, the IRC can't be
5 increased more than 10 percent in a year. So even
6 with the Public Treasurers Investment Fund, even if it
7 went up to 12 it wouldn't make any difference, we'd
8 still be stuck at 10.
9 One thing that does make -- or concerns me
10 a little bit also is the cost overruns on any of these
11 projects would be borne by Jordan Valley Water
12 Conservancy District or, in essence, it would be borne
13 by the people who receive the water from Jordan
14 Valley, from Jordan Valley water and because they
15 can't go back, according to this agreement, to the
16 trust fund to get any more money.
17 So by separating these two ILCs for zone A
18 for Kennecott, zone B for Jordan Valley, rather than
19 keeping them together, because in the document it says
20 that the trustee can commingle the funds for
21 investment purposes as long as they keep track of it,
22 why would you want to separate it when you can keep
23 track of it anyway at a higher rate and anticipate or
24 if you have a cost overrun not be able to gather it
25 because Kennecott has used up their portion or,
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 74

H22-3 The amount of money in the trust fund
is fixed by the Consent Decree. JVWCD has
performed engineering studies to provide a
reasonable level of confidence in the cost
estimates. The remaining risk of price
variability resulting from bidding conditions
lies within the normal range of risk that
JVWCD incurs in any infrastructure or water
supply project. See also the Response to
Common Comment No. 12.

H22-3

1 according to the agreement, as long as they provide
2 the water, there's $48 million which we really don't
3 have to spend, plus interest, because it can be
4 radically reduced as long as they can provide the
5 water.
6 So essentially Kennecott is getting off by
7 paying $9 million cash to construct this and as long
8 as they give us water, that's it, and it affects a lot
9 of water right owners and it's just not fair. I don't
10 think Kennecott should get a reduction in anything.
11 They're the one that caused the contamination and the
12 pollution and they should not receive any reduction on
13 the ILC. In fact, it should be called due and the
14 $48 million put in there and be used for what needs to
15 be done and possibly given to Jordan Valley, a
16 reduction to Jordan Valley water users in their rates
17 and not by increasing the rates.
18 MS. NIELSON: Mr. Lantz, could you bring
19 your comments to a conclusion?
20 MR. LANTZ: I'm doing that right now.
21 Thank you.
22 So anyway, they shouldn't be able to get
23 any of that money back because they're the ones that
24 caused the contamination in the first place.
25 The only other thing that I see, that the
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 75

H22-4 See the Response to Common
Comment No. 12.

H22-4

1 trustee is going to keep the interest for oversight,
2 which is in the agreement also, management oversight,
3 and I'm assuming that would go to the State, not the
4 trustee personally, although she would probably like
5 it, it would go to the State. So the interest isn't
6 even being used for the construction project.
7 The only other thing I would suggest, I
8 mean, I've looked through all of the documents and
9 there's a bunch and we've tried to notify the people
10 that were affected in the area and we had a meeting
11 last night and these are all the records that I got
12 back from people who couldn't be delivered to and I
13 used the water rights division's database to mail
14 these out and this is what I got and so I would ask
15 that the time be extended an additional 30 days beyond
16 the November 1st date and, in addition, provide
17 another public hearing, not just two informational
18 hearings. Thank you.
19 MS. NIELSON: Thank you very much,
20 Mr. Lantz, and let me please clarify for the record
21 that none of the money goes to the trustee personally
22 and the trustee is responsible and an appointment by
23 the State of Utah and the money is used on the project
24 and a small portion of it to pay for the State
25 employee staff to help with monitoring the program.
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 76
H22-5 The funding does not go to the Trustee
personally. The Trustee is an appointed position
working for the State of Utah. As indicated in the
Consent Decree and the 3-Party Agreement
implementing the Joint Proposal, the funding is
provided to enable the Department of
Environmental Quality to conduct oversight of the
operations and maintenance of the project.

H22-6 See the Response to Common Comment
No. 1.
H22-5

H22-6

1 The next speaker is David Hartvigsen to be
2 followed by Debbie Garner.
3 MR. HARTVIGSEN: I'm David Hartvigsen of
4 the law firm of Smith Hartvigsen representing the Salt
5 Lake Suburban Sanitary District Number one. The
6 District is part owner of the central valley water
7 treatment plant. We appreciate the opportunity to
8 make comments and to learn more about the project.
9 The main concern that we would like to
10 express here is that the UPDES permit that was
11 discussed appears to be based on the flows in the
12 Jordan River as they stand now, but there is a very
13 real possibility that much of the flows not only from
14 the central valley treatment plant but the south
15 valley treatment plant upstream won't be available to
16 help dilute some of this brine water.
17 The reuse laws in Utah are such that those
18 water discharges could be terminated -- discharges
19 into the Jordan River could be terminated at any time
20 pursuant to the reuse statute and other rights and we
21 think that that ought to be factored into the process
22 and appropriate adjustments made as necessary. Thank
23 you.
24 MS. NIELSON: Thank you very much. Debbie
25 Garner to be followed by Bruce -- I think it's Wadell.
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 77

H23-1 As noted in the Response to
Common Comment No. 8, there will be
no discharge of Reverse Osmosis
concentrates to the Jordan River under
the revised proposal.

H23

H23-1

1 MS. GARNER: Thank you for this time and I
2 do want to say that I do appreciate the project. Our
3 well was contaminated in 1986, so I think 17 years,
4 it's about time it happens. I am -- to say appalled
5 is not really adequate, first of all, that my funds in
6 paying a water bill that when I moved to the area was
7 not even part of our financial plan, to have that
8 resell of a water bill in acreage be the payment used
9 to help Kennecott clean up their failures I think is
10 very appalling and I'm very against that.
11 One thing that I haven't heard addressed
12 in these hearings, and it's the first one I've been
13 to, is of any of these funds that have been set aside
14 to take care of this project, I've yet to hear that
15 any of these funds are going to be delivered to any of
16 us that have had substantial losses due to the asset
17 that we lost in our homes, the complete tearing out of
18 basements, the restructure of foundations that had to
19 be taken care of, the loss of use of a well and the
20 loss of possibly a farmer who may have contamination
21 down the road.
22 I have yet to hear any type of
23 compensation that will come to us and I really feel it
24 is owed to us. Many of us couldn't afford the things
25 that needed to be done. It rendered our properties
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 78

H24-1 See the Response to Common Comment
No. 3.

