HomeMy WebLinkAboutDERR-2024-007725
H36
H36-1 The Trustee welcomes the
opportunity to meet with Legislators,
provide updates on the proposal, hear
comments, and answer questions.
Briefings have been provided to the
Legislative Management Committee on
November 18, 2003, and August 17,
2004. Utah Legislators whose districts
cover the area of the project are being
notified of hearings, meetings, and
actions regarding the proposal. DEQ is
also providing information and
encouraging public involvement, as
described in Response to Common
Comment No.1.
H36-1
H37
H37-1 Response to Common Comments
No. 9 recognizes the importance of the
water quality of the Great Salt Lake,
including the work to establish a numeric
selenium standard. With the support of the
DEQ Division of Water Quality, the Great
Salt Lake Water Quality Steering
Committee is providing a science-based,
stakeholder participation process for
evaluating a numeric selenium standard for
the Lake. The evaluation and
recommendations will assist the Division
and Board of Water Quality, both in terms
of the decision on a standard and the
broader water quality management of the
Lake. Additional information is available
on the DEQ website www.deq.utah.gov
H37-2 The recommendations regarding
benefits and concerns with the options will
be considered.
H37-1
H37-2
H38
H38-1 Information is provided in the
Responses to Common Comments Nos. 3
and 10.
H38-1
H38-2 The referenced documents, Jordan
Valley Water Conservancy District’s
“Zone B/Lost Use Groundwater
Interference Mitigation Plan” and
Kennecott’s “Zone A Water
Quantity/Quality and Zone B Water
Quality, Well Owner Concern Evaluation
Process” are included as part of the
Trustee’s Comment Response Summary, in
Response to Common Comment No. 10.
H38-2
H38-3 See the Response to Common
Comment No. 10.
H38-4 The concerns about Options #3
and water rights are noted
H38-3
H38-4
H39
H39-1 See Responses to Common
Comments Nos.12 and 13.
H39-1
H40
H40-1 The Joint Proposal before the
Trustee is based on an established water
treatment technology, reverse osmosis.
See the Response to Common Comment
No. 4 regarding evaluation of various
technologies.
H40-1
H40-2 See Response to Common
Comment No. 4.
H40-2
H40-3 Regulatory oversight of the
project is discussed in Response to
Common Comment No. 13. Reverse
osmosis is the water treatment
technology upon which the proposal is
based. JVWCD and Kennecott may
consider other technologies and
improvements during the life of the
project. Changes in treatment may
require approval of regulatory authorities
and will require evaluation by the
Technical Review Committee and
perhaps others to ensure that the
requirements of the Joint Proposal,
Implementing Agreements, Consent
Decree, and environmental regulations
are met.
H41-1 See Response to Common
Comment No. 12 regarding funding of
the cleanup.
H40-3
H41
H41-1
H41-2 The Trust Fund was established
in accordance with the 1995 Consent
Decree in order to “restore, replace, or
acquire the equivalent of the surface or
ground water resources for the benefit of
the public in the Affected Area.”
H41-3 Use of the Irrevocable Letter of
Credit (ILC) and cash portions of the
Trust Fund, as defined in the Joint
Proposal, Project Agreement, and 3-
Party Agreement, are consistent with the
terms of the Consent Decree.
H41-4 Under Section V.D.2.b.iv of the
Consent Decree, reductions for operation
and maintenance are also made “based
on established obligations to provide
water.”
H41-5 The requirement for a 7 percent
interest rate applies only to the Letter of
Credit established initially in accordance
with the Consent Decree.
H41-2
H41-3
H41-4
H41-5
H41-6 The objective of the settlement
established by the Consent Decree is to
resolve a Natural Resource Damage
Claim for damages to groundwater in the
Affected Area. It does not resolve other
claims or rights of third parties. It
operates within the existing state and
federal regulatory framework, including
other public protections.
H41-7 See response to Comment H41-
4, above.
H41-8 Reduction of the ILC is
governed by the Consent Decree.
H41-9 The interest rate and ILC
provisions of the Joint Proposal are
consistent with the requirements of the
Consent Decree.
H41-6
H41-7
H41-8
H41-9
H42
H42-1 See Responses to Common
Comments Nos. 11 and 10.
H42-1
H42-2 An amendment regarding the
purveyor of M&I water is a matter for
consideration by Kennecott and Jordan
Valley Water Conservancy District.
H42-3 Refer to the Response to
Comments H42-1 and H42-2, above.
H42-2
H42-3
H42-4 See the Response to Common
Comment No. 11 regarding allocations
of treated water.
H42-5 See Response to Common
Comment No. 9.
H43-1 The Trustee and the staff of
DEQ met numerous times with
individuals and groups to discuss the
proposal and answer questions. See the
Response to Common Comment No. 1.
The Comment Response Summary is
being provided after the Trustee has
reviewed comments, considered
responses to comments, and determined
her findings and conclusions. It will be
provided to the public when the Trustee
announces her decision regarding the
Joint Proposal, Project Agreement, and
3-Party Agreement.
H42-4
H42-5
H43
H43-1
H43-2 Consistent with the provisions of
the Consent Decree, the Trustee is
evaluating the proposal that has been
presented to her by Kennecott and the
Jordan Valley Water Conservancy
District (JVWCD).
H43-3 See the response to Common
Comment No. 1.
H43-4 See the Responses to Common
Comments Nos. 12 and 13.
