Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDWQ-2024-007638 GSL Facility Operator Application Waterleaf Resources, GSL Lithium Extraction Demonstration Plant Project Revised October 4, 2024 GSL Facility Operator Application Revised October 4, 2024 | i Contents 1 Background and Purpose..................................................................................................1 1.1 Contents of This Report ..............................................................................................1 2 Project Information ...........................................................................................................2 2.1 Project Purpose .........................................................................................................2 2.2 Lithium Extraction Process ..........................................................................................2 2.3 Mass Balance ...........................................................................................................4 2.4 Water Balance...........................................................................................................5 2.5 Generated Waste.......................................................................................................5 2.6 Location of Project .....................................................................................................5 2.7 Supporting Documentation ..........................................................................................6 2.8 Estimated Water and Brine Depletion............................................................................6 2.9 Rate of Extraction ......................................................................................................8 3.0 Withdrawal Information .....................................................................................................9 3.1 Source Waters ..........................................................................................................9 3.2 Source Water Flowrates..............................................................................................9 3.3 Project Duration....................................................................................................... 10 3.4 Plan for Measurement of Source and Discharge waters ................................................. 10 4 Discharge Information .................................................................................................... 10 4.1 Discharge Characteristics.......................................................................................... 10 4.2 Non-discharging Operations ...................................................................................... 13 5.0 Impacted Habitat ............................................................................................................ 13 5.1 Description of Existing GSL Habitat and Biota in and around the Area of Operation............ 13 5.2 Potential Physical Impacts......................................................................................... 15 5.3 Least Degrading Reasonable Alternatives ................................................................... 15 5.4 Mitigation Plan......................................................................................................... 15 5.5 Beneficial Use ......................................................................................................... 15 6.0 Monitoring and Inspection Plan ....................................................................................... 16 6.1 Description of Monitoring Means and Methods ............................................................. 16 6.2 Monitoring Plan ....................................................................................................... 16 6.3 Monitoring Locations ................................................................................................ 17 7.0 Evidence Supporting the Operator Certification................................................................ 18 7.1 Short - and Long -term Mass Balance Effects................................................................. 18 7.2 Supporting Documents ............................................................................................. 18 8.0 References ..................................................................................................................... 21 GSL Facility Operator Application Revised ii | October 4, 2024 Tables Table 1. GSL Salinity and Lithium Mass Balance .............................................................................4 Table 2. Influent and Discharge Characteristics from Bench Scale Testing ........................................ 12 Table 3. Monitoring Means and Methods ...................................................................................... 17 Table 4. Influent and Discharge Characteristics Comparison ........................................................... 19 Figures Figure 1. Demonstration Plant Process Schematic ..........................................................................3 Figure 2. Location and Monitoring Map ..........................................................................................7 Appendices A. GSL Mineral Extraction Facility Operator Application Addendum and Rule R317-16-3.4 B. Supporting Documentation Regarding Federal Permits C. North Arm GSL, Background Characteristics Memo D. Microbialite Survey Memorandum E. Third -Party Laboratory Data F. Multi Agency Pre-application Meeting Minutes 09/27/2024 GSL Facility Operator Application Revised October 4, 2024 | iii Abbreviations °C degrees Celsius µg/L micrograms per liter ADR Antidegradation Review AF acre-feet AWQMS Ambient Water Quality Management System DLE direct lithium extraction FFSL Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands gpm gallons per minute GRAMA Government Records Access Management Act GSL Great Salt Lake IX ion-exchange lb pounds LCE lithium carbonate equivalent Lilac Lilac Solutions, Inc. M million MAF million acre-feet mg/L milligrams per liter mgd million gallons per day NVGD 1929 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 Operator Application Great Salt Lake Mineral Extraction Facility Operator Application spp. multiple species UDWQ Utah Division of Water Quality UGS Utah Geological Survey UPDES Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waterleaf Waterleaf Resources LLC GSL Facility Operator Application Revised October 4, 2024 | 1 1 Background and Purpose Waterleaf Resources (Waterleaf), a Utah limited liability company, is proposing to extract lithium from Great Salt Lake (GSL) brine waters by constructing and operating a Demonstration Plant to validate Waterleaf parent company Lilac Solutions, Inc.’s (Lilac) proprietary ion-exchange (IX) direct lithium extraction (DLE) process. This proprietary technology is a nonconsumptive and nonevaporative process. All GSL brine water withdrawn would be discharged back into the GSL, with no brine depletion. In September 2023, Waterleaf submitted to the Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ) a Clean Water Act Section 402 Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (UPDES) application (Waterleaf Resources 2023a). In its review of the application materials, UDWQ required additional information, including a Level II Antidegradation Review (ADR), which was submitted by Waterleaf in October 2023 (Waterleaf Resources 2023b). With the passing of House Bill 513 during the 2023 Utah legislative session, UDWQ prepared new rules (R317-16-3.4) to meet the legislative bill requirements. The rules were published in August 2024. This report has been prepared in accordance with information required by the rules and the GSL Mineral Extraction Facility Operator Application Addendum (Appendix A). Waterleaf is submitting this report with the information requested by UDWQ to support its GSL Mineral Extraction Facility Operator Application (Operator Application) permitted by rule, which is required to operate the proposed Demonstration Plant with brine intake from, and de-lithiated brine discharge back to, the GSL. 1.1 Contents of This Report Waterleaf has prepared this report to be consistent with the Operator Application form (UDWQ 2024) for the proposed project to demonstrate consistency with the State of Utah’s R317-2-16-3.4 rules and Operator Application. The following topics are discussed in this submittal: • Project information • Withdrawal information • Discharge information • Impacted habitat • Monitoring and inspection plan • Evidence supporting the operator certification GSL Facility Operator Application Revised 2 | October 4, 2024 2 Project Information The proposed project is a demonstration-scale lithium extraction plant that would validate Lilac’s proprietary nonevaporative IX DLE process in order to produce battery-grade lithium products from brine in the North Arm of the GSL. Below is a discussion if the project’s purpose and a review of the Demonstration Project’s process flow. 2.1 Project Purpose The Demonstration Plant is a temporary facility intended to validate bench scale testing results of Lilac’s proprietary lithium extraction process. The goal of the Demonstration Plant is to produce battery-grade lithium product from the GSL North Arm brine under continuous, stable operations and process yields sufficient to support a future commercial project. The Demonstration Plant would produce a lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) as lithium chloride and lithium sulfate solutions, which would be further tested off site to confirm that key performance indicators, such as product quality and purity, are met. The Demonstration Plant would be decommissioned, and all elements of the plant will be removed (that is, intake and discharge piping, process equipment, and materials) after operation is completed. 