When a landfill developer on Promontory Point suddenly withdrew its permit application to take out-of-state waste last month, they said it was to “better collaborate with stakeholders, like the DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality).”

But a letter sent last week by an attorney for Promontory Point Resources indicates the relationship between the private business and the state agency isn’t so rosy.

The seven-page letter was hand-delivered March 5 to DEQ’s director of Waste Management and Radiation Control — the agency in charge of the landfill’s fate.

PPR’s attorney demanded the DEQ remove public documents concerning the landfill from its website and social media and directed state officials to stop speaking with members of the public about the landfill.

The letter also accused the DEQ of showing bias against the company, citing as evidence comments in a recent Standard-Examiner story, when Allan Moore with the division said the facility likely needed the “Class V to survive” since they’d already invested a lot of money in the site. 

Promontory Point landfill withdraws permit to take out-of-state waste

The letter complained the division “made public records easily accessible to environmental activists opposing Promontory’s Application.”

When contacted for comment, PPR’s representatives issued a press release late Wednesday evening reiterating the complaints in their letter to DEQ. 

Public consternation for the landfill on Promontory Point has amplified as PPR’s representatives expressed interest in storing materials like coal ash and contaminated soils from outside Utah’s borders. 

PPR’s letter claims the division made no attempts to correct the public when they said the landfill planned to accept “hazardous” waste. Technically, a Class V or the landfill’s current Class I permits only allow non-hazardous waste. But “non-hazardous” materials still include dangerous wastes like coal ash, which has toxic heavy metals. Those landfills can also accept materials like petroleum-contaminated soils, PCBs and asbestos, which are linked to cancer and can harm wildlife.

The difference between a Class I and a Class V is that a Class I landfill requires a contract with a local government. Those contracts rarely include wastes like coal ash. A Class V is a commercial permit, so the operator can take waste from anywhere, including coal-fired power plants in other states.

+3 
promontory point landfill graphic

Approximate area of proposed landfill. Roughly half of the rocky 2,000 acres site will be devoted to landfill use, with the other 1,000 acres serving as buffer. The site can be accessed via Promontory Road, as in-state municipal and county garbage will mostly arrive by trucks.

Documents filed by PPR and comments at public meetings throughout the two-year process of attempting to become a Class V make it plain the group planned to rely heavily on accepting coal ash. 

The site has yet to receive any waste, but it’s located near the shores of the Great Salt Lake, an ecologically sensitive area for migrating birds. It’s also near multi-million dollar lake-based brine shrimp and mineral extraction businesses.

PPR worked to prove Utah needs a Class V landfill on Promontory Point through a Needs Assessment Report filed as part of its permit application and, later, in a Needs Assessment Addendum.

Opponents of the landfill, however, pointed to existing landfills along the Wasatch Front and throughout Utah that have plenty of capacity left. They noted the only benefits the privately-owned landfill would provide to the state were 35 jobs and around $2 million in annual revenue for Box Elder County.

How would Promontory Point Landfill benefit most Utahns? Not much, it seems

Due to its complexity, DEQ turned over the Needs Assessment Report Addendum to a consultant, Virginia-based SC&A, for evaluation.

While still awaiting DEQ’s decision, PPR abruptly withdrew its permit application on Feb. 16. 

The March 5 letter asked the DEQ to not complete conclusions about their Class V Needs Assessment. Since PPR withdrew the permit, they said they refuse to pay for the division staff’s time or the work of their consultant on finalizing the evaluation.

The letter said it would be unfair to make public any findings or opinion on the Needs Assessment, since PPR wouldn’t be able to respond.

PPR’s attorney ended the letter by threatening legal action and claiming that because of the division’s actions, “Promontory has lost millions of dollars and at least another year in project delays.”

DEQ RESPONSE

Waste Management and Radiation Control Director Scott Anderson responded on March 8. He made it clear he disagreed with PPR’s accusations. 

