The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDSHW-2024-004414TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM AX0219191612SLC 1 Land Use Assessment for the Thermal Treatment Unit and Surrounding Areas PREPARED FOR: Karl C. Nieman/Hill Air Force Base COPY TO: File PREPARED BY: Terence Mares/Jacobs DATE: January 23, 2024 Introduction The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Identification No. UT0570090001) for the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) requires that a land use assessment be submitted annually to the Executive Secretary (Utah Division of Environmental Quality, Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste, 2013). The RCRA permit expired on 27 September 2023. The RCRA permit renewal application and the draft permit were submitted on 30 March 2023 to the Department of Environmental Quality Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (UDEQ‐ DWMRC). The public comment period for the new permit is 28 December 2023 through 12 February 2024. The requirement for a land use assessment is intended to ensure that the land surrounding the Thermal Treatment Unit (TTU) is devoid of development which would present unacceptable human health risk and that the land usage described in the permit is consistent and supports the assumptions of the ecological and human health risk assessments. Land use in an arbitrarily chosen 30‐mile radius of the TTU was examined for this assessment (Figure 1). This land use review includes personal interviews with people knowledgeable and involved in land use activities. Persons contacted for this report are listed in Attachment 1. In 2023, no development or substantial changes to land use were identified in the area covered by this assessment. Environmental Setting The TTU is located in the eastern part of UTTR‐North, approximately 70 miles west of Salt Lake City, Utah. UTTR‐North covers approximately 370,000 acres and has been used for military training exercises, test functions, and support services for more than 50 years. The TTU is entirely surrounded by UTTR‐North property except for an unimproved county road crossing the eastern portion of the UTTR. The majority of the land within the 30‐mile radius of the TTU is federally owned and falls within Box Elder and Tooele Counties. Present Land Use Thermal Treatment Unit and Utah Test and Training Range‐North The TTU occupies a 2‐square‐mile area in the northeast corner of UTTR‐North and is used to treat waste munitions by open burn (OB) or open detonation (OD) and generally operates between March 15 and October 15 of each year. The TTU currently contains four sites used for treating waste munitions by OB or OD. Examples of munitions treated at the TTU include, but are not limited to, propellants, explosives, pyrotechnics, and warheads. Site 1 is the rocket motor and bulk propellant OB pad. Site 2 consists of three smaller OB/OD pads for treating rocket motors, as well as other waste munitions items, and a LAND USE ASSESSMENT FOR THE THERMAL TREATMENT UNIT AND SURROUNDING AREAS AX0219191612SLC 2 large pad used for detonation of large missile motors. Site 3, the munitions burn pan, was decommissioned and is partially closed. The burn pan, metal structures, and gantry have been removed and disposed of properly. The concrete containment vault is the only remaining structure. Future closure activities may be pursued by the U.S. Air Force. On 16 July 2018, the RCRA permit was modified to remove specific conditions and describes the current state of Site 3. Site 4, a burn pad in the southern portion of the TTU, was constructed to increase operational flexibility of the TTU. UTTR‐North is considered unimproved land and is used primarily for testing and training by the U.S. Department of Defense. These activities can include ground testing, air‐to‐air testing, air‐to‐ground testing, and munitions testing in which specific targets are used. UTTR‐North is also home to a support facility called the Oasis Compound. The Oasis Compound includes various lodging, dining, storage, and office facilities. The RCRA permit for the TTU assumes that the land surrounding the TTU is devoid of development with the exception of the Oasis facility. A 5‐year review of the Human Health Risk Screening Evaluation (HHRSE) was conducted for the TTU in 2022. This HHRSE was required by the current UTTR RCRA Permit. The HHRSE was documented in the Draft UTTR TTU 2022 HHRSE (Jacobs, 2022). The HHRSE did not show unacceptable risks for site worker exposures to TTU soil or offsite air exposure for any of the three exposure scenarios: