DWQ-2025-000706

PUBLIC COMMENTS RESPONSE SUMMARY
WATERLEAF RESOURCES, LLC
UPDES PERMIT NO. UT0026280
January 27, 2025
Outline
Public Notice and Hearing Information
Written Comments
Response to Comments
Public Notice and Hearing Information
Summary: On November 26, 2024, the Division issued public notice to declare the State’s intention to issue a new UPDESpermit to Waterleaf Resources LLC (Waterleaf) Permit No. UT0026280.
The Division’s notice of intent to issue the Permit is conditional upon its review andevaluation of public comments. A second public notice period was opened on January 14, 2025 andadditional
public comments were received on January 17, 2024. No public hearing was requested and no public hearing was held.
Written Comments
Friends of the Great Salt Lake (Friends) submitted comments on the permit renewal in the form of an emailed letter dated December 19, 2024. Friends submitted additional comments via
an emailed letter on additional public comments were received on January 17, 2025. Waterleaf responded on the second set of comments via e-mail on January 23, 2025.
Documents (available by request):
1. Written Comments December 19, 2024 (DWQ-2024-000555)
2. Written Comments January 17, 2025 (DWQ-2025-000705)
3. Written Comments January 23, 2025 (DWQ-2025-000704)
Response to Comments
A total of four comments were received during the public notice periods. This document has been developed to address all comments received. Paraphrased comments and DWQ’s responses
are below.
Comment 1:
During their first submittal, Friends objected tothe large amount of redactions contained in Waterleaf’s application. They requested that DWQ delay approval of this application until
we have a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on that information.
DWQ Response:
In response to the first comment letter, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ), Waterleaf and their attorneys, Friends and representatives from the Attorney General’s office for the State
of Utah met on January 10, 2025. All parties agreed that the permit would go back to public notice with an updated Operators application with less redactions. That public notice period
ran from January 14, 2025 through January 17, 2025.
Comment 2:
Page During the second public notice period, Friends provided the following comments: that they were concerned about the quality of the data submitted by thecompany in both its UPDES
Permit Application, and its Facility OperatorApplication. Friends commented that the data submitted insufficient for DWQ to evaluate the facility.
Friends also commented that the Wasteload Analysis contained in the Statement of Basis said “thequality of those data are suspect and should not be relied upon.”
DWQ Response:
The data submitted by the company was a combination historic sampling data on the North Arm of the Great Salt Lake and of bench top testing procedures done on North Arm Brines. The comment
in the WLA that the data quality was suspect referred to the North Arm data pulled from the “Ambient Water Quality Monitoring System" (AWQMS) database run by the federal Environmental
Protection Agency. Since that data has been collected over numerous years by varying agencies with unknow quality assurance and quality control measures, that is why the data quality
of that database was called into question. The wasteload analysis did not make it clear what data DWQ considered suspect.
During the application process, DWQ required the facility do additional benchtop testing of the facility’s process using North Arm brines. Waterleaf submitted the results of that testing
on August 20, 2024 as an addendum to the original operator’s application. Upon that submittal, DWQ had some concerns about the QA/QC of that data because not all of the standard QA/QC
methods were submitted for all parameters. DWQ does not know if these tests were done or not, just that they were not included in the supplemental application provided to DWQ. Normally,
DWQ does not require that permitees submit all of their QA/QC data for a permit application, however, because of the unique nature of this process and application, an in-depth analysis
of the application was conducted.
Comment 3:
Friends commented that “the company use alab that can perform valid analyses on Great Salt Lake brines in order to obtain usefulresults. Although there are probably several labs that
are up to that task, two such labs are theUniversity of Utah and Brooks Rand LLC using triple quadrupole ICP-MS. And, while we agreethat QA/QC of the analysis is certainly necessary
and must be provided, it is only useful if itpertains to an appropriate analytical method., we request that DWQ please consider the comment Hyrum City made in the initial comments. The
treatment plant membranes produce a high-quality effluent with little variation in BOD, TSS, Ammonia, pH and E. coli. There is a history of compliance with these parameters, therefore
we request that reporting requirements be reduced from two times a week to weekly.”
DWQ Response:
One of the conditions of all UPDES permits is that facilities use labs that are State and National Environmental Laboratories Accreditation Conference (NELAC)certified (R317-2-10). The
two labs listed by Friends, University of Utah water lab and Brooks Rand, LLC(now Brooks Applied Labs) are not on the list of State certified labs for the constituents in the permit.
Furthermore, DWQ cannot dictate what laboratory a facility uses to analyze their samples beyond the above certifications.
Comment 4:
In its response to Friends comments, Waterleaf responded, “Waterleaf is required to use a State certified testing laboratory, and this lab will provide the testing and analytics for
all ofthe required constituents required in the UPDES permit and by DWQ, with a level 4 analytical data and Quality Controlpackage.”
DWQ Response:
The UPDES permit requires the facility use a State certified lab for analysis of the samples required by the permit. This meets the requirements of the UPDES permit.