Department of Environmental Quality Alan Matheson Executive Director State of Utah GARY R. HERBERT Governor DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RADIATION CONTROL Scott T. Anderson Director SPENCER J. COX Lieutenant Governor March 8, 2018 Bradley R. Cahoon Durham Jones & Pinegar, P.C. 111 South Main Street, Suite 2400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 RE: Letter of March 5, 2018 Dear Mr. Cahoon: I have completed my review of your letter of March 5, 2018 written in behalf of your client, Promontory Point Resources, LLC (Promontory) regarding Promontory’s application for a class V landfill permit (Application). The Application was voluntarily withdrawn by Promontory on February 16, 2018. In your letter, you request that I take certain actions concerning records of the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (Division) pertaining to the Application. You also request that I limit my communication and that of my staff with members of the public concerning the Application. The purpose of this letter is to respond to your requests and explain why I disagree with your legal conclusions. Response to Requests Regarding SC&A’s final report concerning Promontory’s Needs Assessment Report Addendum, for the reasons explained herein, I do not plan to add that report to the Division’s Promontory web page. It is, however, a public record, available to the public upon request. As previously acknowledged, Promontory has withdrawn its Application and I have determined to take no further administrative action concerning it. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) strives for transparency in the performance of its work. In the interests of transparency and efficiency, the documents associated with that Application were placed on the Division’s web site to provide relevant information to the public concerning Promontory’s proposed Class V Permit. Because there is no longer a pending Application, I will remove information related to that Application from the Division’s web page. However, all public records concerning the Permit Application will continue to be available to the public through a Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) Utah Code Annotated § 63G-2-101, et seq. request or EZ Search. DSHW-2018-002001 195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144880 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880 Telephone (801) 536-0200 • Fax (801) 536-0222 • T.D.D. (801) 536-4284 www.deq.utah.gov Printed on 100% recycled paper Bradley R. Cahoon Durham Jones & Pinegar, P.C. Page 2 No Pre-determined Outcome As you know, all applications received by the Division are evaluated for their technical content, completeness and compliance with applicable regulatory and statutory standards. Accordingly, all applications succeed or fail on these merits alone. No outcome is ever pre-determined; nor is any decision made until the evaluations are complete and applicable standards have been satisfied or not. You should understand that I did not reach a “final decision” concerning Promontory’s Class V Permit Application because Promontory voluntarily withdrew the Application. I have, therefore, “prejudged” nothing. I and my staff have reminded Promontory on more than one occasion that it had to meet the statutory requirements applicable to its Application, including the requirement to demonstrate a need for the additional capacity Promontory’s proposed Class V landfill would provide. See, Utah Code Ann. §§ 19-6-108(10) and 19-6-108(11). The Division has advised Promontory when we thought its demonstration efforts did not appear to meet the statutory requirements. Those actions neither constitute nor demonstrate a pre-judgment that the Class V Permit Application would be denied. When and if Promontory submits a new Class V Permit Application, I and my staff will evaluate that permit based on the statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to it, just as we were doing at the time the Application was withdrawn. Finalization of the Contractor Report on the Needs Assessment Report Addendum My contractor, SC&A, submitted its evaluation of Promontory’s Needs Assessment Report Addendum on March 1, 2018. SC&A’s report is a public record under GRAMA. You asked in your letter that I provide Promontory with access to SC&A’s comments. I will consider your request to be a request for the report under § 63G-2-204 of GRAMA. The document is enclosed with this letter. Promontory’s withdrawal of its Class V permit application was a voluntary decision made at its own risk. Finalization of the contractor’s evaluation on the Needs Assessment Report Addendum was my decision as Director, and Promontory has no right to interfere with it. These two decisions are not linked in any way. SC&A’s report is my document, not Promontory’s. It was produced at my request by my contractor, and as Director, I pay for it. All private permit applicants pay the costs of reviewing their permit applications, including review work done by my contractor. Promontory has been treated no differently than any other private permit applicant in this matter. The fact that Promontory pays the Division’s costs in reviewing its Permit Application does not change the nature of the report; it is a public document, a legal status that is not subject to Promontory’s veto. See, GRAMA, § 63G-2-301(3)(c). I will not require Promontory to pay for SC&A costs concerning the report that were incurred after February 16, 2018, the date Promontory withdrew its Permit Application. GRAMA Is Not a Shield to Protect Promontory From the Public Availability of Public Documents. Your legal position that, in posting public records on the Division’s web page, I have circumvented GRAMA procedures is incorrect. The Legislature intends, through