explosive ordnance disposal EOD worker, Salt Lake boater, and Oasis resident. The final report was submitted to the Utah Department of Environmental Quality in 2023. Federal Lands Federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are undeveloped and currently used primarily for livestock grazing and some dispersed recreation. Some communication sites, wells, and utility lines are present, but there are no developments or habitations. One herd of sheep grazes outside the boundaries of UTTR‐North. There are typically three people in the area tending to the sheep from the end of November through the beginning of May. This schedule is generally opposite the schedule of TTU activity, which runs from March to October. The grazing spans about 10,000 acres from the Lakeside area to Puddle Valley, but does not take place in the UTTR‐North area. Sheepherders are allowed to contact the military to obtain access to the old homestead well near Oasis (approximately 3.75 miles from the TTU) to obtain water for transport to the livestock grazing on BLM lands. State Lands State lands include the bed and shores of the Great Salt Lake. The boundary of UTTR extends into the Great Salt Lake, with a variable land portion dependent on the lake level. Brine shrimp harvesting currently occurs along the shores from September through February. As with grazing activities, shrimping activities generally do not occur during the period of TTU activity. Shrimpers operate within the 30‐mile radius of the site and may occasionally cross into UTTR‐North by air and on the water. Airplanes are used to locate shrimp egg concentrations in the lake and occasionally fly near or in controlled air space. UTTR allows this as long as the pilots comply with agreed upon regulations and restrictions. The Great Salt Lake Ecosystem Project management surveys the lake by air twice a week to record who is on the lake and beach. They also monitor several islands (Gunnison and Hat) that belong to the state and do not allow trespassing. Current communication exists between range personnel and the shrimpers to determine when and if harvesting is appropriate in the area near the TTU. Biologists visit the lake throughout the year. Two to five biologists are on the lake twice a week during brine shrimp harvest season (September through February) and approximately once every 2 weeks the remainder of the year. The Division of Wildlife Resources also manages a weather station on Hat Island that requires occasional maintenance. LAND USE ASSESSMENT FOR THE THERMAL TREATMENT UNIT AND SURROUNDING AREAS AX0219191612SLC 3 A State Wildlife Reserve (Timpie Springs) at the very southeastern border of the study area, approximately 30 miles from the TTU, is a waterfowl habitat with public access. Hunting is allowed during waterfowl hunting season, the first Saturday in October through the last Saturday in January. During this hunting season, one to two people at a time may be in the area. Biologists visit the Timpie Springs about five to six times per year. Freemont Island is now owned by the State of Utah and will be managed by the Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands, which also manages the bed and shores of the Great Salt Lake. County Lands Box Elder County Land within the study area in Box Elder County is virtually undeveloped at the present time. Land on the west side of the Great Salt Lake is zoned for 160‐acre lots and is primarily unused salt flats or used for agriculture/grazing. The area on the east side of the Great Salt Lake, commonly referred to as Promontory Point, is zoned as municipal solid waste for a landfill. The current landowners hold a Class I landfill permit; however, they do not have a contract with Box Elder County to take nonhazardous waste. The landowners applied to the UDEQ‐DWMRC for a reclassification to a commercial Class V landfill. The UDEQ‐DWMRC denied the Class V application permit. Most of the land within Promontory Point is privately owned, with BLM and the State of Utah owning scattered parcels. No other changes have been documented. Approximately 171 acres on Promontory Point are zoned MG‐EX (mining, quarry, sand, and gravel excavation). Lakeside is a railroad facility in Box Elder County located approximately 5.8 miles north of the TTU, roughly the same distance as the Oasis Compound. Two track inspectors pass through the area about every other day. A crew of approximately six to eight people typically works a day shift (Monday through Friday) in the vicinity of Great Salt Lake (not necessarily at or around Lakeside). Access to UTTR‐North to and from