H24-2 See the Response to Common Comment
No. 12 for information on how the Joint Proposal
is being funded.

H24-3 Several residents in Riverton commented
on basement flooding that occurred along 11800
South in the early 1980’s allegedly due to leakage
from Kennecott’s evaporation ponds. The State
has obtained a report written by the Utah
Geological Survey, dated April 1985, that
investigated the source of shallow groundwater
that flooded the basements of homes along 11800
South in South Jordan and Riverton. The report
notes that precipitation during 1983 and 1984 was
nearly double the ten-year average. This resulted
in increased stream flow, both in terms of quantity
and duration, and an increase in water levels in
lakes, ponds, and water-retention structures.
Infiltration of this excess surface water caused a
rise in the water table in the shallow, unconfined
aquifer. Reports of basement flooding and septic
tank failures from high groundwater increased
throughout northern Utah during this wet cycle.
The report concludes, “Direct precipitation,
stream flow, unlined canals, flood irrigation, septic
tank absorption fields, and upward leakage from
the deep unconfined aquifer all probably supply
water to the shallow unconfined
aquifer”…resulting in the flooded basements.
Although it is noted that it is possible that leakage
from Kennecott evaporation ponds contributed, no
direct evidence was found during the study.
H24
H24-1

H24-2

H24-3

1 pretty much useless in the fact that we had basements
2 and couldn't develop them, couldn't resell -- and I
3 would like that addressed by the trustee too.
4 I think Kennecott has a great obligation
5 to us. In meetings that we held with Kennecott back
6 in 1986 we were pretty arrogantly treated. One
7 suggestion from Kennecott personnel was that we should
8 build a slide and have an indoor pool. Another one
9 told us that they retain a lawyer full time and they
10 would outlive and outdo us, so knock ourselves out,
11 and I would like to see some compensation happen
12 because of that.
13 There are many of us that went without and
14 did without for a long time because of this damage,
15 not to mention all of our landscaping that we've
16 redone over the years by the contamination of the
17 water into our grounds.
18 MS. NIELSON: Thank you. Bruce Wadell
19 followed by I think Mr. Bowles.
20 MR. WADELL: Thank you. I'm with the US
21 Fish and Wildlife Service and I work on environmental
22 contamination issues. What I have pretty much here is
23 a very short prepared statement and we will be
24 providing written statements at the end of comment
25 period after we were able to get responses back on our
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 79

The Trustee’s responsibility under the
Consent Decree is to restore, replace, or
acquire the equivalent of the resource
(groundwater) for the benefit of the
public in the Affected Area. The Joint
Proposal does this by providing
municipal-quality drinking water to the
public. However, the Consent Decree
does not resolve individual claims and
does not enable the Trustee to address
those claims. Those authorities remain
with the individual well or property
owner. For additional information, see
the Response to Common Comment
No. 10.

H25

1 comments from the first discharge permit comment
2 period and then as we learned more about the project
3 and things.
4 The Service certainly supports cleaning up
5 the groundwater. We think that it's great to recover
6 the beneficial uses there. One of the attendees, I
7 think he's left, over here, asked about what are the
8 other alternatives that were considered as far as the
9 Jordan River being the terminus, so to speak, for the
10 salts and the other contaminants and I suspect there's
11 more in the audience that would like to hear the
12 answer to that than just that one individual. So I
13 hope that can be distributed somehow.
14 The Service understands that a discharge
15 permit has been issued and the Service also believes
16 that cleanup should not result in damage to other
17 additional uses. Wetlands, additional uses
18 surrounding the Great Salt Lake are protected with
19 numeric criteria under class 3(d) of the state water
20 quality standards. The Service, in preparing comments
21 on your discharge permit, evaluated the pathway of
22 this water at various locations through the surplus
23 canal to where water would flow into Farmington Bay.
24 Based on water conductivity readings, it appeared that
25 the amount of salt in the water became up to two to
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 80

H25-1 See the Response to Common Comment
No. 3.

H25-2 There is no discharge of reverse osmosis
treatment concentrates to the Jordan River uder the
revised proposal. See the Response to Common
Comment No. 6 regarding additional options
provided in the Joint Proposal.

H25-3 Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District
has withdrawn the discharge permit. See the
Response to Common Comment No. 8 for
additional information.

H25-1

H25-2

H25-3

1 two and a half times more concentrated as the water
2 traveled down gradient through the wetlands. So I
3 guess the issue on that one is where is the
4 appropriate place to be measuring the water quality of
5 the project, at the pipe or where other additional
6 uses might be impacted by it?
7 I think the issue on that primarily is
8 that it appears that through the conservatives we've
9 heard this evening, use of the standards, it looks
10 like the water quality will be very close to what the
11 water quality standards are and there's very little
12 room for mistake in that.
13 Let me get back to my prepared comments
14 here. So unless monitoring of the affected wetlands
15 or the likely affected wetlands and wildlife is
16 performed, we may never have these adverse impacts
17 documented or discovered. The Service believes that
18 there has been inadequate evaluation and consideration
19 of the current wetland conditions as it occurred in
20 the discharge permit.
21 The Service, myself, we do not want to
22 overstate what the potential problems are, but we
23 don't wish to understate what the potential problems
24 are either. The Service believes that implementing
25 this part of the proposed project could impair the
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 81

H25-4 Water quality discharge permit limits
are measured at the point of discharge but are
established in order to maintain water quality
beyond the point of discharge. In this case,
there will be no discharge of treatment
concentrates to the Jordan River, as indicated
in the Response to Common Comment No. 8.
DEQ Division of Water Quality is initiating
studies to establish a numeric selenium
standard for the Great Salt Lake, as described
in Response to Common Comment No. 9, an
focused on the health of the Great Salt Lake
ecosystem.

