Protect Our Water Our Future

Protect Our Water Our Future

Florence Community MeetingNovember 27, 2012

POWOF Community Meeting, Nov. 27, 2012 2

ADEQ (State)1. Amended APP Request

(including commercial operations) Curis did not answer ADEQ’s Sept. 2011 Deficiency LetterSuspended review at Curis’s request.

Update on Environmental Permits


ADEQ (State)2. Temporary APP

After the Town denied Curis’s land use requests & Curis was unable to demonstrate zoning compliance for the full projectSeparate application for a Temporary Permit for PTF operations on State landPermit issued & can be viewed at http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/index.html



USEPA (Federal)Ongoing review of Curis’s request for a UIC permit.



Southwest Value Partners, Pulte, Town of Florence, Johnson Utilities v. ADEQArguing ADEQ’s temporary permit regulation is illegalPermit terms are not part of lawsuitOngoing dispute

Ongoing Litigation Against ADEQ


ADEQ’s Public Participation Process

Public Hearing — December 5 from 6:00 to 8:30 at Florence High SchoolWritten Comments to ADEQ — no later than December 23rd.

ADEQ review, response to comments & “final” decision

What’s Next?


Curis’s Temporary Aquifer Protection Permit

Overview & Key Points


Conduct a PTF “Pilot” on a portion of State landOne injection/extraction well field Conduct limited monitoring Construct an SX/EW plant “Limited” duration operation & permit

1 year term & possible 1-year renewal

What Does the Temporary Permit Allow Curis to do?


Project Overview


Curis’s PTF “Pilot”

Blue: Curis’s land holdings

Green: State Land

Orange: PTF Injection Well Field


Curis’s PTF “Pilot”


Not a Pilot ProjectWill not prove that commercial operations will be safe

LBFU versus UBFUHydraulic control still an issueInadequate well field setupInadequate water quality parametersInadequate groundwater monitoring Inadequate precautions for old core holesUnrealistic groundwater clean up assumptions

Key Points to Know About Curis’s Temporary Permit

- Overview


Temporary permit criteria not met.A discharge lasting 6 months? NO!A short-term pilot designed to develop data for the full-scale project’s permit application? NO!

PTF operations necessarily exceed the permit term.ADEQ should deny/revoke the permit.

Key Points Cont’d.Curis’s PTF is Not a Pilot


Curis’s PTF will NOT:Provide new data needed to prove up the safety of commercial operationsAnswer ADEQ’s questions posed in its Deficiency Letters

Key Points Cont’d.Curis’s PTF is Not a Pilot


Curis’s whole premise for safety of their operation and protecting drinking water is WRONG

Acid mining solutions will be injected into the aquifer at same depth as LBFU where groundwater is pulled for drinking water purposes“Clay Aquitard” is completely irrelevant to protecting groundwater from users in the LBFU

Key Points Cont’d.Lower Basin Fill Unit (LBFU)


Curis inaccurately claims that the principal source of groundwater withdrawals is from the Upper Basin Fill Unit (UBFU). Reality is that the LBFU is the principal source for groundwater withdrawals.

Johnson Utilities – well located just over a mile from Curis’s operations, and pulls water from the LBFU at a depth of approximately 597 feet. Well has demonstrated excellent water quality.Other drinking water wells – proposed to serve Merrill Ranch & Florence are planned to be installed within the LBFU.



Curis’s principal argument for safety and protecting downgradient users is based on concept of hydraulic control

However, Curis expressed views in their application that demonstrating hydraulic control was unnecessary because BHP proved their test was successfulActual BHP test data shows they lost hydraulic control for a 2 to 3 day period with gradient differential documented during a 12-hour period that was greater than 48 feet.

Curis has never addressed this data and inaccurately claims BHP demonstrated hydraulic control

USEPA has rejected Curis’s position & will require demonstration of hydraulic control as part of PTF operations.

Key Points Cont’d.Hydraulic Control


Curis’s PTF “pilot” well field design differs significantly from the design proposed for commercial production.

PTF does not include any perimeter wells to maintain hydraulic controlProposed commercial operations includes perimeter wells hundreds of feet from recovery wells – spacing that provides opportunity for acid mining solutions to escape Curis’s control.

PTF will generate useless data because the PTF design fails to replicate conditions of proposed commercial operations.