2.2 Lithium Extraction Process The Demonstration Plant would process GSL North Arm brine through Lilac’s proprietary DLE equipment to produce LCE. Lithium depleted brine would be discharged to the North Arm of the GSL. Below is a summary discussion of the Demonstration Plant process steps, followed by a schematic diagram (Figure 1). • Intake. GSL North Arm brine would be pumped from the GSL and conveyed to the process equipment, located adjacent to the GSL shoreline (landward of the meander line). The intake pipeline would be approximately 6,400 feet in total length, with a terminal intake point targeting a water depth of approximately 3 feet. The intake system would be driven by an air-operated double-diaphragm pump, which would have a maximum flowrate of 40 gallons per minute (gpm), although actual operational flowrates might be less than 40 gpm. • Filtration. Intake brine would be filtered through a two-stage system, including primary and polishing filter screens to remove suspended solids and algae. • Ion Exchange. After filtration, the intake brine would be sent to the IX equipment, where lithium would be selectively extracted by effectively replacing a Li+ ion with a sodium ion. During the IX process, treated groundwater (groundwater would be treated by reverse osmosis) would be added to the intake brine as a washing agent in the extraction process. GSL Facility Operator Application Revised October 4, 2024 | 3 • Discharge. The de-lithiated brine and treated groundwater would be discharged to the GSL North Arm after passing through the IX equipment. Prior to discharge, pH balancing of the discharge stream using sodium hydroxide (NaOH)1 would occur to meet background pH values. The discharge pipeline back to the GSL would be approximately 6,000 feet long. A maximum discharge rate of up to 41.6 gpm (when accounting for de-lithiated brine plus the addition of treated groundwater) could occur, although lower actual operational flowrates are anticipated. Figure 1. Demonstration Plant Process Schematic 1 Brief, isolated pH balancing tests with calcium carbonate (CaCO3) might also take place during the course of the Demonstration Project; however, sodium hydroxide would be the primary pH balancing reagent, because this is the expected reagent to be used at the future commercial scale. The mass balance provided in Table 1 is based on sodium hydroxide application. Bench testing with both sodium hydroxide and calcium carbonate was conducted by Lilac, although the effluent values provided in Table 2 are from a calcium carbonate–buffered sample. GSL Facility Operator Application Revised 4 | October 4, 2024 2.3 Mass Balance Mass balance of principal GSL salinity constituents, including all target and nontarget minerals across the principal mineral processing steps. A mass balance of the principal GSL salinity constituents and lithium (target mineral) is provided in Table 1 for the Demonstration Plant project. The mass balance is based on a maximum allowable withdrawal of up to 5 acre-feet (AF) of brine2 and the addition of groundwater to the process. Waterleaf’s most accurate estimate of discharge volume results in a maximum discharge of 5.04 AF for the Demonstration Plant. Table 1. GSL Salinity and Lithium Mass Balance Salinity Constituent Influent Brine Concentration, mg/L Influent Brine Mass, lb/5 AF Effluent Discharge Concentration, mg/La Effluent Discharge Mass, lb/5.04 AF Mass Difference, lb Calcium 390b 5,304 290 5,206,060 –98 Chloride 170,000b 2,311,850 168,131 2,307,089 –4,760 Magnesium 12,000c 163,189 11,868 162,853 –366 Potassium 12,000b 163,189 11,881 163,029 –160 Sodium 110,000b 1,495,903 109,100 1,497,065 1,162 Definitions: AF = acre-feet; lb = pounds, mg/L = milligrams per liter a Concentration based on Waterleaf’s most accurate estimate based on the influent concentration and process flow. Actual concentrations and mass loading/loss will vary based on influent lake concentrations and process flowrates. b Concentration based on bench scale testing on GSL brine in July 2024, using brine samples extracted from the North Arm near the proposed pilot plant intake point in January 2024; see Table 2. Actual concentrations and mass loading will vary based on influent lake concentrations and process flowrates. c Concentration from Lilac’s internal laboratory via ICP-OES during bench testing; same source as b. As discussed above in the process summary, Waterleaf anticipates that the discharge from the Demonstration Plant would have decreased concentrations of constituents compared to the concentrations of the intake brine, due to the filtration prior to IX processing, as well as a dilution effect due to the addition of groundwater (see Table 2). Only the salinity constituent sodium would have a slight mass increase compared to the influent mass, due to the use of sodium hydroxide as the pH buffering agent. Constituent Influent Brine Concentration, mg/L Influent Mass, lb/5AF Effluent Discharge Concentrationa, mg/L Effluent Mass, lb/5.04AF Mass Difference, lb Lithium 65b 884 14 190 –694 a Concentration based on Waterleaf’s most accurate estimate based on the influent concentration and process flow. Actual concentrations and mass loading or loss would vary based on influent lake concentrations and process flowrates. 2 Note that Utah Code §65A-6-4(6)(a)(ii) limits the use of brines from the GSL to a maximum of 5 AF for feasibility assessment projects. GSL Facility Operator Application Revised October 4, 2024 | 5 b Concentrations based on bench scale testing on GSL brine in July 2024, using brine samples extracted from the North Arm near the proposed pilot plant intake point in January 2024. Actual concentrations and mass loading would vary based on influent lake concentrations and process flowrates. 2.4 Water Balance Water balance at design flow, low-flow conditions, and across a range of lake levels. The Demonstration Plant water balance is provided below, based on a maximum discharge rate of 41.6 gpm or 0.06 million gallons per day (mgd) during operation. • Maximum North Arm brine withdrawal rate: 0.05856 mgd (40.6 gpm) • Groundwater flowrate added: 0.00144 mgd (1 gpm) • Maximum discharge rate to North Arm: 0.06 mgd (41.6 gpm) The Demonstration Plant would have maximum withdrawal of 5 AF of brine including commissioning and operation from the North Arm. Based on U.S. Geological Survey bathymetric and topographic data, the North Arm volume at water surface elevations of 4,190 and 4,198 feet (NVGD 1929) is 2.7 million (M) AF and 4.9 MAF, respectively. As of July 2024, the North Arm water surface elevation was about 4,192 feet. The Demonstration Plant is anticipated to operate for a short duration and, therefore, Waterleaf anticipates that the water surface elevation of the North Arm would not fluctuate significantly (or even perceptibly) during the Demonstration Plant operations. 2.5 Generated Waste Generated waste containment and disposal infrastructure descriptions, including residuals and disposal methods. Process residuals from filtration screening and reverse osmosis would be land- transported and disposed of at a regulated landfill (Little Mountain Landfill, Tremonton, Utah). Miscellaneous municipal waste generated would be transported and disposed of at the same landfill. Process equipment and intake and discharge infrastructure would be decommissioned at the termination of the project and returned to Waterleaf headquarters. 2.6 Location of Project Location and acreage of lakebed used for project facilities during the feasibility assessment and operations phases, if different. The Demonstration Plant would use a temporary easement or right of entry from the State of Utah’s Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands (FFSL) totaling about 7.3 acres of GSL lakebed below the meander line (6,400 feet long by 50 feet wide). This area would be used to temporarily place the intake and outfall infrastructure for the Demonstration Plant. The process facility would be located on a private land lease above the meander line. Waterleaf submitted a request for easement to FFSL in July 2023; see Section 3.1.1 and Figure 2 of this application. FFSL’s sovereign lands authority also allows for limited rights of entry to be issued in lieu of easements at that agency’s discretion. Hereinafter in this application, this area is generally referred to as the GSL Facility Operator Application Revised 6 | October 4, 2024 temporary easement, although it might ultimately be a right of entry area; nonetheless, the footprint of, and intake and outfall equipment placed within, the area would remain the same. 2.7 Supporting Documentation Supporting documentation submitted to federal agencies, including maps, plans, specifications, project dimensions, copies of associated federal applications, biological and engineering studies, environmental