Loading...
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