DSHW-2024-009293

1
SL_7247510.3
DENTONS DURHAM JONES PINEGAR P.C. Bradley R. Cahoon (5925)
Tyler R. Cahoon (16412) Cole P. Crowther (16432) 111 South Main Street, Suite 2400 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
[phone]
[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]
Attorneys for Promontory Point Resources, LLC
BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RADIATION CONTROL In re matter of: Promontory Point Resources, LLC SW416
PROMONTORY POINT RESOURCES, LLC’S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD By Promontory Point Resources, LLC November 5, 2024

Pursuant to Utah Code § 19-1-301.5(9)(c)(ii) and Utah Admin. Code R305-7-209(1),
Petitioner Promontory Point Resources, LLC (“PPR”), through undersigned counsel, submits this
Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record (“Motion”).
INTRODUCTION
PPR is the owner of Promontory Point Landfill, currently permitted as a for-profit Class I
landfill, located in Box Elder County, Utah. In 2020, PPR filed an application to convert its
landfill from a Class I landfill to a Class V commercial landfill (“Commercial Application”). On
October 7, 2024, the Director (“Director”) of the Division Waste Management and Radiation
Control, Utah Department of Environmental Quality issued an order denying PPR’s Commercial
Application.
2
SL_7247510.3
The Director’s sole basis for denying the Commercial Application was that PPR did not satisfy
Utah Code § 19-6-108(10)(b)(i) because PPR did not demonstrate a need in the state for
additional physical capacity. But the Director’s interpretation of Subsection (10)(b)(i) does not
follow rules of statutory construction and is clearly erroneous. The Director argues that the
legislative history behind Utah Code § 19-6-108(10)-(11) supports his interpretation, but he is
wrong. Counsel for PPR has reviewed the legislative history behind Utah Code § 19-6-108 and
found nothing to support the Director’s interpretation. PPR therefore seeks to supplement the
record with the Declaration of Lauren Chauncey (“Chauncey Decl.”, attached hereto as Exhibit
1), counsel for PPR, who has reviewed the legislative history on Utah Code § 19-6-108 and can
testify that nothing in the legislative history supports the Director’s interpretation of the statute.
Moreover, having found Subsection (10)(b)(i) was not satisfied, the Director made no
findings with respect to Subsection (11). But each requirement in Subsection (11) was met by the
Commercial Application, including Subsection (11)(b) requiring PPR to demonstrate the “need
for the facility to serve industry within the state.” PPR therefore seeks to further supplement the
record with a number of waste contracts it has with northern Utah companies that will take effect
upon the approval of the Commercial Application (collectively, the “PPR Contracts”, attached
hereto as Exhibit 2), which demonstrate the need for the PPR’s commercial landfill within the
state.
RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS FOR RELIEF
PPR respectfully requests that the administrative record be supplemented with the
Chauncey Declaration and the PPR Contracts. Good cause exists for supplementing the record
with these documents, and doing so is in the interest of justice and necessary for resolution of the
issues. Each document provides material information to a determination of whether PPR has
3
SL_7247510.3
satisfied the requirements of Subsections (10) and (11), which are the central issues on appeal. In
fact, the supplemented record will further establish that the Director’s denial of PPR’s
Commercial Application was clearly erroneous. For these reasons, PPR requests that its Motion
be granted.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Pursuant to Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 10(c), PPR adopts and incorporates by
reference all Procedural History and Facts set forth in its Petition for Review that is being filed
contemporaneously herewith.
ARGUMENT
Under Utah law, the administrative record “consists of [, among other things,] . . .
information supplementing the record under Section 19-1-301.5(9)(c) or R305-7-210.” Utah
Admin. Code R305-7-209(1). Although “there is a rebuttable presumption against supplementing
the record,” “a party may move to supplement the record . . . with technical or factual
information.” Utah Code Ann. § 19-1-301.5 (9)(b), (c). The Administrative Law Judge may grant
a motion to supplement the record “if the moving party proves that: (A) good cause exists for
supplementing the record; (B) supplementing the record is in the interest of justice; and
(C) supplementing the record is necessary for resolution of the issues.” Id. Each of these factors
supports supplementing the record with the Chauncey Declaration and the PPR Contracts.
I. THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD SHOULD BE SUPPLEMENTED WITH THE
CHAUNCEY DECLARATION.
PPR seeks to supplement the record with the Chauncey Declaration to challenge the
Director’s contention that the legislative history behind Utah Code § 19-6-108 does not support
NERA’s proposition that “‘public benefit’ should be evaluated as an economics-based concept.”
Ms. Chauncey, counsel for PPR, reviewed the accessible legislative history, including to the
4
SL_7247510.3
entire portion of the floor debates regarding SB 255 (the bill enacting relevant portions of Utah
Code § 19-6-108), and can testify that nothing in the legislative history she reviewed supports the
Director’s interpretation of Utah Code § 19-6-108, and the Director fails to cite to any statements
to the contrary.
The factors under Utah Code § 19-1-301.5(9) are met here. First, the Chauncey
Declaration contains factual information regarding the legislative history of the statute at issue.
Second, as set forth herein, good cause exists for supplementing the record with the Chauncey
Declaration. Third, it is in the interest of justice to supplement the record with the Chauncey
Declaration in light of the Division’s misplaced reliance on such history. Indeed, the Division
purports to rely, in part, on the legislative history to support its denial of the Commercial
Application but fails to identify specifically where it draws that support. This is because nothing
in the legislative history supports the Division’s position. Fourth, supplementing the record with
the Chauncey Declaration helps resolve the primary issues on appeal. Specifically, the Chauncey
Declaration supports PPR’s contention that the Directors interpretation of Utah Code § 19-1-
301.5(9) was clearly erroneous and not supported by legislative history.
II. THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD SHOULD BE SUPPLEMENTED WITH THE PPR CONTRACTS. The Director failed entirely to make a determination as to whether PPR had met the
requirements of Subsection (11), although NERA determined that it had. Accordingly, PPR is
requesting that the Executive Director remand this matter to the Director with instructions that
PPR has satisfied the requirements of Subsection (11). To further support its argument on appeal,
PPR seeks to supplement the record with executed contracts that establish “there is a need for the
facility to serve industry with the state.” Utah Code § 19-6-108(11)(b). Each element to support
supplementing the record is met here.
5
SL_7247510.3
First, the PPR Contracts contain factual information related to the Commercial
Application and establish the requirements of Subsection (11)(b) are met. Second, good cause
exists for supplementing the record as the PPR Contracts were not entered into until October 29,
2024, and were therefore not available at the time PPR submitted its public comment. Third, it is
in the interest of justice to supplement the record with PPR Contracts, considering their direct
relevance to PPR’s satisfaction of the requirements of Subsection (11)(b) and the Director’s
failure to make a determination thereon. Fourth, supplementing the record with the PPR
Contracts helps resolve an important issue—whether PPR has satisfied the requirements of
Subsection (11)(b). Therefore, PPR should be permitted to supplement the record with the PPR
Contracts.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, PPR respectfully requests the Motion be granted and that it be
allowed to supplement the administrative record with the Chauncey Declaration and PPR
Contracts.
DATED this 5th day of November 2024.
DENTONS DURHAM JONES PINEGAR P.C.