H25-4

1 wetland and the wildlife productivity in the future.
2 So to address the question that has also
3 been brought up here recently on another subject, it's
4 concerning the future scenarioss of the valley, once
5 the proposed project is approved and built, the
6 ability to deal with adverse changes in flows, which
7 was just mentioned, and contaminated levels in the
8 Jordan River seem improbable.
9 Adequate contingency planning for the
10 future would seem to be prudent, especially
11 considering that increase in population growth,
12 vehicle usage, industrial development and other
13 similar changes will likely have a negative impact on
14 future water quality and quantity in the Jordan River
15 for downstream wetlands.
16 MS. NIELSON: Thank you very much.
17 Mr. Bowles -- or, I'm sorry, Ms. Bowles to
18 be followed by Mr. Callister.
19 MR. BOWLES: My name is Khyva Bowles, and
20 spelling's K-h-y-v-a, last name, B-o-w-l-e-s. We live
21 at 3846 West 11800 South.
22 In 1986 Kennecott put in their evaporation
23 ponds on 118th just above 4800 West -- or 40th west.
24 A month after they were put in and water was put in
25 those ponds we had groundwater coming up in our
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 82

H26-1 Please refer to the response
to comment H24-3 provided in this
hearing document.

H26

H26-1

1 basements. It didn't just run in. It's a purged
2 area, it shot up the walls and so we had to spend over
3 $3,000 putting in a sump pump in the basement -- or
4 outside of the basement. We cut around and put a
5 drain line in to have it outside. We had dug 14 feet
6 down to get below the house. It still didn't stop it.
7 It ruined our well. Down through the years our well
8 progressively got worse, but at this time it was
9 terrible. We were sick. We would wash our clothes
10 and it would leach out color out of the clothes. When
11 I showered I was covered with a solid rash.
12 We contacted the Board of Health. They
13 came and had Kennecott put in bottled water. But at
14 the meeting it was our problem, with Kennecott, not
15 theirs. But the Board of Health made them bring in
16 bottled water. Then they put in the culinary water
17 and surprisingly when I showered I did not have a rash
18 any longer.
19 We had -- in 1996 the sulfates were still
20 844 MDLs. They had an advisory group and Kenneth
21 Alcama was head of the environmental health, Dr. Harry
22 Gibbons was Salt Lake County Health Department and
23 Robert Malone was environmental coordinator. Now,
24 Kennecott brought a hydrologist in from Texas to tell
25 us that we were nuts, that this was our problem, but
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 83

1 it was a month after they put in their settling --
2 their evaporation pond this happened. When they
3 cleaned it up it quit. They realized the old pond
4 leaked, which we told them from the beginning their
5 pond was leaking, but they finally decided, but they
6 didn't tell us that, I got if it from the advisory
7 counsel that they had to discontinue that and
8 construct new ones. So be careful on your evaporation
9 ponds, they line it with clay and it will leak. Thank
10 you.
11 MS. NIELSON: Thank you very much.
12 Edward Callister to be followed by Tom
13 Bellcheck.
14 MR. CALLISTER: I appreciate the
15 opportunity to speak here. I'm actually grateful that
16 responsibility is taken to clean up, although I don't
17 want to kill a dead horse and there's been a lot of
18 discussion about where that cleanup should go.
19 I live next to -- or at the time lived
20 next to the Bowleses. We shared the same well. My
21 family drank that water, our animals drank that water
22 and our yards were watered by that water. I don't
23 want to beat a dead horse again, but we did try to do
24 some discussion with the Kennecott group and it
25 appeared that it was a Band-Aid effect to me where
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 84

H27-1 Please refer to the response to
comment H24-3 provided in this hearing
document.

H27

H27-1

1 they were just trying to patch something over. We
2 were trying to get a lot of different things,
3 measurements of water from one area to the other. I
4 personally too had to do the same thing, I had to
5 chisel out my basement, I put in a sump pump. That
6 didn't take it. I vacuumed about 300 gallons of water
7 a day out of my basement. We live in an area where we
8 have septic. My septic tank got filled up, it backed
9 up into my basement. That's a health issue, I
10 believe, and I believe that I was a recipient of
11 something that shouldn't have been there and should
12 have been taken care of. So that's all I have to say.
13 MS. NIELSON: Thank you very much.
14 Tom Bellcheck to be followed by RW
15 Doughty.
16 MR. BELLCHECK: I'm Tom Bellcheck. I have
17 a procedural question, if it would be okay?
18 MS. NIELSON: Uh-huh.
19 MR. BELLCHECK: I represent as a tribune
20 quite a few people and I have their comment cards
21 here. In terms of procedure, how would you like to
22 handle it?
23 MS. NIELSON: Let me suggest that you use
24 this five-minute period to provide those, if you want
25 to read them into the record, and then if you don't
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 85

H28

1 get through them, we could provide additional time
2 after everyone else has spoken. If you want to just
3 provide them to us in writing, we can accept them as
4 written comment and will include them in the record.
5 MR. BELLCHECK: I would like to read them
6 into the record.
7 MS. NIELSON: Okay. Well, why don't you
8 do five minutes and then we can --
9 MR. BELLCHECK: If I get a chance, I have
10 my own personal comment.
11 MS. NIELSON: Okay.
12 MR. BELLCHECK: Larry Brown, Riverton,
13 Utah; Bill R. Colter, Riverton, Utah; Paul
14 Butterfield, Riverton, Utah; Clide Woods, South
15 Jordan, Utah; LaRue Woods, South Jordan, Utah;
16 Catherine Crowton, Riverton, Utah; Jay Butterfield,
17 Riverton, Utah are all concerned about quality and
18 quantity of water.
19 Merrill Coombs has water shares, and Will
20 B. Jacob, he would be very happy to have the quality
21 of Deer Creek water all the time. He would like to
22 have Deer Creek water all the time.
23 Duane and Afton Richardson: We use our
24 well as our primary source of water for our home and
25 our daughter's home next door. We do not have other
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 86

H28-1 Kennecott and Jordan Valley
Water Conservancy District have
established procedures for responding
to individual well owners concerns
regarding the quantity and quality of
the water, as discussed in the
Response to Common Comment No.
10.

