DERR-2024-004260

PARR BROWN
GEE LOVELESS
MARTIN K. BANKS
AttonruEvnr LRw
101 SourH 200 Eesr, SurrE 700
Snlr Lme CrrY, UrAH 84111
[e-mail]
[phone]
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VIA Email & Ovemieht Delivery February 15,2024
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Kathleen C. Becker, Region 8 Administrator
1595 Wynkoop Street
Denver, CO 80202-1129
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Environmental Response and Remediation
Bill Rees, VCP and Brownfields Manager
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
brees(dutah.eov
Re: Response to Citizens' Comments Regarding Silver Pointe Estate's Voluntarv
Cleanup Proiect and Ansell Sprinss Water Special Service District
Dear Ms. Becker and Mr. Rees:
I am writing on behalf of my client Silver Reef Investment Holdings, LLC ("SRIH"). On
January 6,2024, Ms. Michelle Peot sent yet another letter in her and her associates' now year-
long campaign trying to prevent SRIH from developing its Silver Pointe Estates ("SPE")
residential project in Leeds, Utah (the o'Letter").1 Although this time Ms. Peot has enlisted the
director of the Angell Springs Water Special Service District ("SSD") to add her name to the
letter, the contentions are essentially the same as those she has previously asserted in various of
her prior letters to the U.S. EPA, the U.S. Senate, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality
I In numerous previous letters, submittals and presentations to EPA, Utah DEQ and other public agencies, Ms. Peot
and her associates have repeatedly pressed these same or similar issues, including the groundwater and the Angell
Springs Water Special Service District issues asserted in this latest Letter. See, e.g.,414/23 letter from Ms. Peot to
EPA, Administrator and Region 8 Administrator; May 2023 letter to the EPA; 6123123 email from Ms. Peot to Utah
DEQ, Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control; 5ll5/23 Letter from Ms. Peot to U.S. Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works; 3120123 presentation to Leeds Town Council; 9/16123 presentation to
Angell Springs Water SSD ("provided slide slow ... regarding ... proposed Silver Point... and how it could
subsequently affect our Zone 4 water source... Michelle [Peot] suggested we contact the EPA and the Dept. of
Drinking Water...."); lll8l23 presentation to Leeds Town Council, p. 3 (repeating same "solid waste laws," "Angell
Springs' drinking water protection zones," and repository liner issues); l2l8l10 Leeds Town Council Meeting
Minutes, p.8 (in response to questions raised as to whether "there was any risk to the groundwater or Angell
Springs," Mr. Bill Rees, Utah DEQ VCP Program Manager, responded by stating that "he did not believe there was
a risk to the ground water....").
("Utah DEQ"), the Leeds Town Council, the SSD and others. Accordingly, rather than
reiterating at length all of the detailed rebuttals we have previously provided, this response will
briefly address the points Ms. Peot has again reiterated in her Letter.
A.The Silver Pointe Project is Not an NPL Site, and Has Been Determined to
Be Safe for Residential Development.
The Letter asserts that the Angel Springs Watter SSD's area includes two historic
uranium mines, which have been registered as EPA ID UT0001958420 and have been assigned
"a CERCLA priority status of Higher due to close proximity to existing residences and the high
likelihood of population growth." To be clear, the referenced site is not on EPA's CERCLA
National Priority List. https:/iecho.epa.qovidetailed-facilitv-report?fid:1 100093 14161 .
Moreover, all of the studies that have been conducted on that referenced site have concluded that
it is safe for residential development.