GRAMA, to “promote the public’s right of easy and reasonable access to unrestricted public records.” GRAMA, § 63G-2-102(3). Section 201(2) creates a presumption that all records are public unless otherwise expressly provided by statute. Section 301(3)(c) designates as “normally public,” unless expressly exempt from disclosure, “records Bradley R. Cahoon Durham Jones & Pinegar, P.C. Page 3 documenting the services provided by a contractor or a private provider to the extent the records would be public if prepared by the governmental agency.” The Legislature also intends, for the public good, to allow the government to restrict access to certain records. GRAMA, § 63G-2-102(2). None of the public records concerning Promontory’s Application is subject to any of the restrictions identified in GRAMA, whether they are available to the public through the Division’s web site, through EZ Search, or only through a GRAMA request. To the best of my knowledge, Promontory has not claimed that any documents are entitled to business confidentiality protection from release to the public under GRAMA. Furthermore, I am not aware that any of the documents Promontory has submitted would qualify for such protection had it been claimed. GRAMA section 63G-2-204(1) imposes requirements on persons seeking access to the public records I am responsible to protect. See, GRAMA § 63G-2-201(10)(a)(ii). GRAMA does not provide Promontory a shield that would prohibit me from making records available to the public in ways that do not place the records themselves at risk from loss or damage, including the Division’s web page or EZ Search. Use of Social Media; Division Web Site The DEQ and its Divisions are public agencies conducting the public’s business. It is a Department ethic to be as transparent as possible to the public and the people we regulate. To this end, the Department uses social media. For years, the Department and its Divisions have used their web pages and social media outlets to provide information to the public on various programs and the regulated community, including the status of permits and permitting actions. To suggest that such a practice is prohibited by law is not supported by rule or statute. The information concerning Promontory’s Application on the Division’s web page consists of documents that are public records. The Class V Permit Application, for example, is a document that Promontory, like any permit applicant, was required to submit to obtain a solid waste disposal permit. It is a public record under GRAMA §§ 63G-2-103(21) and 63G-2-103(22). It is not a record that is “private,” “protected” or “controlled.” Any person may request access to that record, or any other public record, under §§ 63G-2-201 and 63G-2-204 and I am required to let that person inspect and copy it. GRAMA does not in any way prohibit me from posting a public record on the Division’s web page. Other documents on the Division’s web page, such as the “Frequently Asked Questions” page, are created by the Division to help the public understand the permitting process. The “Frequently Asked Questions” page does not show a bias in favor of or against the issuance of a Class V permit. It does not contain any “inflammatory statements,” about volumes or types of wastes or any other subjects. The statements on that page are factual. My decision to share information on the Promontory Application is consistent with past Department and Division practice. The Department of Environmental Quality and its Divisions deal with important matters that occasionally spark public interest, and even passion. Those matters that capture public attention, including Promontory’s Class V Permit Application, often inundate our staff with inquiries from the public and media for documents and other information. In such situations, making relevant information easily available reduces staff and taxpayer burden, facilitates dissemination of accurate information, diffuses public rancor and builds greater trust in the process. Other applicants have Bradley R. Cahoon Durham Jones & Pinegar, P.C. Page 4 recognized these benefits and have not objected to having factual information about their proposal shared on our website, in public forums or on social media. Division Communication with the Public The assertion that employees of the Division cannot talk to the public outside of a noticed public hearing or public comment period is without merit. Department employees participate in public meetings and other public forums and interact with the public as part of their jobs all the time. Whether presenting information or responding to questions, the interaction is necessary, proper, legal and consistent with Department policy. Any position to the contrary is not supported by law and is inconsistent with the rights of the citizens whose interests the agencies were established to protect. Promontory incorrectly believes that I cannot make agency records available to the public until I have formally confirmed in writing that Promontory’s Permit Application is complete. There is no requirement limiting my authority to make these public records available, including on the Division’s web site. These documents are available, irrespective of whether members of the public are Promontory or others. Information in the Public Forum The Department and its Divisions are responsible for the content and accuracy of the information they make available to the public. Other public and private entities are likewise responsible for their contribution to the public forum. Any entity, public or private, may respond to information presented by another person that is inaccurate. The Division is not responsible to “correct” the speech of people who choose to speak about a proposed solid waste permit, and it would surely