H28-1

1 access to water. West Jordan.
2 George Shawl lives in Erda. We have a
3 well in Erda. How soon will we be faced with the same
4 thing?
5 Clark and Khyva Bowles: Has quite a bit
6 of experience. You just heard from Mrs. Bowles.
7 Jay Mack Yates in South Jordan says do
8 what is needed to protect our well rights.
9 Dave Schmidt says, we must have
10 representation in these negotiations among the parties
11 to the consent decree. We are water right owners.
12 Howard Schmidt says thanks.
13 Susan Frampton said she our
14 postcard.
15 Michael Hawk says, we do have rights. How
16 may we enforce these rights because why should it
17 matter how long you have owned the well. I want to be
18 a part of this, but work schedule interferes with the
19 ability to attend any meetings.
20 Nathan Coombs: The State of Utah is in
21 the business of theft and deceit.
22 Loretta Wilcox: Let's give them what for.
23 Let's see if some of these people will come to our
24 homes and talk to us. Ask about resentment from
25 neighbors.
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 87

H28-2 The Trustee is not aware of
similar contamination in the Erda area of
Tooele County.

H28-3 The Consent Decree, which was
established in 1995, addressed natural
resources damage (groundwater
contamination) but did not settle any
third-part (individual well owner) issues.
Nor did it give the Trustee the authority
to resolve individual claims. Kennecott
and Jordan Valley Water Conservancy
District have established procedures for
responding to individual well owners
concerns regarding the quantity and
quality of the water. Also see the
Response to Common Comment No. 10.

H28-2

H28-3

1 Dion Bateman is concerned about quality
2 and quantity.
3 Richard Nielson from South Jordan: Will
4 pumping water out of the 14 wells cause further
5 distribution of the more highly contaminated water?
6 Does the first in time first in right apply to the 14
7 wells to be developed by Jordan Valley? If the wells
8 deplete older wells, shouldn't they have to shut the
9 newer wells down?
10 Mrs. Nielson, they both -- well, South
11 Jordan. Does South Jordan City have any interest in
12 trying to protect the individual rights of the
13 property owners?
14 The answer to that is no. I'll answer
15 that.
16 How do you envision these 14 shallow wells
17 proposal affecting the existing deeper wells.
18 Otto Jones has a great request. This one
19 makes a lot of sense. I represent a group called TNT
20 which stands for True Neighbor Tribune and Otto makes
21 a comment saying, we would like the state to provide
22 TNT -- we would like the state trustee to provide a
23 list of all underground water rights located in the
24 unconsolidated alluvial fill in the Salt Lake Valley.
25 Is that possible?
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 88

H28-4 As indicated in the Response to
Common Comment No. 10, Kennecott
and JVWCD are using their water rights
for this project. Utah water law will
apply to all operations.

H28-5 Question noted; however the
Trustee cannot speak for South Jordan.

H28-6 Kennecott and JVWCD have
evaluated the extraction of contaminates
and related drawdown, as discussed in
the Response to Common Comment No.
10.

H28-7 The Trustee does not have that
information; the Utah Divison of Water
Rights maintains information regarding
water rights owners.

H28-4

H28-5

H28-6

H28-7

1 MS. NIELSON: You've asked the question.
2 MR. BELLCHECK: Kent Brian says, the
3 source control measures have dammed up recharge areas
4 in the Oquirrh Mountains and have impacted recharge to
5 our aquifer. Not only has Kennecott impacted our
6 water quality, but also Kennecott operations are now
7 diverting our water quantity.
8 Okay, I guess I've got a chance here then.
9 I have a letter here from the City of South Jordan.
10 It's addressed to me at my home in South Jordan. It
11 says, "Dear Tom, on behalf of the citizens of South
12 Jordan we wish to extend to you our sincere
13 appreciation for your efforts on behalf of our
14 community. We found your water presentation both
15 informative and insightful. We anticipate the
16 implementation of some of the counts that you
17 presented as we move forward in addressing these
18 concerns." And that's a nice letter. I say thank
19 you.
20 There's 10 words that I'm going to issue
21 the definition for.
22 MS. NIELSON: Mr. Bellcheck, you've got
23 about 30 seconds left right now.
24 MR. BELLCHECK: Okay. Equity, verbatim,
25 tribune, talent, constitution, occupant, construe,
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 89

H28-8 The source control measures are
required by the Consent Decree in order
to capture contamination which would
otherwise be transported into the
groundwater in the southwest portion of
the valley. The water managed through
the source control measures is required
by the State Engineer to be associated
with water rights that Kennecott has
designated for that purpose.