assessment or environmental impact statements, or alternative analyses, as applicable. The Demonstration Plant infrastructure that would be temporarily placed on the lakebed is authorized under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 18. As required by the federal permit, a State of Utah Water Quality Certification was issued. These documents are attached in Appendix B. 2.8 Estimated Water and Brine Depletion Estimated water and brine depletion. The Demonstration Plant would not deplete water or brine from the North Arm of the GSL, based on the water balance provided in Section 1 above. GSL Facility Operator Application Revised October 4, 2024 | 7 Figure 2. Location and Monitoring Map GSL Facility Operator Application Revised 8 | October 4, 2024 2.9 Rate of Extraction Plan to determine rate of extraction for the targeted and nontargeted minerals or elements and estimated rate of depletion of the targeted and nontargeted minerals or elements of the GSL. The plan to determine the rate of extraction for lithium is to continuously monitor the influent and effluent of the Demonstration Plant for flowrates. Influent and effluent samples would be collected and analyzed to determine the actual amount of lithium extracted. Because the lithium concentration of North Arm brine varies throughout the year, Waterleaf proposes that the estimated lithium removal (extraction) rate is an appropriate measure of how much lithium would be removed from North Arm brine for this application. According to current bench scale testing, no other minerals would be significantly depleted. The estimated rate of extraction would be validated through the monitoring data for the Demonstration Plant. The estimated rate of depletion for lithium, based on bench scale testing, is that at least 65% of the influent concentration would be extracted. For example, if raw influent brine has an average concentration of 70 mg/L, the rate of depletion would be (70 mg/L × 0.65), or 45.5 mg/L. GSL Facility Operator Application Revised October 4, 2024 | 9 3.0 Withdrawal Information The proposed project would source and discharge process water from Gunnison Bay (that is, the North Arm) of the GSL. In addition to using water from Gunnison Bay, groundwater would be added during the process. Information about the following source waters (Gunnison Bay and groundwater) is provided. 3.1 Source Waters Names and locations of the brine water and externally sourced water where withdrawals will occur, including the precise latitude and longitude to the fifth decimal place in decimal degrees and to the tenth of a degree in degrees-minutes-seconds notation. The following information provides the names and locations of the brine water and externally sourced water where withdrawals would occur. Latitude and longitude coordinates are provided. 3.1.1 Gunnison Bay The proposed Demonstration Plant would withdraw brine from Gunnison Bay (the North Arm of the GSL). The latitude and longitude of the proposed point of diversion from Gunnison Bay are 41° 27′ 44.16″ and 112° 41′ 36.04″, respectively. 3.1.2 Groundwater Groundwater would be withdrawn from an existing private well and used during the operation. The existing well is currently operated for agricultural use, but industrial uses are authorized for the associated water right. Chemical analysis of the groundwater source is provided Appendix C. The latitude and longitude of the groundwater well are 41° 27′ 58.32″ and 112° 38′ 52.04″, respectively. 3.2 Source Water Flowrates Detailed information on the quantity of brine water and externally sourced water withdrawals. 3.2.1 Gunnison Bay The proposed withdrawal would occur from Gunnison Bay (the North Arm of the GSL). The maximum flowrate of brine to be withdrawn from Gunnison Bay would be up to 40.6 gpm or 0.05856 mgd while the Demonstration Plant is operating. GSL Facility Operator Application Revised 10 | October 4, 2024 3.2.2 Groundwater Groundwater would be withdrawn and used during the DLE process. The maximum flowrate of groundwater to be withdrawn would be 1 gpm. This groundwater flowrate is based on the maximum brine flowrate of 40.6 gpm. 3.3 Project Duration Detailed information on the timing of the withdrawals. Waterleaf anticipates that the Demonstration Plant project would last up to 9 months, including construction, commissioning, operation, testing, and demolition. Process operation is anticipated to be less than 2 months, with a maximum withdrawal of 5 AF of North Arm brine starting in the fall of 2024. 3.4 Plan for Measurement of Source and Discharge waters Detailed description of the operator’s plan for measuring the amount of brine water, externally sourced water and returned water. The Demonstration Plant would be equipped with continuous flow monitoring in the brine intake and discharge pipelines. In this manner, the intake flowrate of brine from the North Arm would be monitored through the meter in the intake pipeline. The discharge flowrate to the North Arm would be monitored in the discharge pipeline. 4 Discharge Information The Demonstration Plant would discharge effluent to the North Arm of the GSL. Because the project would target removal of lithium, other constituents would be conveyed through the plant but not significantly depleted. For this reason, the influent characteristics of the North Arm brine would be comparable to the effluent characteristics of the Demonstration Plant. This section identifies the anticipated discharge characteristics of constituents based on bench scale test work and third-party laboratory analysis, which was conducted during project inception and development. 4.1 Discharge Characteristics Characterization of the physical, chemical, biological, thermal and other pertinent properties of the discharge; at a minimum: pH, total alkalinity, total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, sulfate, nitrate, nitrite, carbonate, bicarbonate, chloride, hydroxide, chemical oxygen demand, biological oxygen demand, silica, zinc, magnesium, sodium, calcium, potassium, boron, bromide*, aluminum, iron, and silicon*; range of temperatures expected in effluent; density range of effluent to be discharged; and quantity of foreign materials that would be discharged to the GSL on a annual basis. The influent and discharge characteristics for identified constituents for the Demonstration Plant are identified in Table 2 below. GSL Facility Operator Application Revised October 4, 2024 | 11 Initial analysis and preliminary test work on a GSL brine sample was conducted by Lilac in June 2023, and data from this analysis were included in the original UPDES application. Representative North Arm brine samples were collected near the proposed Demonstration Plant intake pipeline terminus in January 2024, and in-house bench scale testing was conducted by Lilac in July 2024, whereby additional constituent analyses of both influent and bench-scale tested effluent were conducted. Influent and effluent data obtained through the bench scale tests are provided in Table 2, with the corresponding data source footnoted accordingly. It is important to note that both calcium carbonate and sodium hydroxide were used in isolated tests at the bench scale as pH buffering agents, although the effluent values provided in Table 2 are from a calcium carbonate–buffered sample. As described in Section 2.2, sodium hydroxide was selected as the preferred pH buffering agent for the Demonstration Plant, because sodium hydroxide is the more likely reagent to be used in a future commercial project. Some constituents were not analyzed during bench scale testing, including bicarbonate, carbonate, total suspended solids (TSS), temperature, and pH. These are included in Table 2 below but indicate that the results of influent and effluent are not available. pH would be continuously adjusted to meet background conditions, and therefore Waterleaf does not anticipate that the influent and effluent values would vary significantly. Waterleaf anticipates that, through the initial filtration process described in Section 1, TSS concentrations would be reduced in the effluent. Operation of the Demonstration Plant, as well as compliance with the draft UPDES permit for this operation, would fully demonstrate minimal changes to these constituents which were not analyzed previously. Because the Demonstration Plant would validate DLE technology, Waterleaf anticipates that, for many of these constituents, the effluent value would not vary significantly from influent values; this is noted below. It is important to note that the chemical composition of the North Arm varies greatly with lake level and salinity, and therefore the influent and effluent characteristics would vary accordingly. Because the Demonstration Plant would be operated for a limited period, no foreign materials (for example, descalers or equipment cleaning operations) would be added to the process equipment and the intake and outlet infrastructure. As discussed in Section 2.2, pH would be adjusted with sodium hydroxide prior to discharge in order to closely match to the background pH conditions. Other than pH adjustment, no other reagents would be added to the brine discharge stream. * Please note that, to date, Waterleaf Solutions has not been able to identify a commercial laboratory local to the project area that offers a total silicon analysis in order to meet