Lakeside via the county road is controlled during TTU operations. Tooele County The majority of land within the 30‐mile radius of the TTU is undeveloped. The Tooele County Planning Department has several different zoning designations within the study area, most of which fall within the Multiple Use (MU‐40) zoning designation. The purpose of the MU‐40 zoning districts are to (1) establish areas in mountain, hillside, canyon, mountain valley, desert, and other open and generally undeveloped lands where human habitation would be limited to protect land and open space resources; (2) reduce unreasonable public utility requirements and service expenditures through uneconomic and unwise dispersal and population scattering; (3) encourage use of land, where appropriate, for forestry, grazing, agriculture, mining, wildlife habitat, and recreation; (4) avoid excessive damage to watersheds, water pollution, soil erosion, danger from brush fires, and damage to grazing, livestock raising, and wildlife values; and (5) promote the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity, and general welfare of county inhabitants. According to the Tooele County General Plan, the most significant industrial land use in the study area is the Hazardous Waste Corridor, which extends from the southern border of UTTR‐North to the Cedar Mountains. On 5 December 2018, the Tooele County Planning Commission approved the conditional use for two solar energy systems. The Horseshoe Solar Project is located at the northern end of Skull Valley on the west side of the Stansbury Mountains as shown on Figure 2. The Horseshoe Solar Project will encompass 1,342 acres of land owned by the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) and is currently zoned M‐D (Manufacturing Distribution). The second solar project is the Elektron Solar Project located on the southwestern shore of the Great Salt Lake on property owned by Utah SITLA and the BLM as shown on Figure 2. The Elektron Solar Project will encompass 565 acres of land currently zoned M‐G (Manufacturing General). LAND USE ASSESSMENT FOR THE THERMAL TREATMENT UNIT AND SURROUNDING AREAS AX0219191612SLC 4 Per the November 2023 interview with Rachelle Custer, the two large scale solar energy projects are in progress with no official anticipated completion date announced. Weber County Fremont Island is the only area within Weber County to fall into the 30‐mile examined radius. Fremont Island was previously un‐zoned and now zoned as Shoreline (S‐1). Fremont Island currently does not have any utilities or water resources available. Freemont Island is owned by the State of Utah. The island is protected from development or damage under a long‐term conservation easement held by The Nature Conservancy. The island is managed by the Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands, which manages the bed of the Great Salt Lake. Future Land Use Thermal Treatment Unit and Utah Test and Training Range‐North Future land use activities within the TTU are anticipated to be the same as present day activities. The TTU will continue to be used for the treatment of energetic wastes by either OB or OD. Primary wastes that will continue to be treated at the TTU include solid propellant motors from Trident, Peacekeeper, and Minuteman missiles and propellant from the propellant testing laboratory at Hill Air Force Base. It is expected that future land usage within UTTR‐North will be similar to present activities, focusing on training missions and testing operations that benefit from the remoteness, size, and undeveloped nature of land surrounding UTTR. Lands Surrounding Thermal Treatment Unit and Utah Test and Training Range‐North The majority of land within the 30‐mile study area is either administered by BLM or owned by the State of Utah (Figure 1). Based on conversations with land use planners and government employees over the past 11 years, the most important factor regarding development is a lack of water resources in the area. The limited water resources will restrict growth and keep development to a minimum. Additional limitations include difficult terrain, limited right‐of‐way, and zoning. Economic factors, limited workforce, and high transportation costs also contribute to limited development. Based on interviews performed in November and December 2023 with current land use custodians and planners (Attachment 1), no significant change in land use occurred. Land use has been approved to allow brine shrimp harvesting from the shore and additional ponding sites for impounding brine from the Great Salt Lake for evaporation and