B. Utah DEQ Has Confirmed the Project Is Safe for Residential Development.
In the next paragraph of her Letter, Ms. Peot erroneously asserts that "[i]n 2021 UT DEQ
issued a misleading 'no further action' letter, releasing the Big Hill/Chloride Chief portion
(Phase t) of the project for residential development...." That202l no further action letter ('NFA
Letter") did not categorically release that Phase I or any other portion of the project for
residential development; rather, it expressly conditioned the release of that Phase I portion for
construction upon the fulI satisfaction of the numerous requirements set forth in "the Site
Management Plan (SMP) ... which includes discussion of various institutional controls,
engineering controls, contingency plans and mitigation plans, the Environmental Covenant (EC),
which includes various activity and use limitations and maintenance requirements, and the
Supplemental Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (Supplemental CC&Rs) ... which
includes various covenants, conditions and restrictions, for the referenced site." The NFA Letter
goes on to identify yet additional requirements: 'oAmong other requirements, the SMP, EC
and/or the Supplemental CC&Rs require: a. The Repository to remain as a Repository, which
must be managed and maintained as a repository; b. The Large and Small Had Frame Areas to be
managed and maintained as capped areas for contaminated soils left in place; c. A minimum of
six inches of cover to be maintained where residential concentrations of raditm-226 remain at
levels requiring such protection; d. lnspection, reporting, and any needed maintenance to be
conducted...;" etc.
ln that same paragraph of her Letter, Ms. Peot also erroneously asserts that Utah DEQ
issued the NFA Letter "despite an unacceptably high level of residual contamination," and citing
the Final Remedial Action Report, the SMP and the NFA Letter as supporting documentation.
That purported documentation, however, supports just the opposite proposition. The Final
Remedial Action Report identifies the twelve different project cleanup areas. For each project
cleanup area, the Report explains that after the remedial excavation had been completed, post-
excavation sampling demonstrated the remedial goals had been met (e.g.,"lafll confirmation
laboratory samples collected from this area met the remedial-action goals, as indicated in Table
2
4875-920't-8843, v. 3
5"), or in a few instances where radim-2262 concentrations still exceed the remedial-action
goal, clean soil was spread over the area to a depth of at least 6 inches to ensure the area met the
remediation goal (e.g., "Clean soil ... was spread over the excavated area to a depth of at least 6
inches following site remediation, thereby allowing the remedial-action goal to be achieved").3
Similarly, the SMP confirms that the developer SRIH, in conjunction with Utah DEQ, and using
EPA standards, appropriately characterized the nature and extent of the constituents of concern,
formulated appropriate clean-up goals, developed and implemented a cleanup plan to achieve
those goals, and ultimately demonstrated that the "[r]emediation efforts achieved the goal of
removing and/or stabilizing constituents of concern in soil and rock in the project area to risk-
based concentrations appropriate for residential land-use." SMP, at 4. More specifically:
Plate I shows areas (represented by yellow hatching) where, following site
remediation, the concentrations of the constituents of potential concern in the residual, in-
situ soil met all site remediation goals except for radium-226.In these areas, the
overlying soil was generally excavated to bedrock and the residual radium-226 is
considered to be naturally occurring. The remediation goal for this constituent was set
using the "Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium
Mill Tailings" as promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 40 CFR
I92.12(a). Although this regulation is not directly applicable to the site (since uranium
and thorium mill tailings do not exist in the area), the standards contained in that
regulation were selected in consultation with UDERR as providing an appropriate
cleanup goal for the site. This regulation allows higher concentrations of radium-226 in
residual soil at a depth greater than 6 inches than at a depth shallower than 6 inches (see
EarthFax Engineering, 2010). For the areas in yellow, the residual, in-situ concentration
of radium-226 met the goal for deeper soil but not for shallow soil. Since radium-
226 occurs naturally in the project area, additional excavation into the mineralized
bedrock may not have been beneficial. Therefore, the remediation goal is met in these
areas by maintaining a minimum of 6 inches of clean soil over the excavated areas.
SMP, at 3-4.4 Inshort, the documents Ms. Peot cites in support of her assertion that Utah DEQ
issued the NFA Letter "despite an unacceptably high level of residual contamination"
demonstrate just the opposite.
2 "The gamma radiation screening level noted above (32 uR/hr ) was chosen in consultation with UDERR as a
screening level to indicate areas where radium-226 may be a potential concern, following a review of regulations
promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 40 CFR 192.12. Although the regulations in 40 CFR
192.12 apply only to areas that have undergone the cleanup ofradioactive materials from inactive uranium
processing sites, these standards were considered appropriate for screening purposes at the Silver Pointe site." Final
Remedial Action Report, at p. 16.
