Nancy's Comments in GV News and Sun Before hearing: July 26, 2006 We have to keep in mind that there are two reasons that we have had some success in getting the attention of the mining and ADEQ authorities. First, the Aquifer Protection Permit (APP) was mandated by the Governor to be completed by January 2006. Second, the price of copper is going up and significant money is rolling in to Phelps Dodge coffers. This is quite a contrast from the past ten years when everyone thought the mine would be closing because of the low price of copper. Phelps Dodge management, as expressed on their website, states that they intend to become environmentally friendly. This intention takes money. One environmental consultant told me that it was often cheaper for the polluters to pay the fines than to install expensive environmental clean-up systems. So, Phelps Dodge now has the money to pay for new wells and to mitigate the pollution caused by their mining operations. Personally, I am disappointed at the official definition of “mitigation”—which is decidedly different from my definition. I wanted the water in the aquifer cleaned up. I realize that it probably cannot be returned to the ambient sulfate level of some 50 mg/ltr, but at least to some reasonable level. The truth is I really do not feel good about the fact that my neighbors and I are drinking water with copper mining tailings—at any percentage. The Mitigation Order states that Phelps Dodge-Cyprus (it was a merger and a name change, not a buy out) can use just about any means to bring the consumer water supply to 250 mg/ltr, including mixing polluted water with good quality water and providing drinking water—strangely “no action” is also on the list of options. We have to keep in mind that Phelps Dodge management has said for some time that they would “take care of the problem” voluntarily. The issue with the volunteer program was that no one ever saw a plan of what this volunteerism would entail. It’s been almost three years since Alan McDonald of the GVCCC environmental committee presented the Phelps Dodge environmental person with the data showing that Community Water wells were being inundated by the tailings slurry from their operations. In the ensuing negotiations Mike Wood, PD’s environmental engineer, warned that the plume was so close to the Esperanza well field that pumping there would draw the plume sulfates into the wells. And he was correct. Yet, according to the APP, they still need time to study and delineate the extent of the sulfate plume. Consider that it has taken eleven months from the August 2005 hearing to get to this point. At that time Phelps Dodge was given another year to study the plume. Since the APP was never signed, technically the year has not started yet. In the meantime, the plume has moved into the Esperanza well field that Community Water is using temporarily. So we know this is not a passive phenomenon that is going to dissipate and dilute itself. We do need written assurance that Phelps Dodge will continue to pay for new wells should the ones being put into service now become inundated. They have put out some seven million to give us new wells. This action was taken without an APP and the community is grateful. However, no one thinks this is a permanent solution. As Art Gabaldón, Manager of Community Water Company, has pointed out, Phelps Dodge now has the money and a local manager who is dedicated to solving the problem, but what if either of these two factors were to change in the future? At this point, there is no data of the actual contents of the tailings pond available, nor is there a list of the volatile organic chemicals (benzene type chemicals) that Phelps Dodge uses in their solutions that go into the tailing impoundment also. There is also the issue of the radioactive chemicals at the tailing impoundment that exceed the limits specified in the APP. David Albright of the San Francisco office of Environmental Protection Agency (our district headquarters) made written comments during the hearing period in August, 2005 concerning this issue. I included extensive data on this problem in my written comments to ADEQ. I cannot see that this issue has been adequately addressed in the APP. The downside is ADEQ cannot take any compliance action at all until the APP is signed, sealed and delivered. We cannot afford another eleven month delay. However, I do not think that delaying another month until we see an actual Work Plan will cause any undue harm. Even so, I am concerned that Work Plan has open avenues for delays. No matter how much we look at plans, it’s still a matter of trust. Phelps Dodge’s history does not give us much cause to generate trust. I have been assured by PD management that they intend to project a new image. I am willing to believe they are turning over a new leaf, but they have to realize that we are not going to blindly accept anything until we see some actual written commitments, actions and results to assure us that we do not have to go through this process again sometime in the future. I have every confidence that our ADEQ worked hard to get a good resolution of the problem for us. However, there remain some unanswered questions. It is good that the Citizens Water Action Coalition has arranged for ADEQ and PD mining officials to meet with the community before the Public Hearing at the library on Monday morning, July 24, at 10:00 a.m., so we can have a discussion to understand these critical issues. As usual more information than you will ever want to know, including the APP, Mitigation Order, and Arizona Statutes and Codes, which cover the management of water in Arizona, is posted on the website: www.savethesantacruzaquifer.info
I am quite disappointed with the spirit of contention over ADEQ’s positive response to the request to form a community group to have access to data from the mining operations instead of having to take trips to Phoenix. At the last hearing, Dick Shuman requested: “The APP is a document involving only two players, ADEQ and PDSI. Notification and communication procedures are needed to involve the other players. The players are GVCCC, ADEQ, PDSI, CWC, CPI and other parties interested and involved in the water problem. It would be highly desirable to establish a “Water Protection” committee comprised of these players to present, review, and disseminate information to the public regarding problems and problem solving.” Now everyone is up in arms because Phelps Dodge, who has the data and is making arrangements for its dissemination, is choosing the committee members for the Water Advisory Committee—even that name is an upgrade. Considering that Phelps Dodge has invited the two members of the community who have been the most vocal in protesting their environmental responsiveness, myself and Dick Shuman, plus members of the Coordinating Council, water companies, and chamber of commerce, I can’t see that anyone else could have done a fairer job. Because they asked the Chairman of the Board of Community Water Company, a logical choice, PD is being accused of dictating to Community Water. Other residents are accusing them of having secret meetings. No one ever asked for public meetings. [Even the Green Valley News will be attending.]. I never heard anyone complaining that Community Water Board Meetings are not open. Dick’s original request was clear that it was meant to form a working group to “present, review and disseminate information to the public.” If Community Water does not want to participate, I don’t see that it will diminish the goal of the group at all. The bottom line is we have to put an end to this contentious spirit and let Phelps Dodge do the work they need to do—instead of distracting them with details. We have told Phelps Dodge we want the plume cleaned-up, so let them focus on this priority. I have gone through twenty years [The APP was started in 1985, started over in 1987, and again in 1994.] of data and correspondence files concerning this APP and NEVER ONCE has Phelps Dodge been asked to clean-up the plume! Everyone has kept them busy asking for more data, more facility descriptions, more meetings, more monitoring wells. Lowering the level of sulfate in the plume is not going to be easy: Let’s give them a break and see what they can do for us.
|