harvesting of salts. Future expansion of the quarries on Promontory Point in Box Elder County are anticipated; however, the time line of the expansions is still not yet known. Fremont Island in Weber County, as of 2020, is owned by the State of Utah and is to be protected from a long‐term conservation easement held by The Nature Conservancy. Conclusion The land use description in Attachment 1 of the TTU operating permit continues to be valid, and with the exception of the Oasis Compound, the area is still devoid of development. This assumption was used to develop the HHRSE for the TTU. Additionally, the human health receptors used for the risk assessment include explosive ordnance disposal personnel, an Oasis resident, and a recreational boater. The current assessment does not indicate that any human health receptors exceed the exposures already included in the risk assessment. The majority of nearby land is rural undeveloped land, with little possibility for future development due to the terrain and a lack of water. Based on interviews conducted for this land use assessment, it can be concluded that current agricultural and industrial use will remain the same in the foreseeable future. The public comment period for the new RCRA permit is 28 December 2023 through 12 February 2024. No changes are anticipated to the LUA reporting requirements in the new RCRA permit. LAND USE ASSESSMENT FOR THE THERMAL TREATMENT UNIT AND SURROUNDING AREAS AX0219191612SLC 5 References https://deq.utah.gov/businesses‐facilities/promontory‐point‐landfill https://deq.utah.gov/communication/news/division‐of‐waste‐management‐radiation‐control‐ statement‐intent‐to‐deny‐promontory‐point‐resources‐class‐v‐landfill‐application Jacobs. 2022. Land Use Assessment for the Thermal Treatment Unit and Surrounding Area. January. Jacobs. 2022. Draft Utah Test and Training Range Thermal Treatment Unit 2022 Human Health Risk Screen Evaluation. August. The Salt Lake Tribune. 2020. Freemont Island is Finally in Public Ownership. December. The Salt Lake Tribune. 2023. Utah regulators to deny permit for landfill on the shores of Great Salt Lake. February. UDEQ‐DSHW. 2013. Hazardous Waste Operating Permit, U.S. Air Force, Utah Test and Training Range UT0570090001. September. UDEQ‐DSHW. 2023. Draft Hazardous Waste Operating Permit, U.S. Air Force, Utah Test and Training Range UT0570090001. March. Figures !! !!Oasis Lakeside Box Elder C ounty Tooele County S T A N S B U R Y I S O Q U I R R H M T S Promontory Point Fremont Island Timpie Springs WMA Carrington Island A N T E L O P E I S PUDDLE VALLEY UTTR Nor th Range Union Pacific Rail Road Great Salt Lake Willard Bay Farmington Bay Weber County Davis County Salt Lake County SALT LAKEMETROPOLITAN ARE A §¨¦I-80 §¨¦I-215 §¨¦I-15 TTU \\dc1vs01\GISProj\A\Airforce\Hill\NewHillAFB\MapFiles\UTTR\TTU\LanduseAssessment\2023\TTU_30miRadius_LandOwnerUpdate.mxd 12/12/2023 15:49:56 LEGEND 30 MILE RADIUS UTTR - TTU MILITARY BOUNDARIES COUNTY BOUNDARY MUNICIPAL AREA U.S. INTERSTATE ROAD RAIL FIGURE 1TTU 30-MILE RADIUS MAP LAND USE ASSESSMENT FOR THE TTU HILL AIR FORCE BASE, UTAH 0 10 205 Kilometers 0 8 16 Miles STATE TRUST LAND PARKS AND RECREATION STATE SOVEREIGN LAND WILDERNESS WILDLIFE RESERVE/ MANAGEMENT AREA BLM PRIVATE LAND OWNERSHIP !! !!Oasis Lakeside Box Elder C ounty Tooele County S T A N S B U R Y I S O Q U I R R H M T S Promontory Point Fremont Island Timpie Springs WMA Carrington Island A N T E L O P E I S PUDDLE VALLEY UTTR Nor th Range Union Pacific Rail Road Great Salt Lake Willard Bay Farmington Bay Weber County Davis County Salt Lake County SALT LAKEMETROPOLITAN ARE A §¨¦I-80 §¨¦I-215 §¨¦I-15 See MAP DETAIL A See MAP DETAIL B \\dc1vs01\GISProj\A\Airforce\Hill\NewHillAFB\MapFiles\UTTR\TTU\LanduseAssessment\2023\Zoning.mxd 12/11/2023 15:07:19 LEGEND HAZARDOUS WASTE CORRIDOR 30 MILE RADIUS UTTR - TTU MILITARY BOUNDARIES COUNTY BOUNDARY MUNICIPAL AREA U.S. INTERSTATE ROAD RAIL FIGURE 2ZONING MAP LAND USE ASSESSMENT FOR THE TTU HILL AIR FORCE BASE, UTAH 0 10 205 Kilometers 0 8 16 Miles ZONING BOX ELDER COUNTY MG-EX MU-160 SW UNZONED WEBER COUNTY S-1 TOOELE COUNTY SUBJECT PROPERTY PROJECT AREA C-H M-D M-G MG-EX MG-H MU-40 MAP DETAIL A MAP DETAIL B 0 5,000 10,000 Feet 0 5,000 10,000 Feet PROPOSED PROJECT AREA PROPOSED PROJECT AREA Acronym Key C-H = Commercial Highway IS = Island M-D = Manufacturing Distribution M-G = Manufacturing General MG-EX = Mining, Quarry, Sand, and Gravel Excavation MG-H = Hazardous Industries MU-160 = Mixed Use Minimum Lot Size of 160 Acres MU-40 = Mixed Use Minimum Lot Size of 40 Acres S-1 = Shoreline SW = Solid Waste TTU = Thermal Treatment Unit U.S. = United States UTTR = Utah Test and Training Range WMA = Waterfowl Management Area Attachment 1 TTU Land Use Assessment Personal Interview Questions Attachment 1 TTU Land Use Assessment Personal Interview Questions Date Contact Name Contact Information Affiliation Significant Comments 11/1/2023 Rachelle Custer 435‐843‐3160; rachelle.custer@tooeleco.org Community Development Director 10/24/2023 David England 801‐678‐6781; davidengland@utah.gov Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 10/23/2023 Jerry Bullock 801‐977‐4326; jdbulloc@blm.gov BLM 10/20/2023 John Luft 801‐721‐9780; 801‐985‐3700; johnluft@utah.gov GSL Ecosystem Manager 11/7/2023 Briant Jacobs 801‐732‐1064; bjacobes@hoopercity.com City of Hooper ‐ Engineer 10/25/2023 Marisa Weinberg 385‐226‐3333; mweinberg@utah.gov Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands 10/24/2023 Grant Richins 801‐821‐1744; grichins@allwest.net Rancher 11/7/2023 Scott Lyons 435‐734‐3316; slyons@boxeldercounty.org Box Elder Co Planner TTU Land Use Assessment Personal Interview Questions Date: 11/01/2023 Contact Name: Rachelle Custer/Community Development Director Affiliation: Tooele County Phone: 435‐843‐3160 Email: rachelle.custer@tooeleco.org What is the history of the site? (past uses, historical cultural factors) No What are the current uses & indications of change? (character of area, trends in land use, development activities) The two large scale solar energy projects are under construction and are still awaiting final completion. Once operating there will be minimal oversight by a couple of people. What are the plans for future use of the site? (likely use and why) The above stated solar energy projects. What factors favor or limit future use? (applicable zoning ordinances, current/changes in zoning, land use plans, restrictions on property use, institutional controls, boundaries, terrain limitations, access, natural resource issues, infrastructure changes, etc.) There is a long‐term lease on the property, but if the solar farm were ever removed, it could open it up for future uses that are different on the property. Which key individuals/groups will determine future use and what are their views? (local officials, relevant documents) Applicant/County How is the community involved in planning for the site? (community expectations) It went through the public approval process with the planning commission and county commission and the public was given an opportunity to speak. Other issues/information? No TTU Land Use Assessment Personal Interview Questions Date: 10/24/2023 Contact Name: David England Affiliation: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Phone: 385‐405‐4852 Email: davidengland@utah.gov What is the history of the site? (past uses, historical cultural factors) No change. What are the current uses & indications of change? (character of area, trends in land use, development activities) No change. What are the plans for future use of the site? (likely use and why) No changes. Wildlife habitat, waterfowl hunting, and bird watching. What factors favor or limit future use? (applicable zoning ordinances, current/changes in zoning, land use plans, restrictions on property use, institutional controls, boundaries, terrain limitations, access, natural resource issues, infrastructure changes, etc.) Water availability, development, surrounding land use, GSL levels, and climate change. Which key individuals/groups will determine future use and what are their views? (local officials, relevant documents) Consumptive users (sportsman) and to some extent non consumptive users. How is the community involved in planning for the site? (community expectations) The community had the opportunity to comment on the latest management plan for the site. Other issues/information? No TTU Land Use Assessment Personal Interview Questions Date: 10/23/2023 Contact Name: Jerry Bullock/Range Management Specialist Affiliation: Bureau of Land Management Phone: 801‐977‐4326 Email: jdbulloc@blm.gov What is the history of the site? (past uses, historical cultural factors) No change. What are the current uses & indications of change? (character of area, trends in land use, development activities) Same as previous years. What are the plans for future use of the site? (likely use and why) No change. What factors favor or limit future use? (applicable zoning ordnances, current/changes in zoning, land use plans, restrictions on property use, institutional controls, boundaries, terrain limitations, access, natural resource issues, infrastructure changes, etc.) Same as