be censured if it tried. If someone says something inaccurate about the Division, I must decide whether and how to respond. If Promontory believes someone has said something inaccurate, Promontory, not I or my staff, is responsible to decide whether and how to address that inaccuracy. Promontory’s Ability to Respond to the Needs Assessment Report Addendum Your letter indicated that Promontory is concerned that the Director’s report on Promontory’s Needs Assessment Report Addendum would be negative and that Promontory would be unable to rebut it. Actually, the contractor’s report says that Promontory has made progress in meeting the statutory requirements concerning which the Director’s contractor prepared comments. Promontory may submit a letter, if it wishes, explaining its position concerning any factual problems it perceives in the report. That letter will also be a public record, available to all who are interested. Promontory may also request amendment of the report pursuant to GRAMA § 63G-2-603. Bradley R. Cahoon Durham Jones & Pinegar, P.C. Page 5 SC&A Did Not Recommend that Promontory Hire a Particular Contractor We have spoken with the president of our contractor, SC&A, about your statement that SC&A had recommended that Promontory hire HDR Engineering, Inc. He said SC&A did not make such a recommendation. Conclusion I reject your belief that I or my staff have done anything inappropriate concerning Promontory’s Application. We have not done anything to “facilitate . . . distribution” of misinformation concerning the Application. I have not “pre-judged” Promontory’s withdrawn Application, and should Promontory submit a new Class V Application, I will evaluate it on its merits and take action in accordance with applicable law. I will also make information concerning such an Application available to the public in accordance with law and as I judge appropriate. I have acted lawfully in my handling of public records under GRAMA. I have not violated GRAMA in making public records available on the Division’s web site or through EZ Search. The Department has acted lawfully in placing information concerning Promontory’s Application on various social media. I have caused no legal harm to Promontory. Promontory has no legal or equitable basis for injunctive relief concerning my handling of public records related to Promontory’s Application. Promontory has not demonstrated any irreparable injury or met any of the other elements for injunctive relief required by URCP Rule 65A, and if Promontory chooses to seek an injunction, I will oppose it. Sincerely, Scott T. Anderson, Director Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control STA/al Enclosure: c: SC&A Report on Promontory Needs Assessment Report Addendum Alan Matheson, Executive Director, Department of Environmental Quality Craig Anderson, Attorney General’s Office 4 *'sc,*A Div of Waste Management and Hadration Control March 1,2018 Scott Anderson Director Utah Department of Environmental Qualtty Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control 195 North 1950 West Salt Lake City, UT 84116 MAR 0 0s llw -aot6-oon)b Dear Mr. Anderson, SC&A, Inc. has prepared this report in response to a request from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality's Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control to evaluate the "Needs Assessment Report Addendum" submitted by Promontory Point Resources, LLC (PPR) on Decernber 20,2017. The Needs Assessment Report Addendum was submitted to fulfill the requirements of Section 19-6-108, Subsections (10) and (11), of the Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Act ("Acf'). The Division requested an evaluation that included both data validation and analysis using professional judgment and opinion. Overall, SC&A's review found that the Needs Assessment Report Addedum improves on the previous report. However, it does not demonstrate the need for addtional Class V landfill capacity in Utah, does not provide a robust market analysis, and has some remaining data gaps and therefore does not establish the need for the facility. SC&A's attached report provides more detailed information. Appendix A to the report examines the completeness of the PPR's submittal in terms of statutory requirements, Appendix B provides a review of the missing content from the previous report, and Appendix C addresses the validity of the data submitted. Sincerely, Greg Beronja President & CEO SC&A,Inc. 2200 Wllson Boulevard, Sulte 300 . Arlington, Vlrglnla .22201 I 20t8 . 703.893.6600 . Fax 703.821.8236 -*sc&A EYALUATION OF TEE PROMONTORY POrNT RESOURCES, LLC, NEEDS ASSESSMEI{T REPORT ADDENDT]M March 1,201E for Utah Department of Environmental QuaHty 195 North 1950 West SattLake City, UT E4116 SC&A,Inc. 2200IYiIson Blvd., Suite 300 Arlington, YA2220l Summary of Findings SC&A, Inc. (SC&A) has prepared this report in accordance with a scope of work from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality's Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control requesting evaluation of the 'T.