3 "Following excavation of the area adjacent to the headframe, the residual soil was sampled and found to meet all
remedial-action goals, except for the concentration of mercury in the sidewall of the excavation near the north-
central part of the area. Additional excavation of soil from this area would require removal of several well-
established trees adjacent to Silver ReefRoad. Since residents in the area had expressed a desire to maintain these
trees. Therefore, the decision was made to forego additional excavation. Riprap was placed on the sidewall and this
small area of residual contamination will be addressed in the Site Management Plan." Final Remedial Action Plan,
at 77.
a As to the NFA Letter, it does not specifically address whether the residual contaminations were at levels in
satisfaction of the cleanup goals suggested by EPA and imposed by Utah DEQ, as that was fully addressed in the
Final Remedial Action Report.
J
4875-9201-8843, v. 3
C. SSD's Drinking Water Source
1. SSD's Own Monitorinq Demonstrates its Water Source Is Not at Risk.
Prior to Ms. Peot's attempt to stir up speculative fear about the safety of SSD's groundwater
source through her 9116123 presentation to SSD,5 the SSD's own independent groundwater
monitoring and analysis demonstrated that the SSD's source was well within the applicable
drinking water standards. In April of 2023, the SSD finalized its annual Consumer Confidence
Report (The Annual Drinking Water Quality Report) to its customers. The SSD confidently
highlighted in that Report that "[o]ur sources are located in remote and protected areas and
have a low level of susceptibility to potential contamination sources. We have also
developed management strategies to further protect our sources from contamination." Aprll23,
2023 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report (emphasis in original). Notably, the Report then
emphasizes that "[a]s water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it
dissolves natural-occurring minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material, and can pick up
substances resulting from the presence of animals or from human activity. Contaminants that
may be present in source water include: ... 2.lnorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals,
which can be naturally-occurring or result from ... mining... 5. Radioactive contaminants,
which can be naturally-occurring or be the result of ... mining activities. Drinkine water ... may
reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The presence of
contaminants does not necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk." Report, at l-2. The
Report then goes on to explain that "to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, EPA prescribes
regulations which limit the amount of certain contaminants in water provided by public water
systems," and then provides a Table comparing those specific limits with the SSD's groundwater
monitoring results for the year. Importantly, none of the samples showed any violations or
exceedances of the applicable limits or drinking water standards. See Report, at 4-5.
2. There Was No Further Investiqation. As to Ms. Peot's unsupported
assertion that "further investigation revealed likely risk" to the SSD's drinking water source, she
fails to cite any investigation, any investigation report, or any licensed, certified or otherwise
credible hydrologist or environmental professional.
3. SSD is Responsible to Protect its Water Sources from Naturally Occurrine
Mineralization & Historic Mining Contamination. By asserting in the Letter that "inadequate
groundwater protections were employed during the cleanup effort," Ms. Peot and SSD suggest
that the responsibility for keeping the SSD's ground water sources free from contamination that
mother nature laid down eons ago (a small portion of which miners may have disturbed decades
ago) is now the responsibility of SRIH. On the contrary, SRIH's only responsibility was that if it
wanted to move forward with Phase I of its SPE residential development, it needed to remediate
certain limited, pre-existing, historic mining contamination. Stated differently, SRIH's only
responsibility is that if it eventually wants a formal certificate of completion attesting that Utah
DEQ believes SPE has been adequately remediated for residential development, it had to
implement the Utah DEQ-approved Remedial Action Plan, and comply with the ongoing
s 9116123 Peot presentation to SSD ("provided slide slow ... regarding ... proposed Silver Point... regarding the
mercury, radium waste and the uranium mine ... and how it could subsequently affect our Zone 4 water source .
Michelle suggested we contact the EPA and the Dept. of Drinking Water....").