/s/ Bradley R. Cahoon
Bradley R. Cahoon
Tyler R. Cahoon Cole P. Crowther Attorneys for Promontory Point Resources, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 5, 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
served on the following as indicated:
Executive Director Kim Shelly
Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West, Fourth Floor Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Via hand-delivery
Craig Anderson
Office of Attorney General Environmental Division Utah Attorney General’s Office 195 North 1950 West, Second Floor
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
Via hand-delivery and email: [e-mail]
Via email: [e-mail]
Director Douglas Hansen
Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Waste Management & Radiation Control 195 North 1950 West, Second Floor Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Via email: [e-mail]
Administrative Proceedings Records Officer Environment Division Utah Attorney General’s Office
195 North 1950 West, Second Floor
Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Via email: [e-mail]
/s/Carol MacKay
Raymond Wixom Office of Attorney General
Environmental Division
Utah Attorney General’s Office 195 North 1950 West, Second Floor Salt Lake City, UT 84116
6
SL_7247510.3
EXHIBIT 1

SL_7248859.1
DECLARATION OF LAUREN CHAUNCEY
I, Lauren Chauncey, state and declare as follows:
1. I am a resident of Clark County, Nevada, am over 18 years of age, am mentally
competent, and have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein.
2. I am licensed to practice law in the state of Utah, I am an associate attorney
employed by Dentons Durham Jones Pinegar, P.C., and I represent Promontory Point Resources,
LLC (“PPR”) on its petition for review filed in the matter of PPR Final Permit Order SW416
before the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality.
3. I have researched and reviewed the legislative history of Utah Code § 19-6-108,
including by listening to the entire portion of the floor debates regarding SB 255 (the bill
enacting relevant portions of Utah Code § 19-6-108), which is accessible at:
https://le.utah.gov/av/floorArchive.jsp?markerID=54095.
4. Of the legislative history materials I reviewed, there is nothing that supports the
Director’s interpretation of Utah Code § 19-6-108—namely, that the phrase “public benefits” is
not an economic-based concept—as set forth in his Final Permit Order and Response to Public
Comments (the “Final Permit Order”).
5. I am not aware of any other legislative history materials that would support the
Director’s interpretation of Utah Code § 19-6-108, as set forth in the Final Permit Order.
6. I declare under criminal penalty under the law of Utah that the foregoing is true
and correct, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
DATED this 5th day of November 2024.
/s/ Lauren N. Chauncey
7
SL_7247510.3
EXHIBIT 2