Development of Guidance Document for Heap Leach Extraction Facilities January 1998 The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) began regulating cyanide heap leach operations in the late 1980s when a number of applications for construction permits were received from various mining companies. During the review process for these initial heap leach permit applications, and the subsequent application reviews for facility expansions and permit renewals, DWQ staff developed a scientific and engineering knowledge base for the design and construction of heap leach facilities. This knowledge base was augmented by formal staff technical training, on-going interaction with mining companies and/or their consultants,

and benchmarking of regulations for other western states including Colorado,  Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico,  and South Dakota. Although DWQ considered promulgating regulations for the design and construction of heap leach facilities, the agency recognized that specific, detailed regulations could unnecessarily constrain facility designs and restrict consideration of site-specific conditions or application of new technologies. Instead of prescriptive rules, DWQ used its extensive experience and knowledge base to develop guidelines for the design and construction of heap leach facilities including leach pads, solution ponds, solution collection systems, and solution conveyance systems that are adequate for protecting ground water quality while considering the economics of facility construction. The resulting document,  Design and Construction Guidance Document for Precious Metals Heap Leach Extraction Facilities (June 1998), is intended to be used by applicants in preparing designs that may be expected to result in DWQ approval if the scope of issues in the guidance are adequately addressed and site-specific geologic, hydrologic, and climatologic conditions are taken into consideration using best available technology.

Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District Aquifer Storage and Recovery System October 1999 The Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District was issued Class V Underground Injection Control (UIC) Area Permit UTU500005 to operate an aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) system as an integral part of their public water supply system. Under UAC R317-7-5.1 and UAC R317-7-5.5 the Executive Secretary of the Utah Water Quality Board is authorized to call for a permit for any Class V injection well that may endanger an underground source of drinking water.  Since the source waters may be subject to spills or deliberate dumping of contaminants, it is the determination of the Executive Secretary that the proposed injection of water as described above should be permitted. The purpose of the ASR system is to:

• • Capture high quality mountain stream runoff water that is unstored and otherwise uncaptured, treat it, and store it underground for later use;
  • Release stored Deer Creek Reservoir water during the winter months that would otherwise spill during the subsequent spring and cause excessively high flows in the downgradient channel, convey the water to a treatment plant, treat it, and store it underground for later use;
  • Increase the peak demand delivery capacity within Salt Lake County; and
  • Stabilize the declining elevation of ground water in the aquifer in southeastern Salt Lake County.

This aquifer recharge and recovery system includes 19 wells to inject water into the unconfined zone of the principal aquifer of the Salt Lake Valley. The project is located between 700 to 2700 East and 6800 to 9800 South in southeastern Salt Lake County.  Water is taken from Deer Creek Reservoir, the Provo River, and six Salt Lake County mountain streams, and then treated via a combination of four water treatment plants prior to injecting it.

The bulk of the injected water will be recovered during periods of high demand during the summer months. This project was important because it allowed JVWCD to successfully recharge the drinking water aquifer and stabilize declining ground water levels in southeast Salt Lake County. Since the success of this ASR project, a Class V UIC permit for an ASR project was issued to the town of Leamington, in April 2008, and Cache County and the City of Layton have expressed interest in obtaining Class V UIC permits for ASR projects.

Natural Resource Damage Claim and Settlement In the late 1980’s the State of Utah became aware of potential impacts to ground water in the area of the Southwest Salt Lake Valley.  Subsequent investigations by the State assessed that there was an injury to the ground water resulting from the release of hazardous substances from Kennecott’s (Kennecott Utah Copper Company) milling and mining operations located in the Bingham mining district. The State filed an initial claim against Kennecott in October 1986 in order to preserve its resource damage claim under the then existing statute of limitations even though a five year study was underway to evaluate the existing and potential impacts to the ground water.  The Federal District Court (since the action by the State was pursued under CERCLA § 107(a)(4)(C), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(C)) stayed the action until the completion of the five year study and gave time to the State and Kennecott to negotiate a settlement.

An initial settlement was filed with the court in 1991 but was subsequently found substantively deficient in three major areas, 1) lack sufficient foundation for the State’s determination that its ground water natural resource cannot be restored, 2) failed to require substantial protection of the State natural resources from further contamination, and 3) failed to apply the proper measure of damages which resulted in failure adequately to take into account the extent of the damages the State has suffered and would suffer as a result of the contamination. In August of 1995 the State’s Natural Resource Damage Consent Decree with Kennecott and the Salt Lake Valley Water Conservancy District (as an intervener plaintiff) was entered by the Court. The 1995 NRD CD required Kennecott to:

• • Conduct and complete the RI/FS in accordance with the work plan approved by the State and the EPA
  • Begin extracting ground water from the low pH/heavy metals plume (acid plume) of Zone A by drill a well(s) and equipping the well to extract at a rate of at least 1,000 gallons per minute and to deliver the extracted water to the leach water handling system (rate would remove at least 400 acre-feet of contaminated water per year)
  • Complete additional source control measures specifically described as the eastside collection system and the Bingham Creek cutoff system
  • Establish a Trust Fund (with the State Trustee as the beneficiary) in the amount of $37M (comprising a $9M cash payment and $28M letter of credit) to be used to “…restore, replace or acquire the equivalent of the surface or ground water resources for the benefit of the public in the Affected Area”.