4
4875-9201-8843, v. 3
requirements set forth in the SMP, EC and Supplemental CC&Rs. SRIH did not deposit the
minerals or the contamination that Ms. Peot and SSD now allege may potentially affect their
water sources. They merely cleaned up those areas that had been affected by human activity
Hence, it is not SRIH's responsibility, but rather the SSD's responsibility to protect its water
sources against such naturally-occurring mineralization and historic contamination.
The Letter acknowledges that "[h]istorically, state surveys of the site have been
dismissive of groundwater contamination due to 'naturally occurring' uranium," but then
suggests that human mining disturbances from decades past "have resulted in increased risk to
Angell Springs' drinking water." Letter at 2 (citing o'human disturbance and heavy metals
brought onsite for milling activities"). Even so, it is naturally-occurring mineralization, and
possibly some limited historic mining activities conducted decades ago, that may possibly
present a risk to SSD's ground water sources, not the fact that the scope of the DEQ-approved
Remedial Action Plan for the SPE residential lots only covered a tiny portion of the SSD's
expansive groundwater protection zone.
4. SRIH Adequately Assessed and Mitisated Any Risks to the SSD's Source
For Which It Ma Have Some . Prior to SRIH's remediation of the Phase 1
development area, SRIH's environmental consultant prepared a proposed Remedial Action Plan
detailing the nature and scope of the proposed remediation ("RAP"). Onl2l8ll0, prior to Utah
DEQ's final approval of the RAP, SRIH and Utah DEQ representatives presented the proposed
RAP at a Leeds Town Council public meeting. Consistent with the Utah Voluntary Cleanup
Program ("VCP") requirements, SRIH and Utah DEQ made the proposed RAP available to the
public for a 30-day public comment period. If Ms. Peot or SSD had concerns about the
assessment or mitigation of any risks to the SSD's source, or any other aspect of the RAP, the
time for commenting on those concerns was during that 30-day public comment period, not
twelve years later after the remediation had long been completed.6
The Letter asserts that the SPE "cleanup project failed to adequately assess and mitigate
risk" to the SSD's drinking water source in the following four ways:
a. Mercury and radioactive material. The Letter complains that a
"[f]ailure to remove mercury and radioactive material" from a particular spot that "sits at the
base of a historic watershed, hence surface water (and subsequently groundwater) contamination
is of concern."T As noted in the SMP, "[t]he concentration of mercury in residual soil in a
limited portion of the north bank of an ephemeral wash on the north side of the small headframe
remains above the remediation goal. Additional excavation of soil from this location would have
required the removal of several well established trees adjacent to Silver Reef Road. Since
residents in the area had expressed a desire to maintain these trees, the decision was made to
6In fact, at that Town Council meeting, Council member Angela Rohr did "ask[] if there was any risk to the
groundwater or Angell Springs," and Mr. Bill Rees, Utah DEQ VCP Program Manager, responded by stating that
"he did not believe there was a risk to the ground water because the area was flat, the water would not move much,
there would be a clay liner, and that a majority of the water would evaporate." 1218/10 Leeds Town Council
Meeting Minutes, p.8.
7 The Letter's assertion that this small headframe "sits at the base of a historic watershed," is an overstatement. The
headframe sits at the base of the far end of hill that crests less than 100 yards above the headframe. Any surface
water from an ephemeral event that might possibly flow over the headframe would be very minimal.
5
4875-9201-8843, v. 3
forego additional excavation. Therefore. riprap was placed on
wash in this location to preclude erosion and future exposure of the limited area of impacted soil.
Riprap was also placed in an arc alone the west and north sides of the small headframe to direct
ephemeral runoff away from the small headframe. The locations where this riprap is placed are
shown on Figure 4. The SPE-CA will be responsible for ensurine that riprap is maintained in
these areas." SMP at 9. Because the residual soil was "in a limited portion" of the north bank,
and because that bank was of an "ephemeral wash," SRIH reasonably determined, and Utah
DEQ reasonably concurred, that foregoing excavation of that limited area was acceptable, and
instead undertook reasonable altemative measures to mitigate that risk, i.e., "Riprap was placed
on the sidewall ...," "[r]iprap was also placed in an arc along the west and north sides...," and
"[t]he SPE-CA [community association] will be responsible for ensuring that riprap is
maintained in these areas."