{eeds Assessment Report Addendum" (Addendum) submitted by Promontory Point Resources, LLC (PPR), dated December 20,2017. The Addendum was prepared to respond to comments SC&A had made on PPR's Needs Assessment Report ("Report"), dated March2017, to fulfrll the requirements of Section 19-6-108, Subsections (10) and (11), of the Utah Solid ard,Hazardous Waste Act ("Act"). The intent of the Addendum was to provide additional or revised justification for the need for additional capacity in Utah for the disposal of nonhazardous waste per Subsections (10) and (11). The Division requested an evaluation that included both data validation and analysis using professional judgment and opinion. The evaluation is intended to determine whether the following conclusions can be made: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The analysis meets the statutory requirements in completeness. The analysis supports PPR's conclusions. Data and information provided in the analysis are valid and accurate Data gaps in PPR's economic market analysis exist. The analysis identifies existing landfill capacity in the State of Utah. There is a need for additional capacity of nonhazardous solid waste. The analysis complies with the requirements of the act. PPR is currently a permitted Class I landfill seeking a Class V permit. A Class V permit would allow PPR to operate as a commercial nonhazardous solid waste disposal facility and receive waste directly from industry as well as from out-of-state generators (specifically from California, as mentioned in the Addendum). Therefore, SC&A's analysis will review the Addendum focusing on generation and capacity information as related to these waste types. To meet these objectives, SC&A compared each requirement from Subsections (10) and (11) with relevant information from the Addendum, identified data gaps and any unsupported claims, verified the accuracy of content and data, reviewed relevant landfills to determine existing landfill capacity, and utilized primary and secondary sources to verify unsupported claims and identiff additional information required. Summary analysis for each objective is presented below. More detailed information can be found in the referenced appendices. 1. The analysis meets the statutory requirements in completeness In its review of the Needs Assessment Report in July 2017, SC&A compared each item within Subsections (10) and (11) with the relevant sections of the Report to determine whether it met the statutory requirements and found it had failed to: (l) provide a market analysis of the need for the facility, (2) identify and review a proposed facility within the region as well as review additional existing/proposed facilities outside of the immediate region, (3) provide information 1 on methane generation, (4) discuss waste reduction management methods, (5) adequately address information on treatment, if applicable, and storage of potential waste, and (6) disclose potential adverse environmental impacts of the facility. In reviewing the Addendum, SC&A revisited the omissions listed above. Based on this further analysis, PPR made ptogress on these requirements. However, specific pricing information, capacity information for out-of-state landfills, and a more detailed analysis of the ECDC Environmental (ECDC) landfill are lacking. Appendix A, "Completeness of Statutory Requirements," provides more detailed information. The validity of data and analysis provided will be explained in subsequent sections. 2. The analysis supports PPR's conclusions Based on the previous Needs Assessment Report, SC&A determined that the analysis was incomplete as it omitted the following: A. Robust market analysis B. Support for claim that proximity to rail offers a competitive advantage for out-of-state waste C. Analysis of trends in waste generation D. Site-specific information about location, geology, and potential adverse environmental impact E. Implications of a court case that is pending (Young Resources Limited Partnership v. Promontory Landfill & Promontory Point Land Resources, LLC) F. Resumes and disclosure of any noncompliance issues for facility founders and all senior management G. Information on storage or treatment processes prior to landfilling, if the facility plans to offer these services The Addendum improves on the above, and detailed information can be found in Appendix B "Review ofNeeds Assessment Report Missing Content." However, the Addendum still lacks a complete analysis, including where regional industrial waste is generated and the capacity of outof-state landfills currently receiving this waste. The validity of data and analysis prwided will be explained in subsequent sections. 3. Data and information provided in the analysis are valid and accurate SC&A validated data with sources provided and/or additional sources. Of 16 items identified for data validation, l l had sources provided and were confirmed. However, three claims did not have sources provided and required additional research. Two claims are unconfirmed due to lack of needed information. Appendix C, "Data Validation," provides more detailed information. 2 4. Data gaps in PPR's economic market analysis exist SC&A's review of the Needs Assessment Report identified the followingdata gaps in the market analysis to show the need for the facility: (a) assumed waste quantities for disposal at PPR from waste sources listed, (b) PPR's pricing information to determine competitiveness, and (c) capacity infomation for current and proposed regional and out-of-state landfills. The Addendum only partially addresses these data gaps. 4(a). Assumed waste quantities for disposal at PPRfrom waste sources listed The Addendum identifies two main waste sources relevant to a Class V designation: regional non-hazardous industrial waste and regional special waste. For industrial waste, the Addendum states that DWMRC reported disposal of more than 1.2 million tons of industrial waste in Utah's landfills in 2015 and that PPR expects to receive 15-20% of this tlpe of waste (180,00G-240,000 tons). However, when excluding the Intermountain Power Agency's large Class lllb ash landfill, only about 704,A00 tons of industrial waste were disposed in Utah in 2015.r SC&A evaluated the referenced DWMRC disposal information and found slightly lower figures for industrial waste disposed of in the state (see Table 1) but verified the large portion disposed at the Intermountain Power Agency's landfill (522,447 tons in 201r.2 Additional industrial waste is disposed of