previous years. Which key individuals/groups will determine future use and what are their views? (local officials, relevant documents) Same as previous years. How is the community involved in planning for the site? (community expectations) Same as previous years. Other issues/information? No TTU Land Use Assessment Personal Interview Questions Date: 10/20/2023 Contact Name: John Luft/Great Salt Lake Ecosystem Manager Affiliation: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Phone: 801‐985‐3700 Email: johnluft@utah.gov What is the history of the site? (past uses, historical cultural factors) Same as previous years. No change. What are the current uses & indications of change? (character of area, trends in land use, development activities) Same as previous years. No. What are the plans for future use of the site? (likely use and why) Continued brine shrimp monitoring and harvesting. What factors favor or limit future use? (applicable zoning ordinances, current/changes in zoning, land use plans, restrictions on property use, institutional controls, boundaries, terrain limitations, access, natural resource issues, infrastructure changes, etc.) Again, lack of water which has caused some navigation hazards. With the lake level at an all‐time low, we are unable to take our normal samples (collected at 17 sites, once a week throughout the year) of the water column which we use for managing the brine shrimp harvest because our boat can't reach 2 of the sample sites now. Brine shrimp companies are also unable to harvest the brine shrimp eggs in this area because of how shallow it has become. There is also a significant loss of microbialite habitat due to exposure in this area. Lake levels have risen but not enough. The above issues are still present but have gotten better. Which key individuals/groups will determine future use and what are their views? (local officials, relevant documents) Our Technical Advisory Group, the FF&SL Tech Team, Salinity Advisory Committee, GSL Advisory Council, etc. How is the community involved in planning for the site? (community expectations) Same as previous year. The aforementioned groups all hold public meetings in which actions are discussed. Other issues/information? Increased public awareness about the state of the lake has brought more attention and concern for the lack of water. TTU Land Use Assessment Personal Interview Questions Date: 11/7/2023 Contact Name: Briant Jacobs/Hooper City Engineer Affiliation: City of Hooper Phone: 801‐732‐1064 Email: bjacobs@hoopercity.com What is the history of the site? (past uses, historical cultural factors) No changes. What are the current uses & indications of change? (character of area, trends in land use, development activities) No changes. What are the plans for future use of the site? (likely use and why) There are not any changes to the plans of the future use. What factors favor or limit future use? (applicable zoning ordinances, current/changes in zoning, land use plans, restrictions on property use, institutional controls, boundaries, terrain limitations, access, natural resource issues, infrastructure changes, etc.) No changes. Which key individuals/groups will determine future use and what are their views? (local officials, relevant documents) State of Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands. How is the community involved in planning for the site? (community expectations) Same as previous year. Through public notices and hearings. Other issues/information? None. TTU Land Use Assessment Personal Interview Questions Date: 10/25/2023 Contact Name: Marisa Weinberg/Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands Affiliation: Department of Natural Resources Phone: 385‐226‐3333 Email: mweinberg@utah.gov Are there any changes to the current uses? There are no changes to the current uses. What are the plans for future use of the site? Plans for the future uses would be determined by lessee and need to be approved by the Division. We have not been advised of any changes of future uses. What factors favor or limit future use? It would depend on the type of the use requested. Which key individuals/groups will determine future uses? Unkown, it would depend on the use request. How is the community involved in planning for the site? It would depend on the request and required action by the Division. Other issues/information? Hill AFB’s Special Use Lease Agreement (SULA) # 300‐00072 is set to expire in 2027. TTU Land Use Assessment Personal Interview Questions Date: 10/24/2023 Contact Name: Grant Richins Affiliation: Rancher Phone: 801‐821‐1744 Email: grichins@allwest.net What is the history of the site? (past uses, historical cultural factors) Same as previous years. No change. What are the current uses & indications of change? (character of area, trends in land use, development activities) Same as previous years. No change. What are the plans for future use of the site? (likely use and why) Same as previous years. No change. What factors favor or limit future use? (applicable zoning ordinances, current/changes in zoning, land use plans, restrictions on property use, institutional controls, boundaries, terrain limitations, access, natural resource issues, infrastructure changes, etc.) Same as previous years. Which key individuals/groups will determine future use and what are their views? (local officials, relevant documents) Same as previous years. How is the community involved in planning for the site? (community expectations) Same as previous year. Same as previous years. Other issues/information? No other issues. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM AX0219191653SLC 1 Utah Test and Training Range: Waste Characterization for the Thermal Treatment Unit, Calendar Year 2023 PREPARED FOR: Karl C. Nieman/Hill AFB COPY TO: File PREPARED BY: Terence Mares/Jacobs Mitch Lindsay/Jacobs DATE: January 23, 2024 Introduction This technical memorandum (TM) addresses the composition of materials currently detonated and burned at the Thermal Treatment Unit (TTU). The TM was prepared to meet the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Hazardous Waste Operating Permit, Module II.D.1.a, for the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) and to demonstrate compliance with the Waste Characterization Plan (Attachment 2) and Waste Analysis Plan (Attachment 3) (Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste [UDEQ-DSHW], 2013). The purpose of this report is to describe the wastes that were treated at the TTU during calendar year 2023 and to certify that the known waste streams have not changed. If there have been any changes to the energetic waste treated at the TTU, a description of these changes are to be included in this report. Thermal Treatment Unit Operational History The TTU’s 40-year mission has been the treatment of obsolete, surplus, or unusable missile propellant, missile components, explosives, and munitions. Prior to 1993, the TTU was used to destroy numerous munitions and explosives but only a limited quantity of large missile components. In 1993, the TTU began to be used for the regularly scheduled destruction of large missile components (Poseidon) by open detonation (OD). The destruction of small munitions began to decrease during this time as the work began to focus on destroying large missile components. During the development of the original 1997 Waste Characterization TM, the focus of operations at the TTU included both small- and large-scale munitions. Currently, the primary operational focus for the TTU is the destruction of missile segments containing solid propellant with limited focus on small munitions items. Thermal Treatment Unit Permitting Status A unique feature of the TTU is that it is currently the only facility in the U.S. permitted for and capable of regularly handling the open burn (OB)/OD of items with net explosive weight (NEW) greater than 15,000 pounds (lb). The items handled by OB/OD destruction methods include motors from the Titan, Poseidon, Minuteman, Trident, Sprint, and Peacekeeper missiles. At this time, there are no more Titan IV or Poseidon missiles in inventory for disposal. OB/OD operations at the TTU are permitted by a RCRA permit, an Air Quality Approval Order, and the Approval Order provisions that are incorporated into the UTTR Title V Air Quality permit. UTAH TEST AND TRAINING RANGE: WASTE CHARACTERIZATION FOR THE THERMAL TREATMENT UNIT, CALENDAR YEAR 2023 AX0219191653SLC 2 Explosives that are treated at the TTU can be put into four general categories: primary explosives, booster and secondary explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics. Compounds also can be classified according to their designation in the Munitions Items Disposition Action System (MIDAS) database, or MIDAS family. MIDAS family subgroups, or subfamilies have been developed to consolidate similar explosive compounds based on their main chemical constituents and expected method of breakdown. There are currently 18 MIDAS subfamilies that describe all munitions potentially treated at the TTU. Operationally, energetic materials destroyed at the TTU are grouped and treated by their nature and hazard classification into the following