b. Water Table Depth. In the RAP, SRIH's licensed professional
engineer concluded that any residual, historic mining-related contamination at the site "will not
pose a threat to groundwater." RAP, at 12 & 14. Ms. Peot, however, suggests that any such
contamination may pose a threat by percolating down to the groundwater, and then migrating
with the groundwater flow toward and into the area that feeds the SSD's source. The Letter
identifres two SSD sources within the referenced groundwater protection zone of concern, the
Angell Spring and the Parker Spring. Ms. Peot acknowledges that the Angell Spring well was
removed as a source back in 2016, leaving Parker Spring as the source of her purported concem.
Letter, at l-2. The Letter conspicuously fails to acknowledge, however, that Parker Spring is to
the southwest of the SPE cleanup area, whereas the groundwater flow in that vicinity is to the
southeast. See Technical Publication No. 61, R.M. Cordova, Hydrologist, Utah Department of
Natural Resources & U.S. Geological Survey, 1978, at Plate 3. In other words, even if
contamination from the cleanup area were to percolate clear down into the water table and then
migrate off-site, it would migrate in a different direction than toward Parker Spring.
The Letter also mistakenly asserts that the engineer's conclusion (that any remaining
mining contamination would not pose a threat to groundwater) "was partly based on the
assumption that groundwater occurs at depths of 100-200 feet and f,rnding that the maximum
depth of contaminant percolation was 52.8 ft." Letter, at2.That engineer's conclusion as to
groundwater depth was not based on a mere assumption, but rather on potentiometric surface
data applicable to the SPE site as presented in an extensive scientific study conducted jointly by
both the Utah Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Geological Survey, Technical
Publication No. 61, that has been widely recognized in Utah professional hydrology circles for
decades. See Technical Publication No. 61, R.M. Cordova, Hydrologist, Utah Department of
Natural Resources & U.S. Geological Survey, 1978, atp. 32. The Letter then mistakenly asserts
that of the "two Leeds area test wells" referenced in that Technical Publication contained "only
one report[ed] a water table depth (79.2 feet)." Letter, at2. That Technical Publication clearly
reported the water table depth of the first well ((C-41-13) 5bbc-l) for seven different days, and
of the second well ((C-41-13) 6aac-1) for five different days. Technical Publication No. 61, at
Table 8. In its textual sections, the Publication indicates that "[t]he averaqe pumping rate was
about 600 gallmin," and that the "water level prior to pumping was 79.22 ft (24.14 m) below
land surface," Technical Publication No. 61, at 32, suggesting that the reported water level of
79.2 feet appears to be a combined averase water level for both wells.
6
4875-9201-8843, v.3
The Letter then suggests that instead of relying on the 2 wells relied upon by that leading
professional Technical Publication on the subject, the engineer should have relied on "active well
logs within a 2.5 mile radius of the cleanup site," which she purports show the water table "to be
on average 60.4 ft...." Letter, at2. Apart from Ms. Peot's disregard of the leading professional
Technical Publication on the subject, her suggested use of an alternative and arbitrary 2.5 mile
radius area on which to extrapolate the groundwater depth is flawed for various other reasons.
First, she uses a broadened 360 degree radius area rather than focusing on the groundwater level
in the more narrow vicinity of the cleanup site and Parker Spring. If Ms. Peot were genuinely
interested in ascertaining the risk of contamination percolating into the groundwater, and then
migrating toward Parker Spring, she would have looked at the groundwater depth in those wells
located in the vicinity of the cleanup site and Parker Spring rather than cherry-picking elsewhere
for more self-serving data. Indeed, given all the alternative well logs Ms. Peot could have relied
on, one would think she would have relied heavily on the logs for one of SSD's own nearby
wells (WIN 22521), yet Ms. Peot excluded those levels of 150 and232 feet in her average, and
instead listed its level at approximately 135 feet in her Table. Second, Ms. Peot uses an extended
2.5 mile radius area rather than focusing on the groundwater level in those wells located in the
more proximate vicinity of and between the cleanup site and Parker Spring. If Ms. Peot were
genuinely interested in ascertaining the risk of contamination migrating from the cleanup site to
Parker Spring, she would have looked at the groundwater depth in the more immediate
approximate .33 mile distance from the cleanup site to Parker Spring.