After the completion of the RI/FS in March 1998, the State, Kennecott and the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District (formally the Salt Lake Valley Water Conservancy District) began to evaluate a proposed ground water treatment project to make use of the Trust Fund.  This evaluation effort extended from 1999 onward past Governor Leavitt’s term in office.

Additional Information

Creation of a Multiple Agency Cooperative Agreement to Reduce Fecal Contamination in the Waters of Lake Powell In 1996 there were multiple beach closures at the Lake Powell National Recreational Area due to high fecal coliform contamination in waters near swimming beaches. The National Park Service (NPS) was concerned about diminished recreation opportunities and negative economic impacts expected if the number of beach closures continued to increase. As a result, NPS contacted the Utah’s Division of Water Quality (DWQ) to discuss potential mechanisms that could be employed to address fecal contamination of this national resource.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was written between the NPS and DWQ to formalize a cooperative agreement to develop programs to decrease threats to human health resulting from fecal pollutants at Lake Powell. At the time the MOU was drafted little was known about sources of fecal contamination, nor were formal procedures in place to protect public health. As a result, the MOU called for the creation of Lake Powell Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to make recommendations to the NPS on how best to address fecal pollutants in the lake. The TAC consisted of scientist and resource managers from EPA Region 8, Arizona DWQ, Utah DWQ, the Navajo Nation, NPS, and faculty Utah State University. Together the TAC made numerous recommendations to NPS on how best to approach fecal monitoring, assessment of threats to human health, and remediation efforts to reduce the number of beach closures.

NPS subsequently implemented numerous management changes including:

• • Changing the bacteriological indicator from fecal coliform to E. coli.
  • Establishing a more rigorous routine of monitoring at beaches throughout the lake.
  • Establishing a beach closure and re-opening procedures.
  • Declaring Lake Powell a “no discharge waterbody” that prevents the use of marine sanitation devices on the lake.
  • Developing rules that allowed NPS to seal the discharge ports from any marine sanitation device found on the lake.
  • Requiring the use of “porta-potties” on smaller boats and by the public in general throughout the area.
  • Constructing twelve floating discharge stations to receive human waste from houseboat holding tanks.

In addition, procedures for transporting sewage from these stations to the Dangling Rope sewage treatment lagoons for disposal were put in place.

• • Implementing a public outreach program to educate the public about environmental awareness and the need to protect the recreational value of the lake.

The programs implemented from the cooperative efforts of NPA and DWQ have proved remarkably successful. The TAC has become a model for how to get numerous regulatory entities together to address a shared environmental problem. More importantly, the number of beach closures has dramatically decreased though time to the point where no closures have been necessary from 2006-2008. A cooperative effort led by the National Park Service and Utah’s Division of Water Quality has resulted in impressive reductions in high counts of fecal bacteria in the water near Lake Powell Beaches. In 1994, 11 beach closures were necessary to protect human health. After implementation of the environmental programs developed through these cooperative efforts, the number of closures has continued to decline.  No beach closures were needed from 2005-2008.

For the Olympic Winter Games of 2002 held in Salt Lake City, a joint effort with the organizing committee of the Olympic Winter Games of 2002, local health departments and sewerage agencies was undertaken for waste management. The Division of Water Quality worked closely with the Organizing Committee to manage environmental issues.

The model used in this event was used subsequently in other venues in Europe and Australia. In February 1999, the planning for waste management strategies began.  The planning covered various contingencies from severe weather and road conditions to equipment failures. The organizing committee awarded waste management contract to a consortium of five companies having considerable experience in waste management of large public gatherings at all types of events. There were twelve venues holding different events. The Games were supported through six support sites, and ten park and ride sites.  Waste management was planned for about a quarter million visitors and support staff. Arrangements were made to bring 2500 portable toilets, 31 restroom trailers for athletes and invited guests, 80 hand wash stations, 90 holding tanks and all available in-place facilities to collect and transport 150,000 gallons per day of wastewater flow, or two million gallons over the duration of the Games.  A fleet of 60 tankers, pumper trucks, and other support service trucks were placed in service to transport wastewater to as many as five wastewater treatment plants on Wasatch Front for treatment and disposal; with four additional treatment plants kept in reserve. Only biodegradable deodorants and deicing agents were used for the entire duration of the Games.