H43-2
H43-3
H43-4
H43-5 See the Responses to Common
Comments 2, 6, and 10. The Technical
Review Committee has evaluated
groundwater data and modeling and will
continue to monitor the aquifer
throughout the 40-year period in order to
avoid adverse impacts and bring the
cleanup to a conclusion.
H43-6 See the response to Common
Comment No. 11.
H43-7 The Consent Decree requires
Kennecott and JVWCD to have the water
rights to implement the proposal. The
Consent Decree does not resolve third
party claims and water rights. See the
Response to Common Comment No. 1.
H43-5
H43-6
H43-7
H43-8 See the responses provided to
comments H43-1 through H43-7 above.
H43-8
H44-1 These questions are being referred
to Kennecott for its review. See the
response to Common Comment No. 1 for
processes to be used by Kennecott and
JVWCD under the Joint Proposal.
H44
H44-1
H45-1 The work of the Great Salt Lake
Water Quality Steering Committee will
include these areas. The DEQ Division of
Water Quality is also evaluating these
areas as part of its Farmington Bay study.
H45
H45-1
H46
H46-1 See the explanation provided
below by Dr. Nielson as well as the
Response to Common Comment No. 10.
H46-1
H47-1 The Comment Response
Summary, including the comments from
this public hearing, is being provided after
the Trustee has reviewed comments,
considered responses to comments, and
determined her findings and conclusions.
It will be provided to the public when the
Trustee announces her decision regarding
the Joint Proposal, Project Agreement, and
3-Party Agreement.
H47-2 See Response to Common
Comment No 12.
H47-3 Under the Consent Decree Section
(V.D.3) permits Kennecott to identify
projects. The Implementing Agreements
are between Kennecott and JVWCD and
among theTrustee, Kennecott, and
JVWCD. While the treatment is paid for
by Kennecott, JVWCD is provides the
funding needed for the portions of the
project that would otherwise be developed,
absent the contamination, in the normal
course of developing and providing
drinking water.
H47-4 The decision regarding the
purveyor was made between Kennecott
and JVWCD and proposed to the Trustee.
Other technologies have been reviewed.
The Trustee is not aware whether other
purveyors were considered.
H47
H47-1
H47-2
H47-3
H47-4
H47-5 EPA and the State Trustee
oversee various aspects of the cleanup.
By working together, they maximize the
efficiency and effectiveness of the
cleanup.
H47-6 The contaminated groundwater
plume underlies a region called the
Affected Area. The Consent Decree
requires that the Trust Fund be used to
“restore, replace or acquire the
equivalent of the surface or ground water
resource for the benefit of the public in
the Affected Area.”
H47-7 JVWCD responsibilities are
defined in the Joint Proposal, Project
Agreement, and 3-Party Agreement.
H47-8 JVWCD is not a successor or
assignee of Kennecott. Rio Tinto is the
parent company of Kennecott.
Kennecott Land Company and Oquirrh
Mountain Enterprises are both
subsidiaries of Kennecott Utah Copper
Corporation (Kennecott). Also see
Response to Common Comment No. 12.
H47-5
H47-6
H47-7
H47-8
H47-9 Extensions of time have been
granted in the past. As indicated in
response to Common Comment No.1, it
is now time to proceed with the cleanup.
H47-9
H48
H48-1 See the Response to Common
Comment No. 1.
H48-2 See the responses to comments
provided in this public hearing by
commenters at H39 and H41.
H48-1
H48-2
H49
H49-1 The previous comments are
included in the Comment Response
Summary.
H49-2 The Comment Response Summary
is being provided after the Trustee has
reviewed comments, considered responses
to comments, and determined her findings
and conclusions. It will be provided to the
public when the Trustee announces her
decision regarding the Joint Proposal,
Project Agreement, and 3-Party
Agreement.
H49-3 See the Response to Common
Comment No. 11.
H49-1
H49-2
H49-3
H49-4 See the response provided to
your comment in the September 10, 2003
public hearing, in that Transcript at H9-
3.
H49-5 See the response provided to a
commenter who participated in the
September 25, 2003 public hearing, in
that
Transcript at H24-3.
H49-6 See the Response to Common
Comment No. 1.
H49-4
H49-5
H49-6
H50
H50-1 Data for various cost projections
have been provided in the Supporting
Document to the Consent Decree, in
various reviews by the Technical Review
Committee, and in the Joint Proposal and
Implementing Agreements. Other
requests for specific financial
information, including proprietary
information, should be addressed to
Kennecott and JVWCD.
H50-1
H51-1 Under the Joint Proposal, the
original irrevocable letter of credit (ILC)
would be replaced with two new ILCs,
Zone A ILC and Zone B ILC, each equal
to one-half of the amount of the original
ILC. As of January 20, 2004, the value
of the existing ILC was $49,382,800.
H51-2 Reductions in the two new
letters of credit would be governed by
different sections of the Consent Decree.
Kennecott will seek full reduction of the
Zone A ILC pursuant to the criteria
established under Section V.D.2.b.i-iv of
the Consent Decree.
Reductions in the Zone B ILC would be
governed by Section V.D.4 of the
Consent Decree, which authorizes the
Trustee to spend the proceeds from the
letter of credit that are “not allocated for
Kennecott projects” to “restore, replace
or acquire the equivalent” of the injured
ground water resource. The Trustee will
reduce the Zone B ILC as the District
commits to deliver water from the Zone
B plant.
H51-3 The requirement for a 7
percent interest rate applies only to
the Letter of Credit established
initially in accordance with the
Consent Decree.
H51
H51-1
H51-2
H51-3