required hold times for delivery; therefore, total silica would be monitored and tested as a surrogate to total silicon. A total silicon analysis was conducted by McCampbell Analytical (Pittsburgh, CA) and is included in Table 2; however, going forward, total silica would be reported. Bromide would be monitored and tested for as a surrogate for bromine, because historic data are available for bromide. GSL Facility Operator Application Revised 12 | October 4, 2024 Table 2. Influent and Discharge Characteristics from Bench Scale Testing Constituent Units Average Influent Value Average Effluent Value Alkalinity mg/L 1,250a 507a Aluminum, total µg/L < 20,000b < 2,000b Arsenic, total (acid-soluble) µg/L < 500b 160b Barium, total (acid-soluble) µg/L < 5,000b < 500b Bicarbonate, total mg/L Not available Not available Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) mg/L 4.70a <2.00 Boron, total µg/L 80,000a 72,000a Bromide. total mg/L 160a 160a Cadmium, total (acid-soluble) µg/L < 100a < 100a Calcium, total mg/L 390a 360a Carbonate, total mg/L Not available Not available Chemical oxygen demand (COD) mg/L 32,000a 9,000a Chloride, total mg/L 170,000a 170,000a Chromium, total (acid-soluble) µg/L < 400a < 400a Copper, total (acid-soluble) µg/L < 300a < 300a Cyanide, total µg/L 2.5a 2.6a Density g/mL 1.214a 1.212a Hardness, from Ca and Mg, total mg/L 44,700b 49,500b Hydroxide, total mg/L Not available Not available Iron, total (acid-soluble) µg/L <50,000b < 5,000b Lead, total (acid-soluble) µg/L < 100a < 100a Magnesium, total mg/L 12,000c Not available Mercury, total (acid-soluble) µg/L 0.790a 0.170a Nickel, total (acid-soluble) µg/L < 100a < 100a Nitrate, as NO3, total mg/L < 440a < 440a Nitrite, as NO2, total mg/L < 330a < 330a pH None Not available Not available Potassium, total mg/L 12,000a 11,000a Selenium, total (acid-soluble) µg/L < 100a < 100a Silicon, total mg/L < 10a < 10a Silver, total (acid-soluble) µg/L < 100a < 100a Sodium, total mg/L 110,000a 98,000a Sulfate, total mg/L 22,000a 23,000a Temperature, water °C Not available Not available Total dissolved solids (TDS) mg/L 361,000b 348,000b (continued on next page) GSL Facility Operator Application Revised October 4, 2024 | 13 Table 2. Influent and Discharge Characteristics from Bench Scale Testing Constituent Units Average Influent Value Average Effluent Value Total suspended solids (TSS) mg/L Not available Not available Zinc, total (acid-soluble) µg/L <4,000a <4,000a Definitions: °C = degrees Celsius; µg/L = micrograms per liter; g/mL = grams per milliliter; mg/L = milligrams per liter a 2024 Waterleaf bench scale data from Demonstration Plant intake location brine sample, as analyzed by McCampbell Analytical. (<) indicates that the analytical result is less than the PQL. Laboratory reports are provided in Appendix E. b 2023 Waterleaf bench scale data from a non-specific GSL brine sample, as analyzed by McCampbell Analytical. (<) indicates that the analytical result is less than the PQL. Laboratory reports are provided in Appendix E. c 2024 Waterleaf bench scale data from Demonstration Plant intake location brine sample, as analyzed by Lilac’s internal laboratory. 4.2 Non-discharging Operations For operations that are non-discharging during the feasibility assessment, a determination of whether discharge will occur during the operation phase and an evaluation of how the operator will obtain information to characterize its operations discharge during the feasibility assessment. The Demonstration Plant would discharge to the North Arm of the GSL. This section is not applicable. 5.0 Impacted Habitat 5.1 Description of Existing GSL Habitat and Biota in and around the Area of Operation Description of existing GSL habitat and biota in and around the area of operation. The Demonstration Plant would withdraw brine from and discharge it to the North Arm (Gunnison Bay) of the GSL from the eastern shoreline of the North Arm, near the Promontory Mountains. Habitat in and around the location of the proposed Demonstration Plant is limited due to the hypersaline nature of the open water in the North Arm of the GSL and the lack of freshwater inflows into the North Arm. Biota in and around the location of the proposed Demonstration Plant consists of algae (Dunaliella salina) and halophilic archaea (Halobacterium spp. and Halococcus spp.) on a seasonal basis. 5.1.1 GSL Habitat The Demonstration Plant would be constructed and removed from leased private land that is currently used for agriculture. The intake and outfall infrastructure would be constructed from the Demonstration Plant to the open waters of the North Arm (Gunnison Bay) of the GSL. The infrastructure area can be described as exposed lakebed and hypersaline waters. GSL Facility Operator Application Revised 14 | October 4, 2024 Recent Utah Geological Survey (UGS) mapping has identified the western, eastern, and southeastern shoreline areas in the North Arm that might contain microbialites (UGS 2021). Microbialite structures provide a food source for brine shrimp and brine flies (Baxter and Butler 2020). However, research has documented that, due to limited availability of nutrients, the North Arm microbialite structures have lower mass, productivity, and/or diversity compared to microbialites in the South Arm (Baxter and Butler 2020). Waterleaf conducted a survey of the lakebed intake and outlet construction area (FFSL easement area) to identify the existence of these important habitat structures in the project area. Microbialite structures were not found in the surveyed project area. Reference Appendix D. Wetland complexes (the Locomotive Springs and Salt Wells Flat Wildlife Management Areas) are identified along the northern shoreline of the North Arm, above the 4,212-foot contour, about 30 and 20 miles northwest of the project site, respectively. The Demonstration Plant would not affect these management areas. 5.1.2 GSL Biota Biota in and around the location of the proposed Demonstration Plant is limited due to the hypersaline nature of the open water in the North Arm of the GSL. This is documented in Great Salt Lake: A Scientific, Historical, and Economic Overview (Gwynn 1980), which states: “The very high level of salt, especially sodium chloride, and the low level of dissolved oxygen create an extreme environmental stress on life-forms entering the lake.” Biological communities have been identified as bacteria and microbes that exist in hypersaline waters. The 2013 Great Salt Lake Comprehensive Management Plan states that the North Arm is limited to 6 phytoplankton species, compared to 20 to 30 species reported in the South Arm (FFSL 2013). The green algal species Dunaliella salina is dominant in the North Arm, causing a pink to purple hue in the water. The Great Salt Lake Comprehensive Management Plan also states that brine shrimp and flies can survive and reproduce in the North Arm at lake elevations of 4,208 to 4,212 f eet, about 18 to 22 feet above the current North Arm elevation of 4,190 feet; at lower elevations than the current elevation, brine shrimp, cysts, and flies do not thrive (FFSL 2013). Gunnison Island, located in the North Arm, has provided nesting habitat to a population of American white pelicans. Pelicans do not forage in the North Arm due to the hypersaline waters (Baxter and Butler 2020). Recently, due to drought, predators can access the island across the exposed lakebed, threatening the colony. Research continues advancing the information regarding types and diversity of microbial communities in the hypersaline waters of the North Arm, including bacteria and archaea (Baxter and Butler 2020). GSL Facility Operator Application Revised October 4, 2024 | 15 5.2 Potential Physical Impacts Description of the potential physical impact to habitat and biota in and around the withdrawal and discharge locations. The temporary intake (withdrawal) and discharge infrastructure would consist of two pipes and an air hose that would be placed on the lakebed extending from the meander line to open water, as well as an air-operated double-diaphragm pump mounted on a 4-foot by 6-foot steel plate located approximately 100 feet from the water’s edge. The intake pipe infrastructure would be terminated at a water depth of about 3 feet. The pipes would be up to 4 inches in diameter and would be anchored to the lakebed using rebar. After the validation testing is completed, the pipes and rebar anchors would be removed and disposed of off site. There would be no permanent physical impact to lakebed habitat and biota from the intake and discharge infrastructure. All process and infrastructure would be removed after the validation process is completed. The Demonstration Plant would be constructed and decommissioned using existing access roads and on private land. The intake and discharge infrastructure would be constructed and decommissioned with off-highway vehicles (OHVs) to minimize lakebed disturbances. 5.3 Least Degrading Reasonable Alternatives Evaluation of least degrading reasonable alternatives. Waterleaf prepared an alternatives analysis and presented this analysis in the Level II ADR (Waterleaf 2023a). In summary, the Demonstration Plant would withdraw brine from and discharge it to the North Arm of the GSL to validate lithium extraction technology that would not use evaporative ponds. This technology is the least degrading compared to the conventional evaporative pond process to remove salts and minerals from saline lakes, since water would not be depleted from the GSL. As a result, traditional discharge alternatives, such as pollutant trading, reuse, or land application, are not appropriate. 