In addition, many of the data points relied upon in SSD's 2.5 miles radius are highly
suspect. For example, in calculating her "average," Ms. Peot includes (1) an artesian well (WIN
24912) with a purported water table depth of "0" feet above ground level (which more likely
represents the absence of any water level data rather than the groundwater actually being
immediately at the surface); (2) a well at an apparent depth of approximately 135 feet, but that
well log (WIN 22521) actually has records showing water levels of 150 and232 feet, which
appear to be omitted from Ms. Peot's average; (3) cherry-picked wells with very low water levels
barely within the arbitrary 2.5 mile radius (e.g., WIN 430305 at 6 feet).
Finally, and notwithstanding the above, Ms. Peot's "average 60.4 ft calculation of the
groundwater level is still below the "maximum depth of contaminant percolation [ofl 52.8 ft,"
calculated by SRIH's licensed engineer, making it extremely unlikely that contamination from
the cleanup site could ever percolate into the groundwater before migrating with the groundwater
toward and into Parker Spring.
c. Soil Leachate Sampling Methodolog. The Letter expresses
concern that only "a single soil leachate sample [was analyzed] per critical area, a total of 10
samples for an 88.5 acre cleanup area. They did not test whether the soil sample contained any
contaminants prior to using it for leachate testing." Letter, at2.
As indicated on page 9 of the RAP, "[t]he locations of these samples . . . were selected by
evaluating the prior characteization data and biasing each sample location in areas of concern
where the greatest contamination had been previously detected. Hence, these samples are
considered indicative of worst-case conditions within the areas" from which the leachate samples
7
4875-9201-8843, v. 3
were collected. Thus, although the samples used for leachate testing were not individually
analyzed for the contaminants of potential concern, they were obtained from areas of known
contamination based on prior sampling.
The Letter further provides that "[t]he leachate samples were not representative of the
groundwater risk that would occur from the planned soil repository containing concentrated
contaminants relocated from multiple sections during execution of the Remedial Action and Site
Management Plans, but rather were sampled from the area prior to remediation." Letter, at2.
On the contrary, it is precisely because the samples were collected "from the area prior to
remediation" that the samples g "representative of the groundwater risk that would occur from
the planned soil repository."
The Letter also states that "[t]he leachate sampling failed to follow the Quality Assurance
Project Plan with respect to blind and laboratory duplicates, and DEQ splits. No spiked recovery
samples were included to assess accuracy of the test, as outlined in the plan." Letter, atZ. The
leachate samples were considered special purpose samples for which blind and laboratory
duplicates and DEQ splits were not necessary. Nevertheless, substantial laboratory QA/QC
analyses were performed in accordance with the referenced Quality Assurance Project Plan.
These included method blank analyses for SPLP and TCLP metals as well as radiochemistry,
laboratory control (i.e., spiked percent recovery) sample analyses for SPLP and TCLP metals as
well as radiochemistry, matrix spike sample evaluations for both SPLP and TCLP metals, and
sample duplicate evaluations for moisture content. The laboratory QA/QC analyses conducted
on the leachate samples were part of the laboratory report that was included on a compact disk
that accompanied the RAP.
d. Data Regarding Bevill-Exempt Material in Lined and Capped
Repository. The Letter asserts that the allegedly "problematic leachate testing" led the project
engineer to conclude that the material placed in the repository was "Bevill-exempt," and,
"consequently, the contaminated soil repository was located in a drinking water protection zone
and residentially zoned area...." First, as addressed above, the leachate testing was more than
adequate. Second, the material placed in the repository was Bevill-exempt, as it was clearly
"[s]olid waste from the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and minerals, including
phosphate rock and overburden from the mining of uranium ore." 42 U.S.C. $ 6921(bX3XAXii).8
Indeed, those materials fall within the Bevill exemption irrespective of whether the leachate
testing was "problematic" (which it was not). In any event, even if those materials were not
exempt from the State's solid waste laws, the Letter provides no support to demonstrate that the
repository could not still be located within the drinking water protection zone. Moreover, apart
from just questioning the leachate testing, the Letterprovides no independent data indicating a
risk to human health or the environment.