Key Points Cont’d.Inadequate Well Field Setup


Financial assurance does not address off-site impacts or injury to neighboring landowners’ property rights & property valuesFinancial assurance is based upon the cost estimates submitted in Curis’s applicationThe temporary permit only requires Curis to maintain financial assurance through the “life of this permit”

Remember that this permit can only last up to 2 years

Key Points Cont’d.Financial Assurance


Geochemistry of PTF vs. Commercial operation will be different – Curis proposed “stacking” or “re-acidification” of solution in commercial permit application, PTF design does not allow for “stacking”Don’t buy into Curis’s claim that solution is akin to vinegar or lemon juice

This solution will release numerous contaminants such as radiochemicals, magnesium, aluminum, and many moreBased on Curis’s own reports, they propose to inject more than 10 BILLION POUNDS of sulfuric acid into the ground over the life of the commercial operation

Key Points Cont’d.Acidic Solution Claims


ArsenicCuris proposed an arsenic standard that exceeded federal drinking water standards (5o ppb vs. 10 ppb)Temporary permit requires compliance with arsenic standard only on a “theoretical” level based on modeling

SulfateCuris proposed sulfate standards that exceeded secondary drinking water standards

Key Points Cont’d.Water Quality Parameters


“Reserved” StandardsFor numerous points of compliance, the permit establishes no ALs or AQLs at all, leaving them to be set during PTF operations and without public comment or input

Key Points Cont’d.Water Quality Parameters


Curis’s proposed monitor wells will not provide new data to prove up the safety of commercial operations.Curis’s Proposed Sampling

In its application, Curis proposed to monitor groundwater contaminants such as heavy metals, arsenic & radiochemicals bi-annually during the 2-year life of the PTF.If the PTF’s purpose is truly to collect data to prove environmental safety, why propose such meager data collection?

Temporary Permit Sampling RequirementsLevel 1 pollutants – quarterly sampling during the 2-year PTF lifeLevel 2 pollutants – semi-annual sampling during the 2-year life

More frequent sampling needed.Compare uranium ISL mines – bi-weekly Level 1 pollutant monitoring

Key Points Cont’d.Inadequate Monitoring


Properly placed monitor wells needed.Compliance wells are located too far away.Contaminants will not be detected in compliance wells until long after the PTF has been completed.

Properly designed monitor wells needed.Several multi-port sampling wells need to be installed at or within the PTF well boundary.Multi-port sampling wells should be sampled at the same depth as proposed injection to evaluate whether contaminants are being released.




Curis proposed & the permit incorporates 4 pre-existing wells as POC wells. These 4 wells are outside the reach of even Curis’s predicted 5-year sulfate plume.



The permit requires one additional monitor well to be located downgradient & near the PTF well field. But its actual location is yet to be determined & its design is not specified.


BHP Pilot showed what other ISL mines have already confirmed — that unabandoned core holes can cause real problems.

In 1999 BHP concluded that exceedances in 2 wells (1 of which is a POC well in the Temporary Permit) were due to communication between the aquifers & cited to 2 open core holes.

Key Points Cont’d.Inadequate Core Hole Precautions


Permit only requires abandonment 500 feet around the injection well field.

Proper abandonment around monitor wells & other site features needed.

Key Points Cont’d.Inadequate Core Hole Precautions


Overwhelming Number of Core

Holes

A closer look of just the number of

known unabandoned core holes is not very

reassuring.

Key Points Cont’d.

Inadequate Core Hole

Precautions


Curis’s PTF Site Plan

The permit only requires core hole abandonment within the 500-foot radius of the PTF well field – here indicated by the hashed line figure.


Unrealistic groundwater cleanup assumptions not corrected in permit.

9 months aquifer “rinsing” 30-day resting period & sampling

Compare Uranium ISL mine experience. Groundwater cannot be restored to pre-mining conditions within 9 months.Contaminant rebound can occur months or years after mining has ended.

Key Points Cont’d.Unrealistic Groundwater Clean Up


ADEQ is listening to our concerns. So continue to voice your thoughts & your concerns to the agencies.

Temporary permit includes some standards related to arsenic – direct response to our concerns.One monitor well added to those proposed by Curis – again in apparent response to our concerns.

What Can I Do?


Stay Vigilant.Review the permit & form your own conclusions.Permit available at http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/index.html

Share your thoughts with the relevant agencies.

Attend ADEQ’s Public Hearing on December 5th at 6:00 p.m. at Florence High School & speak up.

What Can I Do?


Submit to ADEQ formal written comments on the temporary permit

Due December 23rd

Continue to share your thoughts by also writing to:

Arizona State Land DepartmentGovernor BrewerUSEPA

What More Can I Do?

Protect Our Water Our Future

Documents

Transcript of Protect Our Water Our Future