5.4 Mitigation Plan Plan to mitigate any negative impacts of the proposed operation. The Demonstration Plant would not deplete waters from the GSL or place fill material permanently into waters of the United States; therefore, no mitigation plan is proposed since no federal jurisdiction resources would be negatively impacted. Temporary infrastructure would be constructed and removed after the operation is completed in accordance with state easement requirements. 5.5 Beneficial Use Plan to ensure existing beneficial uses will be maintained and protected. Waterleaf prepared a review of beneficial use and an analysis of water quality standards and presented this analysis in the Level II ADR (Waterleaf 2023a). The analysis GSL Facility Operator Application Revised 16 | October 4, 2024 demonstrated compliance with the State’s antidegradation policy to maintain beneficial uses of the North Arm of the GSL and that discharges from the Demonstration Plant would not exceed water quality standards (Waterleaf 2023a). 6.0 Monitoring and Inspection Plan 6.1 Description of Monitoring Means and Methods A description of the methods and means to monitor the quality and characteristics of the discharge and operation of the equipment or facilities employed in control of any proposed discharge. While the Demonstration Plant is operating, Waterleaf plans to continuously monitor intake and discharge flowrates. Weekly sampling and analysis for the constituents identified in UDWQ Rule R317-16 and per the Demonstration Plant UPDES permit would take place. The results of this sampling and analysis would demonstrate permit compliance and would further inform future Waterleaf’s operations. Table 3 identifies laboratory analysis methods for the constituents to be analyzed and reported. 6.2 Monitoring Plan Plan to monitor and address long-term cumulative effects of withdrawals and discharges on the biota and chemistry of the GSL, including available baseline data. Inflow and discharge flow and chemical monitoring would be conducted and reported during operation of the Demonstration Plant. Waterleaf plans to collect and analyze inflow and discharge samples weekly during operation for the constituents as required in the UPDES permit and use these data as further support for this operator certification. Further, because North Arm brine would not be depleted and because of the nature of Lilac’s proprietary nonevaporative IX DLE process, the lake level would not decrease due to the Demonstration Plant operations. With the maintenance of the North Arm lake level, Waterleaf anticipates that the salinity and general chemistry composition of the North Arm would remain within their historical ranges. Inflow and discharge chemistry would be compared to the North Arm historical chemistry data range as reported in the State Ambient Water Quality Management System (AWQMS) to identify any changes that might cause long-term effects on GSL biota and chemistry. Waterleaf expects that discharge chemical characteristics would be within the historic North Arm data range, and that no effect on the biota and chemistry of the North Arm would occur due to the operation of the Demonstration Plant. GSL Facility Operator Application Revised October 4, 2024 | 17 Table 3. Monitoring Means and Methods Analysis Method List of Constituents Metals EPA 200.7, Metals in Water by ICP-AES Boron, Calcium, Lithium, Potassium, Silica*, Sodium, Magnesium EPA 200.8, Metals in Water by ICP/MS Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Molybdenum, Nickel, Selenium, Silver, Zinc Inorganic Nonmetals EPA 300.0, Determination of Inorganic Anions by Ion Chromatography Bromide, Nitrate, Sulfate EPA 335.4, Determination of Total Cyanide by Semi- automated Colorimetry Cyanide EPA 1631, Mercury in Water by Oxidation, Purge and Trap, and Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometry Mercury SM 2320 B, Alkalinity by Titration Alkalinity, Carbonate, Hydroxide SM 4500 NO2 B, Nitrite by Colorimetry Nitrite SM 5210 B, 5-Day BOD Test Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Hach 8000, EPA Reactor Digestion Method Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) APHA Standard Method 2540 C, Total Dissolved Solids Dried at 180°C Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) APHA Standard Method 2540 D, Total Suspended Solids Dried at 103–105°C Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Other Characteristics Field Measurement – Instantaneous Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Water Temperature, Density EPA 1664 Oil and Grease Definitions: °C = degrees Celsius; AES = atomic emission spectrometry; APHA = American Public Health Association; BOD = biological oxygen demand; EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ICP = inductively coupled plasma; MS = mass spectrometer; SM = Standard Method * A total silica analysis will be used as a surrogate for silicon. 6.3 Monitoring Locations A map showing the locations of proposed monitoring points. Two monitoring locations are proposed at the Demonstration Plant. Inflows to the plant and discharges from the plant would be sampled during operation of the plant from the respective intake and discharge pipelines. The locations would be on the privately leased land from sampling ports installed at locations before and after process equipment. Refer to Figure 2 above. GSL Facility Operator Application Revised 18 | October 4, 2024 7.0 Evidence Supporting the Operator Certification 7.1 Short- and Long-term Mass Balance Effects Mass consideration of both short-term effects and long-term impacts of the project. Mass balances for salinity constituents and targeted minerals are provided in Section 2.3 for the duration of the Demonstration Plant’s temporary operation. The maximum volume of North Arm brine to be withdrawn and processed (5 AF) through the Demonstration Plant represents less than 0.0016% of the current North Arm volume (over 3 million acre-feet). With the addition of groundwater during the IX process, the discharge is estimated to be a maximum of 5.04 AF. The short- and long-term mass balance effects of the Demonstration Plant operations would be negligible to North Arm chemistry and biota. 7.2 Supporting Documents Examples of evidence supporting a certification. 7.2.1 Comparison of Influent and Effluent Characteristics Quantitative comparison of influent and effluent volume and chemical composition. For this quantitative analysis, Lilac compared brine influent and Demonstration Plant effluent characteristics as described in Sections 2 and 4, based on bench scale testing. Bench scale testing results were compared to available long-term North Arm data, as reported in AWQMS, and identified in Appendix C. For the effluent constituents with comparable AWQMS database values, the bench scale results fell within the historic AWQMS database range with a 10% uncertainty value added. The 10% uncertainty value is included as a condition in the Draft UPDES permit for metal loading. For example, total arsenic bench scale result of 160 mg/L fell within the long-term AWQMS data range of 55.0–520.0 mg/L. See Table 4 below for the quantitative comparison of effluent concentrations to historic AWQMS. As described in Section 6.2, Waterleaf is required to collect and analyze inflow and discharge samples weekly during operation for the constituents identified in the draft rule and as required in the UPDES Permit and use these data as further support for this operator certification. Influent chemical characteristics are averaged from data available for North Arm monitoring locations, over time, in the State AWQMS database. Waterleaf has conducted bench scale testing, and the results of the influent and effluent from these tests are also provided in the UPDES application. However, North Arm historic chemistry data are nonexistent or limited for some constituents; this is also noted in the information provided in the UPDES application. GSL Facility Operator Application Revised October 4, 2024 | 19 Because the Waterleaf process is based on IX, Waterleaf anticipates that effluent characteristics would be comparable to influent characteristics and within historic data ranges. Table 4. Influent and Discharge Characteristics Comparison Constituent Units Average Influent Value Average Effluent Value AWQMS Database Rangea (min – max) Alkalinity mg/L 1,250b 507b Not available Aluminum, total µg/L < 20,000c < 2,000c Not available Arsenic, total (acid-soluble) µg/L < 500c 160c 108 – 605 Barium, total (acid-soluble) µg/L < 5,000c < 500c 0.0225 – 1.38 Bicarbonate, total mg/L Not available Not available 0.0 – 1,630 Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) mg/L 4.7b <2.0b Not available Boron, total µg/L 80,000b 72,000b Not available Bromide total mg/L 160b 160b Not available Cadmium, total (acid-soluble) µg/L <100b <100b 4.50 – 611 Calcium, total mg/L 390b 360b Not available Carbonate, total mg/L Not available Not available 0.0 – 53.9 Chemical oxygen demand (COD) mg/L 32,000b 9,000b Not available Chloride, total mg/L 170,000b 170,000b 1,130 – 326,000 Chromium, total (acid-soluble) µg/L <400b <400b 22.5 – 