H28-8

1 syntax, vigilance and the final word is be-he-lawn-teh
2 (vigilante, Spanish), which is a Spanish word for a
3 member of a vigilance group. Thank you.
4 I would like to finish later.
5 MS. NIELSON: Okay. RW Doughty followed
6 by David O. Hinkley.
7 MR. DOUGHTY: My name is Richard W.
8 Doughty and I'm speaking on behalf of the Utah Chapter
9 of the Sierra Club. I'm going to be very brief.
10 There are individuals in the club who have much more
11 expertise on this than I, but I felt it was important
12 to make a personal appearance.
13 I want to applaud the project in terms of
14 detoxifying that water. The problem is with the
15 effluent end of the Jordan River. It's a combination
16 of high-tech 21st century technology with Stone Age
17 technology. I mean, we've been dumping effluent into
18 the streams since, I suppose, the caveman days and
19 we're still at it apparently and that's my concern as
20 that's one of the concerns of the club. I thank you
21 for the opportunity to speak.
22 MS. NIELSON: Thank you very much.
23 David Hinkley to be followed by T. Rodney.
24 Oh, I'm sorry, by T. Rodney Danzy.
25 MR. HINKLEY: I hate to be repetitious,
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 90

H29-1 As indicated in the Response to
Common Comment No. 8, JVWCD has
withdrawn its discharge permit and will
not discharge reverse Osmosis
concentrates to the Jordan River.

H29

H29-1

H30

1 but I wish there was a map of the valley. Going from
2 this proposed cleanup into the lake, there are
3 numerous canals, there are numerous Salt Lake City
4 sewer ditches running into the canal. Why don't they
5 put it into the sewer ditch. It goes right through
6 the property I own.
7 This Jordan River is an artery that must
8 not be contaminated with someone else's trash. We
9 give it enough ourselves. I spoke before about that
10 fact, other alternatives and hopefully in the next
11 meeting or so we can find out. This putting this
12 discharge before the 21st South division with the
13 surplus canal, which is put into the canal and there
14 is a split of 50-50 between the Jordan River and the
15 surplus canal. So what have you got? When you get
16 ahead you've got more gallons of water so that they
17 can dilute the particles per liter.
18 MS. NIELSON: Hold the mic up. The court
19 reporter can't get your comment.
20 MR. HINKLEY: I really should quit. But
21 it does need to be explored to everybody's advantage,
22 not to Kennecott's, not to the valley, just the
23 whole -- we're all neighbors and, you know, you've got
24 Lee's Creek that goes into the surplus or into the
25 lake that there's no vegetation hardly at all right
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 91

H30-1 As indicated in the Response to
Common Comment No. 8, the Joint Proposal
has been revised; reverse osmosis
concentrates will not be discharged to the
Jordan River. Instead JVWCD will build a
pipeline and transport the concentrates to the
Kennecott tailings impoundment or possibly
the Great Salt Lake, as described in the
Response to Common Comment No.6.

H30-1

1 there on Kennecott's property. It comes right out of
2 their tailings pond. Thank you.
3 MS. NIELSON: Thank you.
4 Mr. Danzy to be followed by Bill James.
5 MR. DANZY: My name is J. Rodney Danzy. I
6 would like to thank Dr. Nielson for extending the
7 comment period. We may have to ask for an additional
8 extension with regard to the water rights. I would
9 like to thank Kennecott and Jordan Valley for the
10 information they have provided, some I have some
11 questions about, but I think that we're trying to at
12 least work toward good things here.
13 I would like to categorize some of my
14 comments into three areas. Good: The pump and treat
15 plant proposal is good. We need it. It's five years
16 late now. With regard to that, it's as a result of --
17 what's the proper word -- I guess pollution of
18 underground water by mine operations. The
19 organization that's responsible for this is not a poor
20 company. They are a world-class company called Rio
21 Tinto in London. That's the good part.
22 The bad part is the cost to clean this up
23 is being passed on to the rate payers, the people that
24 are drinking water in the Salt Lake Valley and will
25 for the next 40 years, 100 years or 400 years. That's
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 92

H31-1 See Response to Common
Comment No. 1.

H31-2 See Response to Common
Comment No. 3.

H31-3 See the Response to Common
Comment No. 12 regarding funding
for the cleanup.

H31
H31-1

H31-2

H31-3

1 who's going to pay the bill for this, not Kennecott.
2 Kennecott is going to put in 48 million. They said
3 they already spent 350 million to take care of the
4 east side collection system and clean that up, but
5 that's good.
6 So anyway, the bad part is the rate payers
7 and the water drinkers will be paying this bill. I
8 have a report that I studied that came from Bruce
9 Kestler and he indicated that water in the Oquirrh
10 Mountains, in his report this was done for Jordan
11 Valley Water Conservancy District, was pretty pristine
12 prior to mining activity. Someone may want to take a
13 look at it sometime, maybe 250, 450, 600 TDS and low
14 sulfates. Anyway, that's important.
15 The ugly part is that the water treatment
16 program I don't think meets the consent decree and I'm
17 talking about Southwest Salt Lake County zone A area.
18 It doesn't get the water back to the area that's
19 affected. It doesn't get the water back to the public
20 water rights that were affected. When I say public,
21 there was only two water purveyors in the Herriman
22 area, Danzy Water Company and the Herriman pipeline.
23 None of the water goes back to them, it goes to
24 Herriman City.
25 If you look at the report from Jordan
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 93

H31-4 The Consent Decree requires that the
damages obtained from Kennecott must be
used to “restore, replace, or acquire the
equivalent of the natural resource for the
benefit of the public in the Affected Area as
provided under Section 107(f) of CERCLA.”
Consent Decree Section V.D.1 and 4. The
Joint Proposal explains how the water from
the Zone A and B plants is to be distributed to
the municipalities that are within the Affected
Area. The proposed distribution of water in
the Joint Proposal is consistent with the
requirements of CERCLA and the Consent
Decree. These issues are also addressed in the
Response to Common Comment No. 11.