8 The EPA has defined "beneficiation" to include crushing; grinding; washing; dissolution; crystallization; filtration;
sorting; sizing; drying; sintering; pelletizing; briquetting; calcining to remove water and./or carbon dioxide; roasting,
autoclaving, and/or chlorination in preparation for leaching; gravity concentration; magnetic separation; electrostatic
separation; flotation; ion exchange; solvent extraction; electrowinning; precipitation; amalgamation; and heap,
dump, vat, tank, and in situ leaching. 40 C.F.R. $ 261.4(bX7Xi).
8
4875-9201-8843, v. 3
5. Non-Access to Groundwater for Drinkins Purposes. Contrary to the
misleading inference in Ms. Peot's assertion that "UT DEQ's own ono further action letter' ...
explicitly stat[es] that the Groundwater [is] not to be accessed for drinking water, bathing or
irrigation purposes," Letter, at 2 (insert by Ms. Peot), the NFA Letter is simply referencing the
default language in almost all of Utah DEQ's Voluntary Cleanup Agreements and DEQ's
Agreement template, wherein the applicant SRIH is projecting its anticipated proposed future
land use. Inasmuch as the proposed project is a residential development, whose culinary water
was and is expected to be provided through a local municipal water provider, there was no
contemplated need for accessing the groundwater, and the applicant simply noted that
"Groundwater shall not be accessed via wells, pits or sump for drinking water, bathing and/or
irrigation purposes." SeeUtah DERR/SRIH VCP Agreement. That language simply reflects the
applicant's anticipation that it would not need the groundwater for culinary purposes; it certainly
does not reflect a conclusion on Utah DEQ's part that the naturally-occurring minerals or historic
mining contamination impaired Parker Spring or any other known sorrrce of drinking water.
D. EPA's Reliance on Utah DEQ's Detailed Analyses is Appropriate. As to the
assertion in the Letter's conclusory paragraph that "our community has not received a response
from the EPA as to the status of the planned investigation outlined in the 28 June 2023 letter
from [EPA's] Ben Bielenberg," Mr. Bielenberg gave no such indication in his letter that he was
planning on undertaking any "investigation." Instead, IvIr. Bielenberg simply indicated that "we
are committed to taking a closer look at the remediation work that has been accomplished and
the safeguards that are left in place to protect public health," but made it clear that "DEO is a
valued EPA partner with a proven track record of protectins human health and the
environment...." He then notes that "[w]e are aware of other inquires received by the DEQ
expressing the same concerns that you have. In response, the DEQ has stated that the site meets
the cleanup standards proposed in the remedial action plan, and that a site management plan and
environmental covenant are in place...." Contrary to Ms. Peot's suggestion, Mr. Bielenberg
does not then conclude by telling her that she would receive a response, but rather he concludes
by simply stating that "[g]iven our limited involvement at the site since 2004,I have instructed
my staff to conduct a review of existing remedial plans and site management documents. If we
identify any concerns, we will take appropriate steps to notify the DEQ." Having asked
Utah DEQ whether Mr. Bielenberg's office has taken any steps to notify it of any concerns, and
DEQ has not reported having received any such notification. Accordingly, it appears that EPA
Region 8 has no concerns with Utah DEQ's handling of this SPE VCP project, as it relates to any
of the issues (including those relating to SSD) raised in the Letter or any of the other similar
letters Ms. Peot and her associates have circulated as part of their broader aforementioned
campaign to undermine the SPE residential development.
Best regards,
/s/ Martin K. Banl<s
Martin K. Banks
9
4875-9201-8843, v. 3