on site at other industrial facilities. It is not expected that the generators disposing of waste on site will change this practice soon. Therefore, the amount of waste from this 1.2 million tons that PPR will be able to compete for is the amotrnt currently being disposed of at other Utah Class V landfills, which totals 440,166 tons. Therefore, PPR's expectation of 15-20% expectation should be modified to reflect what portion of this waste PPR will receive versus the other Class V facilities. It is possible PPR could attract additional out-of-state waste if the economics of disposing of the waste at its site are better than other current options. Table l: Annual Industrial Waste Disposed in Utah -' Tons of Material Recvcled 2015 3,476,296 t,204,056 1,144,375 189,788 270,331 2016 3,765,990 1,373,938 889,017 210,49 t99,074 I 2015 waste volumes from a DWMRC tracking spreadsheet provided by Allan Moore to PPR ln2016 2015 waste volumes from a DWMRC tracking spreadsheet provided by Allan Moore to SC&A in 2018 2 3 :' To assess the feasibility of these estimates, SC&A evaluated where industrial waste is generated. Unfortunately, this information is not tracked in Utah, but the EPA Biennial Report shows the top generators of hazardous waste, which may serve as a good proxy. In 2015, Utah generated33,927 tons of hazardous waste. At least 83% of that waste came from the following counties (noted in red on the map): Box Elder, Tooele, Salt Lake, Utah, and Davis; 52Yo of the state's hazardous waste was generated in Box Elder County alone.3 @ 3f,V!ai In2015,45%o of the industrial waste was disposed in Millard County. Five landfills located in Millard, Carbon, Box Elder, and Toole Counties (noted in black on the map) received almost 90% of the industrial waste for the year. Of the five facilities, three were Class V: ECDC (28%), Wasatch (5%\, and Clean Harbors Grassy Mountain (5%).0 Table 2 summarizes the municipal waste, industrial waste, and remaining capacity for the four Class V landfills that are competitors to PPR, according to information from their 2016 Annual Reports. According to these data, ECDC and Wasatch together received about 45% of the total in-state and out-of-state industrial waste in2016. Both landfills currently have significant capacity. Therefore, PPR's argument for receiving industrial waste is not based on capacity needs but rather an assumption they will be competitive enough to incentivize generators to redirect industrial waste to PPR. Table 2: Class Class Y Facility ECDC Environmental V Landfills Disposal and Capacity Municipal In-State (Tons) Municipal Industrial Out-of- In-State (Tons) State (Tons) Industrial Out-of- Capacity (Years) State (Tons) 15,749 0 15,749 17,466 321,540 339,006 1,606 563,963 0 563,963 57,942 6,355 64,297 305 139,140 0 139,140 0 0 0 43 26,037 0 0 0 0 0 l6 Wasatch Regional Landfill Intermountain Resional Payson City Landfill Total 3 718,852 403,303 EPA Biennial Hazardous Waste Report, 2015 htfps ://rcrainfo. epa. gov/rcrainfoweb/action/modules/br/summary/view 4 2015 waste volumes from a DWMRC tracking rp."uArn""[6rria"a by Allan Moore to SC&A in 20lg 4 a For regional special waste, the Addendum again states that PPR expects to receive 1510% of remediated soil from northern California (44,117-58,822 tons) and southern California (59,92279,896 tons), although no evidence supporting this assumption is given. 4(b). PPR's pricing information to determine competitiveness The Addendum does not give specific pricing information as it is proprietary, although PPR states that it will be competitive. The Addendum references the Northem Utah Environmental Resource Agency (NUERA), which states "nationally, landfill tipping fees average around $45lton and are commonly around $80/ton" and that PPR would be similar to other Utah area landfills (with tipping fees less than $30/ton), thereby showing competitiveness.s In addition, Table 9 of the Addendum uses $25-$35 as a potential range for PPR. The Addendum compares "all-in" costs of California industrial wastes being disposed of in California versus PPR. However, it is unclear why the transportation costs (per ton) to Promontory from California generators only include rail; it assumes they are rail served without providing evidence. 4(c). Capacity informationfor curuent and proposed regional and out-of-state landfills The Addendum provides capacity information for other in-state landfills (see Section 4.1.3 and swnmary information in Table 12) including two potential scenarios for the Bayview site. However, ECDC is missing from the table and no capacity information is given for out-of-state landfills, such as those in California. Focusing on in-state landfills that are competitive for receiving industrial waste, ECDC and Wasatch landfills together have over 1,000 years of capacity. 5. The analysis idenfiftes *isting landftll capacity in the State of Utah Section 4.1.3 of the Addendum examines capacity of the facilities SC&A identified as PPR's main competitors: ECDC Environmental, Payson City Corporation, Intermountain Regional Landfill (IRL), and Wasatch Regional (Class V), as well as Bayview (Class I). In addition, srmrmary capacity information is presented in Table 12 of the Addendum which includes other Class I and V landfills including Logan North Valley Landfill (a Class I landfill) which has a reported maximum capacrty of 81 years. While the Addendum argues many landfills throughout the state are nearing capacity, the analysis shows significant existing capaclty in Utah. Rather, its argument for need relies on PPR as a cost-competitive commercial landfill option for the northernmost Wasatch Front communities due to relatively low transportation costs. In addition, the Addendum states that PPR will ensure "IRL and Republic (Wasatch Regional) do