In his five-page response, he explained how Utah’s Government Records Access and Management Act works. The division, he wrote, conducts the public’s business and has a responsibility to communicate with Utahns.

He also included a copy of SC&A’s evaluation: The consultants concluded March 1 that Utah has no need for a Class V Landfill on Promontory Point that takes out-of-state waste.

“(PPR) does not demonstrate the need for additional Class V landfill capacity in Utah, does not provide a robust market analysis, and has some remaining data gaps and therefore does not establish the need for the facility,” wrote Greg Beronja, SC&A’s president and CEO, in the evaluation.

Anderson noted that the public had a right to access DEQ documents related to the Promontory landfill, too, including findings about the Needs Assessment.

“Finalization of the contractor’s evaluation of the Needs Assessment Report Addendum was my decision as Director, and Promontory has no right to interfere with it,” Anderson wrote. “SC&A’s report is my document, not Promontory’s. It was produced at my request by my contractor, and as Director, I pay for it.”

Anderson reminded PPR that the report would be made available to the public, like all other non-protected documents related to the site.

He reminded PPR that they could file a response to SC&A’s evaluation, which would also become a public record.

“Promontory’s withdrawal of its Class V permit application was a voluntary decision made at its own risk,” the director wrote.

While DEQ gave a steadfast response to PPR’s efforts to blur transparency on its landfill, the department still removed its social media posts about the facility. It has also removed web pages dedicated to the landfill and the documents relating to Promontory’s Class V landfill.

The Standard-Examiner, however, has re-posted all the documents. Links to the documents, including this month’s letters, are posted at the bottom of this story.

WHAT’S NEXT

PPR withdrew its Class V permit on Feb. 16 for unknown reasons. They are now focused on developing the landfill under their current Class I permit, which requires a contract with a government entity in Utah. 

It’s not the first time the company has filp-flopped on its status or intentions for the Promontory Point site. In October 2016, PPR approached the Governor’s Office of Economic Development Private Activity Bond Authority seeking a $35 million bond to build a Class V landfill.

After the bond board raised doubts about the benefits of a Class V to the state, and shared concerns about the kind of waste that could come with it, PPR returned in December 2016 saying they only planned to build a Class I landfill. The Class I plans earned the board’s bond approval.

Three months later, PPR sent its Class V permit application to DEQ.

“The fact that they turned right around and went ahead and applied for a Class V, to me, shows they had no intention of abandoning the Class V. I think it’s bad form,” said Weber County Clerk Ricky Hatch, who serves on the board. “It bothered me. And it bothered pretty much everybody on the authority board.”

Contact Reporter Leia Larsen at 801-625-4289 or llarsen@standard.net. Follow her on Facebook.com/leiainthefield or on Twitter @LeiaLarsen.  

Promontory Point Landfill Documents

LETTER: DEQ response to March 5, 2018 letter (dated March 8, 2018)

LETTER: PPR attorney requests regarding withdrawn Class V, March 5, 2018

Facility Class I Permit

Class I Permit modification, May 2016

Permit modification approval & Class I Permit, March 15, 2017

Draft Class I Permit Modification, Dec. 12, 2017

Facility Class V Permit (withdrawn)

SC&A Evaluation of the Needs Assessment Report Addendum

Withdrawal of Class V Application, Feb. 16, 2018

Class V Needs Assessment Report Addendum, Dec. 20, 2017

Promontory Class V Permit Application, March 2017  

DEQ’s “Frequently Asked Questions: Promontory Point Landfill”

(3) comments

kevinblanch

AMEN

kevinblanch

great WORK FANTASTIC REPORTING,, 

auntb

Per the attached documents, this landfill should never have been approved! Rep Lee Perry  didn’t do any due diligence and relied on lobbyists info when he proposed a bill last year to allow this landfill. This session he made no attempt to remedy the mistake. UT House Dist 29 needs new representation!

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.