Crowd grills Arizona officials about permit for Copper World near Tucson

More than 200 people grilled, criticized and occasionally spouted a "rant" to state environmental regulators about a proposed groundwater quality permit for the massive Copper World mining complex in the Santa Rita Mountains.

They overflowed a middle school meeting room in the heart of Corona de Tucson north of those mountains to make it clear they have no use for this mine. They also made it clear they don't trust the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to properly monitor it or enforce the permit's requirements.

At issue at the public meeting was whether ADEQ should issue an Aquifer Protection Permit for Copper World, the complex that would be built mainly on private land about 30 miles south of Tucson.

Copper World would mine copper on the Santa Ritas' east and west slopes for 44 years, creating 400 permanent, high-paying jobs. The mining company, Hudbay Minerals Inc., has projected that income from those jobs and other factors would generate another 3,000 jobs.

A map displayed by ADEQ officials showed the project having six open pits, on the mountains' west and east slopes, including the project's original Rosemont Mine pit on the east slope. The map also showed two tailings storage-disposal areas, a waste rock disposal facility and a large, horizontal swath cutting across the land to show where heap leaching will occur to extract copper from ore.

The permit is supposed to insure that discharges from the mine won't degrade underlying aquifers and that the project will discharge as few pollutants as possible — or none, if that's determined to be technically and economically feasible.

It's one of the few major permits needed for the mine to start construction. That's because the Copper World project, unlike its predecessor, the now-dormant Rosemont Mine proposal, won't use much public land in its early years.

ADEQ officials, who have already issued a draft permit for the project, pitched it at Tuesday's meeting as a "protective" permit, one that would severely limit pollution discharges and insure they'd be captured before they seeped into the underlying aquifer.

But among the complaints and concerns raised were:

— Several speakers objected to the fact that, under current state law, a permit applicant, in this case Hudbay, self-monitors all the wells installed at its site rather than ADEQ.

— A statement to that effect by ADEQ's Wayne Harrison drew boos, hisses and derisive laughter from the crowd. The audience was upset that the state would have to rely on the company to tell the truth about what's in monitoring wells installed across the facility to catch any contaminants that seep into them.

"In Arizona, the Legislature decided that our monitoring programs are self monitoring programs," said Harrison, an environmental and engineering geologist. "I do hear some concern about that. The Legislature would be an appropriate place to take that concern."

Gary Townshend told ADEQ officials, "So Hudbay is going to drill those wells. They are going to monitor the water. They are going to report back to you. If anything goes over the limits. So Hudbay being a for-profit mining company with shareholders. … What will be their incentive to give you accurate information?"

ADEQ officials replied that the maximum fine for violations is $25,000 per violation per day, for every monitoring well found to have pollution exceeding state standards. A permit holder must perform "corrective action" at every monitoring well where contaminant levels exceed state standards. If Hudbay has any violations, it will have to notify the state no later than five days after discovering them.

"What happens to our groundwater in the meantime?" a resident asked, about the interval after a violation is discovered, the company notifies the state and the violation is corrected.

The agency has an ongoing enforcement case right now in which a facility — which ADEQ didn't identify — "basically lied, and we are going after them with enforcement penalties."

"If they do lie, if we do have members of Hudbay here, the short answer is ;We'll do something'," an agency official said, with at least one Hudbay official and a company spokeswoman present.

"They can do business as they see fit. The government can’t come in and say you have to drive an EV," the official said. "We’re not California. They can do what they want to do and how they want to do it. We’re here to make sure they are in accordance with the law."

— Residents complained that the state has no drinking water standards for uranium, which occurs naturally in some Tucson-area soils. They also raised concerns that the state standard for arsenic in drinking water is much weaker than the federal standard — with the Arizona limit five times greater than the federal limit.

"How will that be monitored if you don’t have an objective third party" to do it, asked Nina Luxenberg. "There’s no recourse. You're setting us up to lose our groundwater. We have critical issues with water right now and it’s only going to get worse."

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

Ethan Leiter, an ADEQ permits manager, told the crowd that the agency does plan to adopt a drinking water limit for uranium later this year, and is early in the process of involving interested parties. Plans are also afoot to tighten state arsenic drinking water standards, he said.

"The aquifer water quality standards, once they're adopted, the facility will be required to do monitoring for them" said Leiter, ADEQ's groundwater protection individual permits unit manager.

— Mari Sorri was also concerned about a lack of state water quality standards for sulfates, a less toxic pollutant that was found in drinking and monitoring wells at and near Freeport McMoRan's Sierrita Mine in Green Valley.

If ADEQ receives enough public comments showing that "sulfate is getting a lot of interest, it would be something we could entertain seriously," Leiter said.

"Our goal is to issue a protective permit. If there are some comments we can leverage to find a solution, and work with the permittee, we will do it," he said.

— Luxenberg and several others complained that the state is "doing things backwards" because it will permit the facility and allow it to start operating before monitoring wells are drilled to allow the agency to obtain natural background levels of contaminants in groundwater.

"We’re already disturbing the habitat. We're trying to get them to find a way to mine responsibly. It’s not possible. They’re a foreign corporation," Luxenberg said of the Toronto-based Hudbay. "Let's just say now that we know it's going to be a disaster."

Susan Waites told ADEQ, "Monitoring wells are essential to know whether there's contamination. Why not require monitoring and evaluation of … compliance before Copper World gets to submit the application? Does ADEQ have leeway or discretion to change things around a little bit?"

"If Copper World can start construction before monitoring wells are in place, how will you know if it's natural or from mining construction" if there's contamination, Waites asked.

ADEQ's Leiner replied that until they get a full design for the mine, "we can't determine locations of the wells." They will represent locations of the "point of compliance," a legal term meaning wells that show whether a pollutant discharger is in compliance with state rules.

"Our main point of concern relates to appropriately characterizing the aquifer before operations. We’re identifying if there are any anomalies … explained, and follow up based on that."

Aa Leiter methodically described the steps Hudbay must take to carry out its permit conditions if it's approved, a resident blurted out, "So it’s already going to happen."

"I understand the problem caused on my use of present, past and future," the ADEQ official replied. "I’ll keep that straight."

"Decisions have been made. I think you're keeping it straight," the speaker said.

"Decisions have not been made," was ADEQ's reply.

The company's permit application has to show where the mine facility will be located, what type of facility it is, and its proposed design, Harrison said. An application must provide basic information about the site's hydrology and geology, groundwater depth and flow direction.

Applicants also need to provide a proposed monitoring well network, including facilities with the ability to conduct discharge monitoring and leak detection. Financial assurances must be provided to the state in case the mining company went out of business, he said.

"Then there is the contingency plan requirement, which addresses various contingencies, such as what happens if you get exceedance in a well" of a water quality standard, he said.

Dennis Winston, a geologic engineer, said he's read the permit and noticed a number of constraints on the mine and "they are probably good ones."

"My concern is there are no repercussions, there are no consequence if those rules are not met. The permit in terms of what they trying to do is probably OK. But there no teeth in it there. It's a toothless permit," he said.

Do you have a question or is it more of a comment, an ADEQ official asked him.

"It's a rant, something I’d call a rant," Winston replied.