644 Copper, total (acid-soluble) µg/L <300b <300b 22.5 – 935 Cyanide, total µg/L 2.5b 2.6b Not available Density g/mL 1.214b 1.212b Not available Hardness, from Ca and Mg, total mg/L 44,700c 49,500c 3,960 – 66,600 Hydroxide, total mg/L Not available Not available 0.00 – 0.00 Iron, total (acid-soluble) µg/L <50,000c <5,000c 0.00900 – 4.73 Lead, total (acid-soluble) µg/L <100b <100b 13.5 – 275 Magnesium, total mg/L 12,000d Not available Not available Mercury, total (acid-soluble) µg/L 0.790b 0.170b 0.0450 – 3.30 Nickel, total (acid-soluble) µg/L <100b <100b 45.0 – 1,100 Nitrate, total mg/L <440b <440b 0.0450 – 5.50 Nitrite, total mg/L <330b <330b 0.0450 – 0.550 pH None Not available Not available 5.94 – 11.6 Potassium, total mg/L 12,000b 11,000b Not available Selenium, total (acid-soluble) µg/L <100b <100b 0.225 – 11.0 Silica, total mg/L <10b <10b Not available Silver, total (acid-soluble) µg/L <100b <100b 4.50 – 495 Sodium, total mg/L 110,000b 98,000b Not available (continued on next page) GSL Facility Operator Application Revised 20 | October 4, 2024 Table 4. Influent and Discharge Characteristics Comparison Constituent Units Average Influent Value Average Effluent Value AWQMS Database Rangea (min – max) Sulfate, total mg/L 22,000b 23,000b 154 – 232,000 Temperature, water °C Not available Not available 0.189 – 32.5 Total dissolved solids (TDS) mg/L 361,000c 348,000c 55,100 – 639,000 Total suspended solids (TSS) mg/L Not available Not available 1.35 – 1,730 Zinc, total (acid-soluble) µg/L < 4,000b < 4,000b 4.50 – 2,740 Definitions: °C = degrees Celsius; µg/L = micrograms per liter; g/mL = grams per milliliter; mg/L = milligrams per liter a AWQMS long-term data range for all North Arm monitoring locations, with ±10% uncertainty added. Uncertainty accounts for sampling, analytical means and methods, errors, and variations and is also reflective of demonstration plant draft UPDES permit. Reference Appendix C. b 2024 Waterleaf bench scale data from Demonstration Plant intake location brine sample, as analyzed by McCampbell Analytical. (<) indicates that the analytical result is less than the PQL. Laboratory reports are provided in Appendix E. c 2023 Waterleaf bench scale data from a nonspecific GSL brine sample, as analyzed by McCampbell Analytical. (<) indicates that the analytical result is less than the PQL. Laboratory reports are provided in Appendix E. d 2024 Waterleaf bench scale data from Demonstration Plant intake location brine sample, as analyzed by Lilac’s internal laboratory. GSL Facility Operator Application Revised October 4, 2024 | 21 8.0 References Baxter, Bonnie, and Jaimi Butler, eds. 2020 Great Salt Lake Biology. Switzerland: Springer Nature. [FFSL] Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands 2013 Final Great Salt Lake Comprehensive Management Plan and Record of Decision. March. Gwynn, J. Wallace, ed. 1980 Great Salt Lake: A Scientific, Historical, and Economic Overview. Bulletin 116. Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah Geological and Mineral Survey. [UDWQ] Utah Division of Water Quality 2023 Email from S. Tarin. Constituents to be considered for waste load analysis. July 19. 2024 Email from L. Shull with attachment. Great Salt Lake Mineral Extraction Facility Operation Application Addendum, Facility Assessment Information. March 29. [UGS] Utah Geological Survey 2021 Great Salt Lake Microbialites and Ecosystem. July 15. Waterleaf Resources 2023a UPDES Permit Application. September 27. 2023b Level II Antidegradation Review. November 17. October 4, 2024 Appendix A GSL Mineral Extraction Facility Operator Application Addendum and Rule R317-16-3.4 R317. Environmental Quality, Water Quality. R317-16. Great Salt Lake Mineral Extraction Facility Operator Certification Approval. R317-16-1. Purpose and Authority. (1) Authority. This rule is promulgated pursuant to Section 65A-6-4. (2) Purpose. To implement administrative rules for approval of operator certification according to Section 65A-6-4 and to protect the biota and chemistry of Great Salt Lake from possible negative impacts in connection with brine processing and mineral extraction activities. R317-16-2. Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of this rule only: (1) "Application for Operator Certification Approval" or "Application" means a request for approval of an operator's certification that its operations will not negatively impact biota or chemistry of Great Salt Lake, and includes the specific information detailed in Sections R317-16-3 and R317-16-5. (2) "Biota" means all plants, fungi, animals, protists, bacteria, and archaea in Great Salt Lake. (3) "Brine Depletion" means the volume of brine water consumed through processing and operations, calculated by subtracting the volume of returned water from the volume of brine water. (4) "Brine Water" means water diverted from Great Salt Lake. (5) "Certification Decision" includes the following: (a) "Operator Certification Approval" means a permit order, as defined in Subsection 19-1-301.5(1)(f)(i), indicating the director's approval of an operator's certification. (b) "Operator Certification Denial" means a permit order, as defined in Subsection 19-1-301.5(1)(f)(i), indicating the director's denial of an operator's certification. (6) "Chemistry" means the properties, composition, and structure of the elements and compounds, and interactions thereof, making up the waters, brines, and substrate of Great Salt Lake. (7) "Director" means the director of the Utah Division of Water Quality. (8) "Discharge" means any water, substance, or pollution placed into a receiving water; which may include any combination of treated, processed, or returned waters. (9) "Division" means the Utah Division of Water Quality. (10) "Draft Certification Decision" means a document indicating the director's preliminary decision to approve or deny an operator's certification. A draft certification decision is not a permit order. (11) "Externally Sourced Water" means water diverted from sources other than Great Salt Lake and used for processing and operations. (12) "Feasibility Assessment" means the same as that term defined in Title R652. (13) "FFSL" means the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands. (14) "Foreign materials" means materials added to a discharge or a commercial process. (15) "GSL" means Great Salt Lake. (16) "Negative Impact" includes any activity or action that: (a) causes pollution, or negatively alters the salinity or other aspects of water chemistry in Great Salt Lake; (b) negatively alters the volume or timing of water flows to Great Salt Lake, or water levels in Great Salt Lake or Great Salt Lake wetlands; (c) reduces, degrades, or otherwise negatively alters habitat in and around Great Salt Lake; or (d) results in harmful physiological impacts to Great Salt Lake biota, including disruptions to survival, reproduction, or growth. (17) "Operator" means a person submitting an application for operator certification approval to pursue extraction of Great Salt Lake elements or minerals to the Division of Water Quality. (18) "Operator Certification" means a statement by an operator that its operation will not negatively impact the biota or chemistry of Great Salt Lake. (19) "Pollution" means the same as that term is used in Section 19-5-102. (20) "Returned Water" means any water discharged into Great Salt Lake from commercial operations. (21) "Total Water" means the sum of externally sourced water and brine water. (22) "UPDES" means Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. (23) "Water Depletion" means the volume of total water consumed through processing and operations, calculated by subtracting the volume of returned water from the volume of total water. R317-16-3. Feasibility Assessment -- Certification Approval by Rule. (1) The operator shall request a pre-filing meeting with the division and with FFSL at least 30 days before submitting a feasibility application with FFSL. The division and FFSL may jointly waive or shorten the requirement for a pre-filing meeting request. (2) For the feasibility assessment only, a UPDES permit is considered a feasibility assessment certification approval by rule. (a) The term of a UPDES permit issued for the feasibility assessment shall be the duration of the feasibility assessment. (b) If the operation is non-discharging during the feasibility assessment and does not require a UPDES permit, the operator shall nonetheless comply with Subsection R317-16-3(3). (i) The director will issue a certification decision using the procedures listed in Sections R317-16-6 and R317-16-7. (ii) The term of a feasibility assessment certification approval shall be the duration of the feasibility assessment. (3) To obtain feasibility assessment certification approval by rule, the operator shall submit, on a form provided by the division: (a) information listed in this section pertaining to the feasibility assessment; and (b) an application for a UPDES permit. (4) Feasibility assessment information required: (a) project information: (i) mass balance of principal GSL salinity constituents, including all target and non-target minerals across the principal mineral processing steps; (ii) a water balance at design flow, low flow conditions, and across a range of lake levels; (iii) generated waste containment and disposal infrastructure descriptions, including residuals and