H31-4

1 Valley Water Conservancy District, Herriman bought no
2 water a year ago because they didn't exist. They
3 bought some this year because now they do exist as a
4 city. The water rights simply do not get back to the
5 area affected that the water rights were affected.
6 Even though the distribution has affected area, water
7 rights affected, public, and the area that may be
8 contaminated as a result of the plume.
9 So those are concerns that I have and I
10 think they haven't been totally dealt with yet. There
11 was no city in 1995 when the consent decree was
12 envisioned. We've talked about the water quality in
13 the Oquirrh Mountains prior to mining activity.
14 Someone said it started in 1935, 1903, 1869, it's
15 still mining activity. Profits were made from the ore
16 bodies and so on and so forth. There ought to be a
17 moral obligation if not a legal obligation to deal
18 with those.
19 The consent decree cleanup is not the
20 total picture here. The total picture is CERCLA, the
21 EPA and all the requirements that require mining
22 companies and other companies that pollute to deal
23 with the problems that they've caused and I don't
24 think that's been adequately dealt with here.
25 I believe that the water from plant A
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 94

1 should go south over to the Herriman area, not east
2 and back up to the Herriman area and then not even
3 cover the area west of Herriman which is three miles
4 west of the town and closest to the Kennecott
5 operations. It doesn't get back there under this
6 program. It simply doesn't get there. Whether it's
7 legal under the consent decree, whether it's legal
8 under CERCLA, whether it's legal under the EPA
9 requirement, or whether it's just a moral obligation
10 for a large world-class mining company to do what they
11 ought to do. It hasn't been dealt with. We hope that
12 it will be, we believe that it will be and we ask the
13 cooperation of the trustee and the EPA and the CERCLA
14 administrators and the DEQ to follow through.
15 This is a green state. We've got a person
16 that's going to go back and probably head the EPA and
17 we hope that he will help enforce this type of
18 activity here at the state to be a showplace. He's
19 proud of this project as being something that he's
20 proud of and I think he should be. I think it's a
21 good start, but it simply doesn't go there and do what
22 ought to be done.
23 Jordan Valley ought not to be able to
24 charge whatever they need for the water and then pass
25 that on to the water rate payers to help clean up a
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 95

H31-5

H31-5

1 pollution problem the rate payers didn't cause. That
2 ought to come from the cost of mining or whatever that
3 operation was that cleaned it -- or causes the
4 pollution.
5 MS. NIELSON: Mr. Danzy, could you bring
6 your comments to conclusion?
7 MR. DANZY: Thank you. I would just
8 simply like to make one brief comment, and then I'll
9 ask for some time additional later, that Jordan Valley
10 Conservancy District be required to account to the
11 taxpayers and to the rate payers as to how they're
12 spending their money with regard to costs in rate and
13 costs in money that they've already received from
14 Kennecott. They've been settled with, they've
15 received millions on the part of the public and we
16 hope that those costs won't be spent back now to clean
17 up water that's not their responsibility.
18 I'll stop and then go back at the next
19 go-around. Thank you.
20 MS. NIELSON: That's fine.
21 Bill James.
22 MR. JAMES: Thank you, Executive Director
23 Nielson. My name is Bill James. I work for the Utah
24 Division of Wildlife Resources, which many of you may
25 realize is housed within the Department of Natural
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 96

H32

1 Resources, a fellow agency with the Department of
2 Environmental Quality and while we will make our
3 comments in writing and through specific appropriate
4 channels, as is our custom, I would like to point out
5 for the benefit of those of you who are working on
6 this issue that we do have certain interests as an
7 agency, as a specific division.
8 Three particular areas of expertise apply.
9 One is that we've been charged legislatively with the
10 mission of insuring the future for protected wildlife,
11 and that includes a whole lot of things out there,
12 particularly brine shrimp and a number of migratory
13 birds.
14 We're also a pretty significant landowner
15 in this particular project site. Farmington Bay
16 wildlife management area and some of the surrounding
17 area which we manage cooperatively total some several
18 thousand acres and that doesn't even account for the
19 dozen or so privately owned land and cattle companies
20 and other duck clubs. So we have the interest of the
21 landowner who happens to be located at the terminus of
22 the Jordan River as it moves through the state canal.
23 Lastly, I would say that we have some
24 experience with particularly selenium toxicity and its
25 impact on wetland communities because of our
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 97

1 experience with the Stewart Lake wildlife management
2 area, which has been the site of several hundred
3 thousand dollars of expenditure to reclaim damage
4 which occurred through a much different process, but
5 which nonetheless involved selenium.
6 Probably at this point that's sufficient
7 and just to direct our comments toward the issues of
8 selenium, transport through the wetland is likely to
9 be the predominant issue which we address. Thank you.
10 MS. NIELSON: Thank you very much.
11 That's the conclusion of individuals who
12 have signed up to speak today. Is there anyone here
13 who would like to speak who has not spoken yet?
14 Okay. Would you come to the microphone
15 and identify yourself, please.
16 MR. HYLESON: I would just like to add on
17 a little bit to Mr. Doughty's comments. My name is
18 Mark Hyleson and I'm with the Southwest region office
19 of the Sierra Club and we will be submitting written
20 comments. But just to make -- one point is we really
21 appreciate the cleanup, it is a good thing, but moving
22 it to a place where you have hundreds of thousands of
23 different accommodations of species of birds that are
24 traveling across the hemisphere, putting selenium in
25 that type of water system in a bad thing. So if it's
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 98

H33-1 See the Response to Common
Comment No. 3.

H33-2 See the Response to Common
Comment No. 8 regarding JVWCD’s
decision not to discharge to the Jordan
River. Also see the Response to
Common Comment Nos. 6 and 9
regarding the additional options

H33

H33-1

H33-2

1 just a mater of cost to take the treated water -- or
2 the contaminated water somewhere else, that should be
3 the expense. I'm pretty sure Kennecott doesn't need
4 to do a bake sale to come with more money, to come up
5 with a better idea. We shouldn't have to throw salts
6 on ranchers' crops out by the lake. There should be a
7 better idea, more alternatives and that's what we
8 would like to ask for to be studied, not put terrible
9 water in the Jordan River, but to properly treat it.
10 Thank you.
11 MS. NIELSON: Is there anyone else who
12 hasn't yet spoken who would like time to speak?
13 Okay. Seeing no one, Mr. Bellcheck and
14 Mr. Danzy have asked for additional time.
15 Mr. Bellcheck, I would like to --
16 MR. BELLCHECK: Could I just have a few
17 moments to prepare?
18 MS. NIELSON: Mr. Danzy, would you like to
19 go first? If you would like to come back up to the
20 podium and let's say an additional five minutes and
21 then Mr. Bellcheck.
22 MR. DANZY: Thank you.
23 MS. NIELSON: Thank you.
24 MR. DANZY: Thanks for the opportunity to
25 make a few more comments and I'll try to be as brief
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 99

for management of reverse osmosis
concentrates and for further information
about selenium studies and the Great
Salt Lake.