In March of 1995 legislation passed which provides for Planning and Design Advances to be made by the Utah Water Quality Board to political subdivisions of the state. This legislation provided a means to provide interim financial assistance for project planning until the long-term project financing could be secured.  Planning Advances assisted communities in defining a current situation, selecting the best solution, and identifying an implementation plan. Design Advances gave communities the ability to complete detailed plans and specifications of the wastewater project to be built. Ultimately,

Sales Tax Diversion to the Water Loan Programs February 1994 A water development bill, sponsored by Sen. John Holmgren, passed the legislature. The bill directs 1/8% of sales tax revenue to water projects. Revenue would be split among state water boards as follows: 50% to the Board of Water Resources; 25% to the Water Quality Board; and 25% to the Drinking Water Board. In the second year of funding the bill provided for 50% of the revenues to go to the Department of Transportation provided two conditions occurred: 1) if state surplus revenues are greater than $200 million; and 2) the legislature did not pass a gasoline tax to fund transportation needs.  The funding would initially provide $5 million per year to fund needed wastewater projects. In 1995 this percentage was amended to 1/16%.  Governor Leavitt was opposed to this legislation. Governor Leavitt’s Campaign to Stop the Use of Using Sales Tax Funds To Help Fund Water Projects December 2002 Governor Leavitt attended a joint meeting of the Water Quality Board and Drinking Water Board to speak to his plan to petition the legislature to discontinue the pledging of 1/16% of sales tax revenues to the water loan programs. His plan was to sell a bond and pledge the future revenues from repayments on outstanding water loans to service the bond. The proceeds of the bond would be used to help address the projected deficit in the state budget.  The Governor’s opposition to the sales tax set-aside was based on his belief that sales tax funds should not subsidize water development and that subsidized loans impede water conservation.While the Utah Wastewater Loan Program is primarily funded through federal capitalization grants and repayments on loans made from those grants, a 25% reduction in the loan funds would have resulted from the Governor’s proposal.

Storm Water Phase I Program November 1990 Phase I of EPA’s administrative rules for the storm water program were published in the Federal Register on this date. The mandate for the new storm water program came from the reauthorization of the 1987 Clean Water Act. These rules required storm water permits for large and medium municipalities (large municipalities have populations over 250,000; medium municipalities have populations between 100,000 to 250,000). Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County are the only municipalities in Utah that fit the qualifications for permitting, however, with the highway and drainage system that UDOT had through the two municipalities, UDOT was a co-permittee in both municipal permits.  Applications for large and medium municipalities were due in two parts. Part A for large municipalities was due November 18, 1991, Part B was due November 16, 1992.

Part A for medium municipalities was due May 18, 1992, Part B was due May 17, 1993. To achieve compliance with the new storm water permit Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County developed storm water ordinances with legal authority and financial resources to support an extensive storm water management and monitoring program. Also included in Phase I of the UPDES storm water program was the requirement of storm water permits for industrial activity. Included in the range of industrial storm water permits required was a storm water permit for construction activity. All construction projects causing disturbances of 5 acres or more are required to get storm water permits. Deadlines for submission of Phase I industrial storm water permit applications was in October 1992. The storm water permit program is under 402 of the Clean Water Act, or it is in the NPDES Program. As in Utah, all states that already had primacy for the NPDES permitting program were obligated to develop the storm water program. One of the significant issues of this mandate was that funding did not come with assumption of the program.  Storm Water Phase II Program August 1995 The Phase II storm water administrative rules are developed, following the promulgation of EPA regulations. In these rules Phase II permits were divided into tier I and tier II. Tier I included permits that the permitting authority determined were contributing to a water quality impairment or were a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the state. Few if any permits were required during tier I in Utah. The requirements for tier II were developed when the EPA promulgated more defining Phase II regulations on December 8, 1999. As a result of these regulations and the population density determinations in the consensus for 2000, 74 small municipalities were identified as falling under Phase II municipal storm water permit requirements, and of industrial storm water permits, construction activity from 1 to 5 acres was included.

June 2001 Land development activities within the State cast a spot light on decentralized systems program managed by the Division of Water Quality.  This fact necessitated skilled designers, operators, inspectors and maintenance personnel for a successful decentralized program.  In recognition of this need, the Legislature adopted an onsite professional certification program and funded a training center at the Utah State University,

Logan in 2001.
In less than six months, the Utah Water Quality Board adopted rules for the certification and certified as many as 300 professionals within a short time frame of four months.