disposal methods; (iv) location and acreage of lakebed used for project facilities during the feasibility assessment and operations phases, if different; (v) supporting documentation submitted to federal agencies, including maps, plans, specifications, project dimensions, copies of associated federal applications, biological and engineering studies, environmental assessment or environmental impact statements, or alternative analyses, as applicable; (vi) estimated water depletion and brine depletion; and (vii) plan to determine rate of extraction for the targeted and non-targeted minerals or elements and estimated rate of depletion of the targeted and non-targeted minerals or elements in GSL; (b) withdrawal information: (i) names and locations of the brine water and externally sourced water where withdrawals will occur, including the precise latitude and longitude to the fifth decimal place in decimal degrees and to the tenth of a degree in degrees-minutes- seconds notation; (ii) detailed information on the quantity of brine water and externally sourced water withdrawn; (iii) detailed information on the timing of the withdrawals; and (iv) detailed description of the operator's plan for measuring the amount of brine water, externally sourced water, and returned water. (c) discharge information: (i) characterization of the physical, chemical, biological, thermal, and other pertinent properties of the discharge; at a minimum: pH, total alkalinity, total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, sulfate, nitrate, nitrite, carbonate, bicarbonate, chloride, hydroxide, chemical oxygen demand, biological oxygen demand, silica, zinc, magnesium, sodium, calcium, potassium, boron, bromine, aluminum, iron, and silicon; range of temperatures expected in effluent; density range of effluent to be discharged; and quantity of foreign materials that would be discharged to the GSL on an annual basis; (ii) for operations that are non-discharging during the feasibility assessment, a determination of whether discharge will occur during the operations phase and an evaluation of how the operator will obtain information to characterize its operations discharge during the feasibility assessment. (d) impacted habitat: (i) description of existing GSL habitat and biota in and around the area of operation; (ii) description of the potential physical impact to habitat and biota in and around the withdrawal and discharge locations; (iii) evaluation of the least degrading reasonable alternatives; (iv) plan to mitigate any negative impacts of the proposed operation; and (v) plan to ensure existing beneficial uses will be maintained and protected. (e) monitoring and inspection plan: (i) a description of the methods and means to monitor the quality and characteristics of the discharge and the operation of the equipment or facilities employed in control of any proposed discharge; (ii) plan to monitor and address long-term cumulative effects of withdrawals and discharges associated with the operation on the biota and chemistry of the GSL including available baseline data; and (iii) a map showing the locations of proposed monitoring points. (f) evidence supporting the operator certification: (i) consideration of both short-term effects and long-term impacts of the project; (ii) examples of evidence supporting a certification may include: (A) a quantitative comparison of influent and effluent volume and chemical composition; (B) modeled annual impacts to salinity or concentrations of other chemical parameters in GSL; (C) evaluation of impacts to GSL biota including: (I) a quantitative comparison of effluent chemical concentrations to applicable water quality standards; or (II) other scientifically defensible biological response thresholds; (D) other scientifically defensible means for evaluating project impacts on GSL chemistry and biota. R317-16-4. Operations Application Procedures. (1) The operator shall request a pre-filing meeting with the division and with FFSL at least 30 days before submitting an application for operator certification approval. The division and FFSL may jointly waive or shorten the requirement for a pre- filing meeting request. (2) The operator shall submit an application for operator certification approval simultaneously with the application to FFSL pursuant to Subsection 65A-6-4(6)(b)(iii). (3) Applications for operator certification approval shall be submitted on the form provided by the division. Unless extended in writing by the division, the operator must obtain all information submitted with the application within one year of filing the application. (4) The operator shall submit a UPDES application simultaneously with the application for operator certification approval. UPDES permit approval is not a certification decision. The director shall issue a certification decision separate from a UPDES permit. (5) Within 45 days of receiving the application for operator certification approval, the division will notify the operator whether the application is complete. If an application is incomplete, the division shall notify the operator of the missing information. (a) An operator may submit the missing information within 45 days after the division's notice of incompleteness. (b) The division may administratively deny an incomplete application not remedied within 45 days, and the operator must resubmit a new application for operator certification approval. (6) The operator shall notify the director in writing of changes that may affect the application for operator certification. (7) If an operator who is required to obtain an operator certification approval fails to do so, the director may process an application for operator certification approval after-the-fact. An application after-the-fact shall be reviewed under the same standards as a timely application for operator certification approval. The director may require full restoration or other actions as a pre-condition of processing the application. An operator submitting an after-the-fact application shall have the burden of proving what the original baseline conditions were, and an application may be denied in the absence of such proof. (8) The operator is responsible for payment of hourly fees, established pursuant to Subsection 19-1-201(6)(i). The operator shall submit a fee retainer, specified in the application form, together with its application for certification approval. The division will not begin review of the application for certification approval until it has received the fee retainer. The division will invoice the operator on a routine basis, and may stop review of the application for nonpayment. R317-16-5. Operations Application Content. Unless otherwise determined in writing by the director, the application for operator certification approval shall include the following: (1) all information required under Subsection R317-16-3(4), revised and updated to reflect the scale of the operations design; (2) a summary of any changes made as a result of the feasibility assessment; (3) a summary of findings establishing the operator's feasibility assessment had no negative impact on the biota or chemistry of GSL; (4) all data and data analysis related to GSL biota and chemistry derived from the feasibility assessment; (5) a UPDES permit application; (6) any other information related to the operation's impact to the biota or chemistry of GSL, as requested by the director; and (7) a statement that the proposed project will not negatively impact the biota or chemistry of GSL. R317-16-6. Draft Certification Decision. (1) Within 60 days of receiving a complete application for operator certification approval, the director shall issue a draft certification decision. (2) The draft certification decision shall be subject to a public notice and comment period of at least 30 days. (3) The division will publish the public notice using the following methods: (a) Utah Department of Environmental Quality website; and (b) the Utah Public Notices website. (4) The director may, at the director's discretion, hold a public hearing to take oral comments if: (a) the director receives a request in writing not more than 15 days after the publication date of the draft certification decision; and (b) the request is from: (i) another state agency; (ii) ten interested persons; or (iii) an interested association having not fewer than ten members. (5) Public notice of a public hearing shall be given at least seven days in advance of the hearing. Public notice of a hearing may be combined and provided at the same time as public notice of any of the following: (a) a draft certification decision issued under this rule; (b) a draft UPDES permit issued under Rule R317-8; or (c) a draft water quality certification issued under Rule R317-15. (6) The director shall consider the comments received during the public notice and comment period in finalizing the certification decision. R317-16-7. Certification Decision. (1) After review of the application for operator certification approval and consideration of comments received during the public notice period, the director shall issue one of the following certification decisions: (a) operator certification approval; or (b) operator certification denial. (i) If the director issues an operator certification denial, the denial shall include reasons for denial. (ii) If the director issues an operator