H34

1 as possible. I'm here for Danzy Water Company as
2 owner and manager, or one of the owners of Stock
3 Mutual Water Company, a stockholder in Herriman
4 Pipeline Company, stockholder in Herriman Irrigation
5 Company and partial owner in water rights and as a
6 taxpayer and citizen.
7 I believe that one of the additional
8 concerns that causes me quite a bit of concern is that
9 the mining of water in the southwest corner of Salt
10 Lake County that can result as a result of the pumping
11 for zone A. We realize there's a model that's been
12 done and we appreciate that. That's good technical
13 information and we appreciate that information.
14 However, we also know that models are only as good as
15 the data, and the data changes each year and we would
16 ask that that model be updated, that we would have an
17 opportunity to look at the model itself and determine
18 whether we believe there's additional mining that's
19 really going to take place there. I realize the
20 technical experts have looked at it and I say that's
21 good.
22 We think one of the alternatives to mining
23 that area quite as bad as we think will happen --
24 we've been impacted already as a result of the
25 activity out there. We believe that one of the
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 100

H34-1 As indicated in the Response to
Common Comment No.2, over 300
monitoring wells in the Zone A and B
plumes and over a decade of data from these
wells have been used to evaluate the
contamination and model and evaluate the
cleanup plans. The Technical Review
Committee has reviewed those plans and will
continue to review and evaluate the progress
of the aquifer cleanup during the 40-year
period. It is also noted in the Response to
Common Comment No. 10 that the deep
(Principal) aquifer has been over extracted
historically and that the extractions continue,
unrelated to Kennecott’s remediation plan.

H34-2 While bringing water from a source
outside the Affected Area might meet
demands for additional municipal drinking
water in the Affected Area, it would not
curtail the spread of existing contamination
within the aquifer.

H34-1

H34-2

1 possibilities would be to bring water in from the
2 Jordan River for Utah Lake water, I don't know whether
3 it would have to be treated or not, and not mine the
4 southwest area. That just doesn't make a lot of sense
5 to the people that have water rights out in that area.
6 I noticed in this presentation that we
7 skipped the issue of how we were going to deal with
8 individuals that were impacted and I realize there's
9 going to be additional hearings to do that. We hope
10 they will be expanded and there will be a proposal,
11 kind of like there is with legislation. We'll pass
12 this legislation or this proposal, but we need to tie
13 it to the fact that something additional will happen
14 with regard to water rights.
15 I think the intent is to do right by
16 everyone here, but I think the problem comes when you
17 see over a period of time a lot of changes that don't
18 happen and then the people are left with the end
19 problem and I think we ought to try to avoid that. I
20 think we ought to make the project good and move
21 forward, but I think there has to be more waste --
22 there should be something tied to this proposal that
23 protects the water rights there, maybe it's even
24 bringing water in from Utah Lake to replace that water
25 for treating it and I realize it might have to be
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 101

H34-3 The Response to Common Comment
No.10 includes the procedures which have been
established by Kennecott and JVWCD to
address individual well owner concerns.

H34-3

1 treated before you can treat it again, but I think
2 that's very, very necessary when you figure the impact
3 on the southwest quadrant.
4 I think people are trying to do the right
5 thing, but I think it has to be done at the expense of
6 the organizations or the people that benefitted from
7 the degradation and so forth and I think that's not
8 100 percent accurate in this proposal. I think
9 there's more work that needs to be done on it.
10 Thank you very much. I appreciate the
11 time to make comments and thanks for the opportunity.
12 MS. NIELSON: Thank you, Mr. Danzy.
13 Mr. Bellcheck.
14 MR. BELLCHECK: I forget my schedule, but
15 I know the extension goes to the day after Halloween,
16 I think. Election day is the 11th, I think it is, of
17 November. I lost my schedule. But I think we need
18 until the end of November to finish some of this.
19 It's hard to get through this.
20 One thought I had most recently that's of
21 rather concern -- a very major concern, is that if the
22 contamination in the zone A is clearly there as an
23 acid plume, the zone A source is the Bingham. We know
24 the source, there's one source, it's Kennecott. There
25 are two injection points into the aquifer. One is the
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 102

H34-4 Under the terms of the
Consent Decree, Kennecott has
established trust funds to address the
damage to the groundwater aquifer.
See the Response to Common
Comment No.12 regarding
Kennecott’s liability and the trust
fund.

H35-1 See the Response to Common
Comment No. 1.

H34-4

H35

H35-1

1 Bingham leaker at the mouth of Bingham Canyon and the
2 second is the South Jordan evaporation ponds. Some of
3 the testimony that we've been hearing today suggests
4 that a lot of that water didn't evaporate, it went
5 into people's basement. We're a little concerned
6 about that. It shows that there's a pretty high
7 volume of water that went into that aquifer, there was
8 not much evaporation going on.
9 So now the problem is we've got soil
10 impacted. The soil is 2.2 million cubic yards that
11 are going to be removed under EPA oversight, as I
12 understand it, and it will be removed to Copper Notch
13 and the haul road is being built now and it soon will
14 be moved. If some of it has been moved already,
15 that's good. We'll want to see the bill of ladings on
16 2.2 million cubic yards and that surface contamination
17 should be cared for at the end of that.
18 That surface contamination sits on top of
19 the aquifer. That's our aquifer. We the people have
20 rights in that aquifer and plan to enforce those
21 rights.
22 The question about the zone A plume,
23 again, is acid plume and I see two separate treatment
24 processes. One would be to withdraw the acid, and I
25 hope we have some really good stainless steel wells
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 103

H35-2 The soils and sludges are being
moved by Kennecott pursuant to EPA,
DEQ and Utah Division of Oil, Gas and
Mining. There is an Operations and
Maintenance Plan for the South Jordan
Evaporation Ponds as part of the
CERCLA removal approved by the EPA.
The plans include post-removal
sampling; removal statistics are being
compiled for the removal action and will
be provided to the regulatory agencies
following completion of the removal
action.

