Utah Admin. Code 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.
Notes
State regulations are updated quarterly; we currently have two versions available. Below is a comparison between our most recent version and the prior quarterly release. More comparison features will be added as we have more versions to compare.
No prior version found.