not form a duopoly, which could drive disposal prices higher" and that if IRL fills up, it will prevent Wasatch Regional from becoming a monopoly. However, for in-state waste options, ECDC is an additional disposal option, but it is owned by Republic, so the duopoly argument still holds some merit. For out-otstate wastes, California andNevada waste management options will remain an option versus the use of landfills in Utah. 5 Information Sheet, Bayview Landfill Project, FAQ #4, Northern Utah Environmental Resource Agency, no date. 5 6. There is a needfor additional capacity of nonhazardous solid waste SC&A has determined there is not a present need for additional capacity of nonhazardous solid waste. For in-state options, there is over 1,000 years of capacity among Class V landfrlls able to receive local and out-of-state industrial and special waste. Analysis of out-of-state options, such as those in California and Nevada, was lacking from the Addendum, and they may provide additional capacity. 7. The analysis complies with the requirements of the act Overall, the analysis partially complies with the requirements of the Act. While it includes most information and data required to meet all stafutory requirements, an analysis of relevant out-ofstate (specifically CA) landfrlls and a more detailed analysis of the ECDC landfill are lacking. In addition, the Addendum cites several non-capacity-related benefits (discouraging a duopoly, keeping market prices down, attractingindustry) and the forthcoming population growth expected in the area in establishing need rather than a present capacity problem. 6 Appendix A Completeness of Statutory Requirements (10) The director may not approve a commercial nonhazardous solid or hazardous waste operation plan that meets the requirements of Subsection (9) unless it contains the information required by the board, including: (10 - A) evidence that the proposed commercialfacility has solid or hazardous waste, including: (i) information onthe source, quantity, and price chargedfor treating, storing, and disposing of potential nonhazardous solid or hazardous waste in the state and regionally; Did not provide detailed information on waste quantrty, pricrng for each waste type, or sufficient information on storage and treatment at the facility, if applicable. A-1 a proven market of nonhazardous Section 4.1.1 provides expectations (in tons) for regional nonhazardous industrial waste and remediated soil, though assumptions ,rnderlyrng these later estimates are unsupported. Overall, estimates 284,000 to 379,000 tons annually in addition to MSW. This differs from Section2.3.3 which states PPR pssumes an initial disposal of 200,000 tons/year. Addendum states fees charged to PPR customers are proprietary but will be competitive. Compares rates to national and regional averages. Does not give specifics on price per waste tlpe or for treating, storing, and disposing. Additional information on cost savings associated with regionalization of waste disposal given in Appendix E, pg. 5-6. The report has not Section 4.1 . I provides estimates of regional nonhazardous industrial waste and remediated soil from Northern and Southern California to PPR. Section 4.1.2 focuses on reduced provided a market analysis since it does not present the transportation costs as a main incentive for quantities from each both Northern Utah and CA to use PPR and waste source and provides calculations for both tnrck and rail PPR's pricing (it) a market analysis transport. For potential waste from California, information is of the needfor a Section 3.2.4 cites more-stringent disposal lacking. It does commercialfacility regulations on a number of non-RCRA present claims of given existing and wastes, proximity of UP's main line, and need based on p otential generation of higher tipping fees in CA as incentives for reduced supply and nonhazardous solid or disposal at PPR. Appendix E, pg. 8-9 states increased demand, hazardous waste in the PPR has already secured Service Agreements as well as general state and regionally; from several industrial customers, contingent benefits of the and upon receipt of the Class V designation and facility. Other construction of rail infrastrucfure at the site. information Despite the above, the Addendum does not analyztngtrends in provide a robust market analysis waste generation and demonstrating the need for the facility. More more in-depth information needs to be presented on why review of other PPR will athact state and regional waste landfills is required. versus other state and regional landfills. A-2 The report identifies A (iii) a review of other existing and proposed commercial nonhazardous solid or hazardous waste facilities regionally and nationally that would competefor the treatment, storage, or disposal of the nonhazardous solid or hazardous waste; all facilities within a 50-mile radius except a new facility ("Logan CityNorth Valley'') set to open in Fall 2017. However, the report lacks a robust review of these local sites and presents little information on facilities outside the region. The main argument for the facility's competitive advantage is its proximity to rail; however, much of the evidence and rationale for that claim is unsupported in the report. Section 4.1.3 cites five landfills (four Class V's and one Class I) that could compete for non-hazardous waste and then provides analysis on each. The Addendum cited relatively low capacity (21-29 years) for Payson City (Class V) and for two potential scenarios for Bayview (Class I). Intermountain Regional and Wasatch, however, were cited as potential competitors given capacity and rates. The Addendum highlights the need for PPR to compete to discourage a duopoly and/or future potential monopoly, to keep prices down, and to extend the