certification denial, the director will notify FFSL of the denial. (2) The certification decision shall include a summary of the comments received during the public notice and comment period and state whether any changes were made to the certification decision as a result of the comments. R317-16-8. Term of Operator Certification Approval. (1) An operator certification approval shall be effective for a term of ten years. (2) An operator shall submit an application for operator certification approval to renew its operator certification approval no later than 180 days before the expiration of the certification approval. (a) If an operator certification approval lapses before the director issues a certification decision on a timely renewal application, the operator certification approval will continue until the director issues a certification decision on the renewal application. (b) Review of the operator's application to renew its operator certification approval will follow all procedures specified in this rule. (c) Failure to submit an application for operator certification approval to renew shall, on the certification approval's expiration date, result in a lapse of the operator certification approval. (d) The director will notify the operator and FFSL of the lapse. The director's notification is not a permit order. R317-16-9. Reevaluation of Operator Certification Approval. (1) If any of the following occur, the director may notify the operator that it must resubmit, within 60 days, an application for operator certification approval for reevaluation: (a) the operator's failure to fully disclose all relevant facts in the application; (b) the operator's misrepresentation of any relevant fact at any time; (c) existence of evidence that the operation is negatively impacting the biota or chemistry of GSL; (d) request for a major modification in the operator's UPDES permit as defined by Subsection R317-8-5(6); (e) lapse of the operator's certification approval; or (f) the emergency trigger as defined in Subsection 65A-17-101(5). (2) The reevaluation will follow all procedures specified in this rule. R317-16-10. Transfer of Operator Certification Approval For Non-Discharging Operations. (1) For non-discharging operations, the operator shall give written notice to the director of any transfer of the operator certification approval at least 30 days in advance of the effective date of the transfer. (2) The notice shall include a written agreement between the existing and new operator establishing a specific date for transfer of certification responsibility. (3) The notice shall contain the following contact information: (a) legal name, permanent address and telephone number; (b) name and permanent address of the operator's registered agent in Utah; (c) name, address, email address and telephone number of the primary contact for the application, including the person to whom requests for additional information should be addressed; and (d) signature of the operator; a corporate application must be signed by an officer of the corporation. R317-16-11. Effect of Operator Certification Approval on Other Required Permits. (1) Operator certification approval does not exempt the operator from complying with or obtaining any other permits required by federal, state, or local law. (2) An operator certification approval is required in addition to a UPDES permit for facilities subject to this rule; however, reporting required by the operator certification approval may also be required through the UPDES permit, at the director's discretion. KEY: Water Quality Date of Last Change: August 28, 2024 Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 65A-6-4 October 4, 2024 Appendix B Supporting Documentation Regarding Federal Permits [REDACTED] October 4, 2024 Appendix C North Arm GSL, Background Characteristics Memo [REDACTED] October 4, 2024 Appendix D Microbialite Survey Memorandum [REDACTED] October 4, 2024 Appendix E 3rd Party Laboratory Data [REDACTED] October 4, 2024 Appendix F Multi Agency Pre-application Meeting Minutes 09/27/24 Meeting Minutes Project: Waterleaf Resources GSL Pilot Plant Subject: Waterleaf GSL Demo Plant Joint Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ)/Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands (FFSL) Pre-filing Meeting Date: Friday, September 27, 2024 Location: Virtual Teams meeting Attendees: Steve Morrey- Waterleaf Ryan Clerico- Waterleaf Mark Mulligan- Waterleaf Nate Nichols- HDR/Waterleaf John Andrews- SW Law/Waterleaf Ben Holcomb- UDWQ Lonnie Shull- UDWQ Leanna Littler- UDWQ James Harris- UDWQ Danielle Lenz- UDWQ Ben Stireman- FFSL Haley Sousa- Utah Attorney General’s (AG) Office 1. Introductions • Ryan introduced Waterleaf team and roles; Mark, Ryan, Steve, Nate, John • Daniele introduced Leana, Ben, Jim, Lonnie from DWQ and Haley Sausa from AG Office • Ben Stireman introduced himself as representing FFSL. 2. Purpose – to meet DWQ GSL Mineral Extraction Operator Certification Approval final rule R317-16-3 Feasibility Assessment Certification by Rule, Pre-filing meeting with DWQ and FFSL. • Ryan C described the statutory requirement of current rules to meet with both agencies, noting that FFSL’s rule was still in draft but expected to become final on or about October 8th, with no significant changes to the pre-filing requirement. This was confirmed by Ben S. This meeting satisfies that requirement for both agencies. 3. Project Proponent – Waterleaf Resources, Ryan Clerico • Waterleaf Resources is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lilac Solutions, which is headquartered in Oakland, California. Ryan described roles of those present from Waterleaf Resources. 4. Project Description – GSL Lithium Extraction Demonstration Plant (Pilot Plant) Operation and Discharge, Ryan Clerico, Steve Morrey • Located in Box Elder County, UT, adjacent to the North Arm of GSL. • Ryan clarified that this conversation is only regarding the pilot project, which is temporary and will be decommissioned when the feasibility study is complete. Ryan noted that the terms “pilot plant,” “demonstration project,” and “feasibility project” have been used interchangeably with both agencies in separate consultations over the past year; however, each term refers to the same temporary project phase being discussed today. The pilot plant is designed to operate at a nominal 11 gallons/minute throughput, with a maximum discharge rate of up to 40 gallons/minute per current draft UPDES permit language. Ryan noted that Waterleaf has secured 5 acre-feet (AF) of private North Arm brine water rights for the pilot project, which is the limitation established by rule for feasibility assessments. Waterleaf staff anticipates closer to 1.5 - 2 AF to be processed, including commissioning and performance runs. • Initial startup and commissioning steps, as well as the key performance indicators proposed by Waterleaf to FFSL, were described by Ryan C. • Pilot plant designed to meet WQ standards in draft UPDES permit, as well as Operator Certification, Permit by Rule requirements. • Steve Morrey reviewed construction and operation status on-site of pilot facility. 1. Oakland brine processing equipment has arrived and is in place. Additionally, the temporary office, laboratory, and holding/flow buffering frac tanks are in place. Equipment and piping is going through wet commissioning and logic testing currently. 2. Air compressors and generators are on site. 3. Waterleaf is currently waiting for a right of entry to be issued by FFSL, in order to allow for installation of intake/outfall pipes on lakebed extending to open water. 4. Team is onsite and ready to go. 5. Authorizations Received to date- Ryan Clerico • US Army Corps NWP 18. • UDWQ 401 Water Quality Certification. 6. Authorizations applied for and are still in process. a. DWQ 402 UPDES Permit to Discharge to GSL, North Arm 1. Draft UPDES permit reviewed by Waterleaf. 2. Intent to submit the revised ops cert after this meeting as discussed with DWQ on 9/25/24 meeting with Ben Holcomb and DWQ team. b. FFSL Easement/ Right of Entry 1. Ben Stireman/FFSL acknowledged draft agreements were submitted, awaiting finalization of rules to issue, which is anticipated to happen on or about October 8th. c. FFSL Royalty agreement 1. Ben Stireman/FFSL acknowledged draft agreements are submitted, awaiting finalization of rules and FFSL staff review. 7. Water rights - Pilot plant a. Private agreement for the pilot plant water rights are in place for up to 5-acre feet. b. Pilot plant water right change application is contingent on the sampling royalty agreement being issued by FFSL. 1. John Andrews reviewed the status of draft agreement, which was submitted to FFSL in August. To date, awaiting review and comments from FFSL. Ben Stireman indicated that they are still working on reviewing the document, and he would contact Mike Begley in the AG’s Office regarding comments. 8. Open Discussion a. Haley advised that that the business confidentiality of the operator certification could be a hold up the public notice process if all the data/document was asserted as confidential. Steve offered to send two versions of the application, one with preferred redactions and one complete. Haley indicated that was preferable. b. Ben Holcomb indicated that DWQ standards group was prepared to review as soon as the additional material was received.