H35-3 The extracted water from the
acid core plume is pumped directly to the
tailings pipeline. The wells used for the
acid core extraction will require
replacement over time, which has been

H35-2

H35-3

1 that will last 40 and 50 and 100 years or we're going
2 to be replacing wells very often. We'll want to look
3 at that real carefully to make sure that it keeps
4 working. The source is clear, we have zone A and zone
5 B source. Not to confuse the issue, there are two
6 points of injection, one source, the source is
7 Kennecott. Kennecott broke it, Kennecott needs to fix
8 it, not Jordan Valley. That's an opinion.
9 Now, back to the zone A. It's real hard
10 to get through this document, but I want to point out
11 something I'm very concerned about on zone A
12 contingencies. If, notwithstanding all reasonable
13 efforts by Kennecott, the zone A plant is not complete
14 and operational by January 31, 2009, six years from
15 now, either party may terminate this project agreement
16 as to the zone A plant prior to January 31, 2010. So
17 we've got a year to cancel the operation of the
18 plant -- according to this document, I don't know what
19 other things are going on, it's hard to read this
20 document -- provided that it isn't finished.
21 Now, if it doesn't get finished, then,
22 paraphrasing, it says that the project agreement
23 terminates. That's called leaving an out. We're very
24 concerned that Rio Tinto is going to bankrupt
25 Kennecott and then we, the people of the United States
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 104

factored into the cost structure of the project.
The extraction of acid plume is not part of the
treatment project for municipal quality
drinking water.

H35-4 Under Section 4.1 of the Project
Agreement, Kennecott is obligated to
construct and operate the Zone A Plant.
Kennecott makes the same commitment to the
Trustee in Section I.C.1 of the State
Agreement. The Project Agreement provides
an outside date by which this must occur, and
states in Section 4.2.a as follows:

If, notwithstanding all reasonable
efforts by Kennecott, the Zone A Plant
is not Complete and Operational by
January 31, 2009, either party may
terminate this Project Agreement as to
the Zone A Plant prior to January 31,
2010, provided that the Zone A Plant
has not become Complete and
Operational prior to the date of the
notice.

If the Project Agreement terminates as to
the Zone A Plant because the plant is not
Complete and Operational by the outside
date, Kennecott will have expended
considerable sums to construct the Zone A
Plant but it will receive no reductions to
the Zone A ILC and the Trustee may
convert it to cash for use consistent with
the terms of the Consent Decree. See
Sections III and VIII.B of the State
Agreement. Additionally, JVWCD is
released from its agreement to take the
Zone A water and deliver it to the
Affected Municipalities.

H35-4

1 of America, get to pay for the cleanup.
2 For those words I brought out earlier is
3 equity means justice or impartiality. Verbatim means
4 word for word. Tribune is an officer of the people or
5 a raised platform. It can be a stump somewhere and it
6 would still be a tribune. Talent is a weight, a coin,
7 or a sum of money of varying value or it could be
8 something that a person possesses in their mind.
9 Constitution is a frame or structure or temperament or
10 organic fundamental laws of the state or society.
11 Number six, an occupant is one who possesses. We plan
12 on possessing our aquifer. Number seven is construe,
13 it means to interpret or give syntax to. When writing
14 a document one has to look at the syntax. Syntax is
15 that part of grammar which teaches the proper
16 construction and arrangement of the words in a
17 sentence. I don't write because that's a difficult
18 thing to do. Nine is vigilance, which means
19 watchfulness.
20 The vigilante groups in the westerns got
21 always a bad rap. The word is be-he-lawn-teh
22 (vigilante, Spanish), which is a Spanish word. It
23 means a member of a vigilant's group and we really are
24 watching, we want to be a part of the process.
25 We respectfully request a period of time
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 105

1 so that we can have a happy Thanksgiving, that's --
2 the 26th is the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, want to
3 make it through Halloween, we want to make it through
4 Election day and we want to have the ability to
5 comment further. This is the last official public
6 comment period. I mean the period continues, this is
7 the last official public hearing. We very much
8 respectfully request a mid November public hearing and
9 then we can go on with our lives for Thanksgiving.
10 Thank you.
11 MS. NIELSON: Thank you, Mr. Bellcheck.
12 Is there anyone else who would like to speak?
13 Seeing none, the hearing is closed. Thank
14 you very much for coming today
15 (Whereupon, the hearing was concluded at
16 6:40 p.m.)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 106

H35-5 See the Response to Common
Comment No. 1.
H35-5

1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2
3 STATE OF UTAH )
4 ) ss.
5 COUNTY OF SALT LAKE)
6
7
8 I, Susie Lauchnor, Certified Shorthand
9 Reporter, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary
10 Public for the State of Utah, do hereby certify that
11 the foregoing transcript, consisting of pages 2 to
12 106, was stenographically reported by me at the time
13 and place hereinbefore set forth; that the same was
14 thereafter reduced to typewritten form, and that the
15 foregoing is a true and correct transcript o those
16 proceedings.
17 Dated this 25th day of September, 2003
18
19
20
21
22 SUSIE LAUCHNOR, CSR, RPR
23
24 My Commission expires:
25 June 5, 2005
SUSIE LAUCHNOR -- DEPOMAX Page 107