life of municipal landfills. However, ECDC could also prohibit a duopoly when considering in-state waste options and landfills in CA would be competitors for outof-state waste. Overall, the Addendum lacks a substantial analysis ofthe ECDC landfill (Class V), which has significant capacity and currently receives a large portion ofthe state's industrial waste. (10 - B) a desuiption of the public beneJits of the proposedfacility, including: (i) the need in the statefor the additional capacity for the management of nonhazardous solid or hazardous waste; The report lacks information to demonstrate the need for additional capacity. A-3 Section 4.2.1 provides Table 12: Landfill Capacity Summary. This table shows relatively low capacity for municipal facilities (15-38 years) and relatively high capacity for commercial facilities, PPR included (up to 305 years). ECDC is missing from the table and has significant capacity (over 1000 years). Overall, this section cites non-capacity related benefits (discouraging a duopoly, keeping market prices down, attracting industry) and the forthcoming population growth expected in the area in establishing need rather than a present capacity problem. Although the report presents some information on methane recovery and the (ii) the energt and resources recoverable by the proposedfactlity; facility's ability to "store" certain wastes for re-use, it should provide additional information on storage, treatment, and potential methane Section 4.2.2 cites PPR plans to install a solar microgrid and use the renewable power as well as to install a landfill gas collection system to directly generate electricity or to use as fuel for mobile equipment. The Addendum seems to satisff this requirement but if PPR intends to sort recyclable materials in the fufure, this should be mentioned. generation. (iii) the reduction of nonhazardous solid or hazardous waste management methods, which are less suitablefor the environment, that would be made possible by the proposed facility ; and (iv) whether any other available site or method for the management of hazardous waste would be less detrimental to the public health or safety or to the quality of the environment; and Although the report briefly mentions recovery techniques, it lacks a discussion of waste reduction management methods. Section 4.3.3 acknowledges potential methods PPR would consider and reiterates commitment to best use of materials. Given the intent of the PPR facility is primarily to landfill materials, the Addendum satisfies this requirement. As mentioned above, ifthe sorting of recyclable materials is an option for the future, this should be mentioned. This requirement is not applicable. Section 4.2.4 states Promontory Point Landfill will only take nonhazardous waste. However, PPR has mentioned in their previous report the potential to accept waste considered hazardous in CA that is not defined as hazardous in Utah. A-4 Addendum Q0 - C) compliance history of an owner or operator of a proposed commercial nonhazardous solid or hazardous w aste treatment, storage, or disposal facility, which may be applied by the director in a nonhazardous solid or hazardous waste operation plan decision, including any plan conditions. Additional information is needed to confirm that facility owners/upper management have no history ofnoncompliance (i.e., resumes or work history offounders and senior leadership). Section 4.3 states PPR leadership and support staffhave over 100 years of experience and have not received notice of any major violations. However, they do not define a minor versus major violation. Brief bios of leadership and management team are provided, and resumes can be upon request. (l l) fhe director may not approve a commercial nonhazardous solid or hazardous wastefacility operation plan unless based on the application, and in addition to the determination required in Subsections (9) and (10), the director determines that: Although the report describes (It-A)the several facility probable attributes beneficial demonstrating environmental beneficial environmental ffict of the impact, much of to the facility this information state outweighs the lacks needed probable detail. The report also fails to adverse environmental include potential adverse effect; and environmental impacts. Section 5.1.1 states PPR does not have any significant adverse environmental impacts and will not have any materially different impacts with a Class V permit and will work to offset any curently unforeseen direct environmental impacts in accordance with environmental laws and regulations. Section 5.1.2 summarizes design standards and highlights some environmental protection features. Section 5. 1 3 summarizes the plan of operations and states that the plan is essentially the same for a Class V permit as a Class I. Appendix E, pg. 17-18 also states that PPR will secure air quality and stormwater permits for construction and operation of the landfill, all of which are in place to protect the environment. Finally, it reiterates the landfill's potential for reducing VMTs. Assuming significant industrial waste is generated in NW Utah and disposed at ECDC, there is potential for significant reduction of VMT's in using PPR instead. However, the Addendum is lacking discussion on the potential adverse effects of installation of a rail spur line. that they . A-5 (11 - B) there is a needfor thefacility to serve industry within the state Although the report states that there is a need for the facility, it does not provide sufficient information to support that claim. As summarizedin Section 4.1.3 and Table 12, there is currently capacity at other Class V landfills in Utah. However, there may be cost or other reasons generators of industrial waste would use PPR. Section 5.2.2 examines industry within the state and reiterates PPR's ability to prevent a duopoly, keep market prices down and help meet projected growth in future waste needs. The Addendum is generally responsive to this requirement given PPR could satis$ industry waste needs and may serye to limit escalation of waste disposal prices, however there is not a lack of capacity to serve industry. A-6 Appendix B Review of Needs Assessment Report Missing Content Robust market analysis Support for claim that proximity to rail offers a competitive advantage for out-of-state waste Analysis of trends in waste generation Site-specifi c information about location, geology, and potential adverse environmental impact Section 3.2 outlines the waste market including industrial waste, special waste, and regional waste. Section 4.1 presents information on market for nonhazardous waste and identifies waste sources (northern Utah and the region). Section 4.1.2 builds on previous information and presents PPR's market analysis. This section argues PPR is a cost-effective, longterm option and focuses on the relatively lower transportation costs. Section 4.1.3 reviews other facilities and potential competitors. Overall, the market analysis provided capacity information and relied on PPR's potential to provide a long term costefficient solution and prevent a duopoly. Not enough information is provided as to why the ECDC Class V landfill is not a viable competitor, despite its listed capacity of 1,000 years and abilitv (and history) to receive industrial waste. Section 4.1.2 provided estimates for disposal at PPR vs. Californian landfills to show the incentive rail provides in Table 9. Despite rail still havrng higher transportation costs compared to CA local truck haul, when evaluated along with PPR's lower trpping fees the "all in costs (per ton)" was lower. It is unclear why the transportation costs (per ton) to Promontory from California generators only include rail; it may assume Califomia generators are also rail served without providing evidence. Section 5.2.1 examines industry within Box Elder County and cites analysis by the Gardner Policy institute providing estimates of projections of PPR job creation and net revenues. It also states that Box Elder County needs to develop longterm waste-disposal infrastructure to help attract new industry. The Addendum fulfills this requirement. Section 5. I . I reviews location standards and references a detailed description of compliance with location standards that was provided in Section l.C of the Class V Landfrll Permit Application (March 2017). The Addendum lacks details on the potential impacts of the facility being close to the Great Salt Lake and the construction of the rail and roadway infrastructure. Additional information on site geology should also be presented. B-1 Implications of a court case that is pending (Young Resources Limited Partnership v. Promontory Landfill & Promontory Point Land Resources, LLC) Resumes and disclosure of any noncompliance issues for facility founders and all senior management Information on storage or treatment processes prior to landfilling, if the facility plans to offer these services Appendix E, pg.1 states that the court case (160100006) was dismissed on July 26,2016 and that it would not have had an impact on the project. Section 4.3 provides biographies for leadership and management team and states PPR's management team does not have any major noncompliance issues. Resumes can be provided upon request. Not applicable. B,-2 slfl sl 5l tr OS g< z- (al E-a /'\ € El$ dE q) qlEl E.E :i Lr 89. I L ao cdl C)l El tlEt EE tr-c -gl,5l 3cn stEt EE >G) o)H a6 $oo Etro-l ,n! 5 ; ?ltl FI.9I E r-g L ra ^l ,.2 c fi €E:€> F 5 cE Q L.F o LE (' H a or-Q cA c.l @ 6l I U (n t)I trl ol al o c.I EI E o US >t dt g< €h E o A. o) il o a CS tr tr ta) o c.l BI EI -.n OE >c) cn ..,!$., o 5 H(JA O o lsE C.IEA rT El=l €I EI tr 3lst El trl (a U El 8l 3l (sl L) \o E gITI fiE rn (0 llol o-r H E O CB ol -Cl Fts :.4 L +i o. EE -uD G) & 6)l -r .d cB a el al u,o n€ () I L a '=l -V ol gi( h€ l- C) cl.= '-+l a€ H'a {9 E(l) o FEE U9 'l4tr t< (+i 9tr K8 Bg = O(dr+ €:3 OE Etr g ro O 0- H 9.8 LFLY E(0 ir. E E r& fH !) tr tr Etr ah rh rB €EsEE E c,, EsHI'j d o o id-ol*coE xo B .t) C) Ei h tC) bo Lr Eg ra E rtr =c) o 6t o O ZE o 0 rE C) z o rE = ftrfEEr ER#{: 5 ^E ocs o.r o o z z .+1 o r+ C\Xrd 9s* .tssf o c-. (l cS .n cl tr c Fr q) a! 6, C\I O Aat tr H o) tj L E: € ;F €Ep E;.E*HA b +-t SEs AEsH \o Ec{ o ^.4 OQut T Eg E 858^EiE : SE EET sagEs ; at s t s Es ,gxgsEB Efie XEqP c.roE $ E= EsFsF: oa?. .€i E3 $:?$i3 IJH on o oo-P= S 3 S.E >d €qE U .B.E b qpEE flEia .l==q agIfsEFaE fi H g€ HEE?g? t sE $, DiHg SE H E s g B'e r 3 c.€ 6l BEEFg$ C) an 6) & A. € .9 8#,AE @(g (E o o € o I EB €tr 'F q--9 E (u sP (n .-'o -o EHE. L U B 4 €8E boll € G) !)bo co o cO $ $ $ o m o cO o ca ttr _c = E() r) =(d J> ) ri g& \< (r!E cd :X -a (l, q) L g E g EH ao AE 0()'5 = &. HHz ! H E'E"*N O E-r.l EflRE { $H \o3h .. ts :rO) 5,op J1 J4 Fl Fl Fl h EEtEe o=(Bc'o v) o) .n OJ Bor& I Es 3€ = EEsIE }HH.oc.l.Oo){Y (l) ET€EES 8AtsE Esa - .e H.F3.F s, b ,:Gl L HS R E 5 E ! i'+"; )t4-t a (U EtO booQc.l .s? 'i.EU s q l-j E'H cn EUgSgEE EHSEE 6l :h cl €o ts o O.E (DE L(B i= oo €> H t/) .aA (t_x rF{ =).F (, <{ dZ Fts T E c) (Jo trn gtr Es I U $= Ui\ '1= ie = (J.o A .r\ (n U2 o c) Ga Cd,o E.! J-e.t E-HL E Or E=38 (a (rl (B c) $5Ec #EE $ tE.!.x r,<..9E *iX B o '=9Q6 E E,tsts ElggggEBit[- i€ sS HEgS c.I c{ C\ + cn ca rO co Cr co ca =o -o€ q .9x .= 3'E 5B(B I 8 E s*E,,{= tr "EEEAHEE (n (l) EE >() q ;$pE*[ ;';i Bo go sH E.jJ() 4v)(L) (D E* E H!EEH Gt' srE (t> EH EF 96 cr> 96 cl> Uo Oe an an Bs ES E€ E€ .ti EE 5r 5;l= o5 U5 (t) (t) = E E, E.e IA (l) o .tt) t, aa !Dd Ho.9 ;.o.Er..8E>. Eo 'E'tr oo> =A e{g .aF .9< l.jo.F cl ria Ee (l)cl EBe lH kt'(n EEE '= Gt ,!f I rQ a0E