U.S. Department of Transportation categories: • Class 1, Division 1.1 materials: Explosives that have a mass explosion hazard (detonable and flammable); such as, aluminized composite propellants and double-base propellants. • Class 1, Division 1.2 materials: Explosives that have a projection hazard but not a mass explosion hazard (detonable under some circumstances). • Class 1, Division 1.3 materials: Explosives that have a fire hazard and either a minor blast hazard or a minor projection hazard or both, but not a mass explosion hazard (non-detonable, flammable); such as, single base, composite or hybrid propellants. • Class 1, Division 1.4 materials: Explosives that present minor explosion hazard; such as, explosives and munitions. A RCRA permit application for the TTU was submitted in August 1997. Until 13 February 2003, the TTU was operating in interim status under RCRA Subpart X. On 13 February 2003, the RCRA permit for the TTU was issued and remained in effect until 13 February 2013. An application to renew the permit was submitted in Fall 2012, and the permit was re-issued on 27 September 2013. This permit expired on 27 September 2023. The RCRA permit renewal application and the draft permit was submitted on 30 March 2023 to the UDEQ Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC). The new permit is anticipated to be out for public comment in January 2024 and finalized in 2024. In Fall 1993, the Utah Division of Air Quality issued Hill AFB an experimental Approval Order (AO) for OD of large missile motors. This AO permitted the detonation of several missile motors to determine the best available control technology for detonations. The AO has been revised several times since the initial application; the most recent revision was issued on 29 November 2010. The current Title V Permit (Number 300036002), issued 7 December 2005 (updated on 21 January 2022), permits the OB/OD destruction of missile motors containing Hazard Class 1.1 propellant, munitions containing Hazard Class 1.1 energetic materials, Class 1.3 energetic materials, and/or Class 1.4 energetic materials at the TTU located on the UTTR. The maximum annual quantity of material permitted for destruction by OD at the TTU is 6.55 million lb (NEW). If a propellant or energetic item that is not classified as Hazardous Class 1.1, 1.3, or 1.4 is to be treated by OB/OD, prior approval must be obtained. The new 2023 RCRA permit application pertaining to materials detonated and burned at the TTU will be consistent with the 2013 permit. A 5-year review of the human health and risk screening evaluation (HHRSE) was conducted for the TTU in 2022. This HHRSE was required by the current UTTR RCRA Permit. The HHRSE, documented in the UTTR TTU 2022 HHRSE (Jacobs, 2023), did not show unacceptable risks for site workers exposures to TTU soil or offsite air exposure for any of the three exposure scenarios: explosive ordnance disposal worker, Salt Lake boater, and Oasis resident. A final report was submitted in March 2023 to the UDEQ-DWMRC. Thermal Treatment Unit Activities As presented in Figures 1 through 23, U.S. Navy Trident I (C-4) and Trident II (D-5) submarine-launched ballistic missile motors or segments, containing Hazard Class 1.1 propellants, comprise a majority of the energetic materials treated at the TTU over the last 22 years. During that time, the percentage of Hazard UTAH TEST AND TRAINING RANGE: WASTE CHARACTERIZATION FOR THE THERMAL TREATMENT UNIT, CALENDAR YEAR 2023 AX0219191653SLC 3 Class 1.1 motors treated at the TTU ranged from a low of 26.5 percent in 2022 to a high of 98 percent in 2007. As presented in Figure 22, the Hazard Class 1.1 propellant (C-4 and D-5 missile motors) treated by OD represented 77.06 percent of the energetic material treated at the TTU in 2023. This included C-4 propellant (116,742 lb) and D-5 propellant (806,860 lb). Hazard Class 1.1 energetics are mass detonable and have historically been treated at the TTU by OD. The C-4 and D-5 propellants are extremely similar in formulation with no notable changes in OD emissions. Hazard Class 1.3 energetics accounted for 22.76 percent of the material treated at the TTU in 2023. The Hazard Class 1.3 energetics treated were smokeless powder (147,060 lb), scrap propellant (84,223 lb), and Polaris A-3 Stage 1 motors (41,430 lb). The remaining 0.19 percent of energetic material treated at the TTU was designated Hazard Class 1.1 scrap propellent treated by OD. A summary of the total annual NEW in lbs over the past 22 years is presented in Figure 23. Figures referenced in this TM are provided at the end of the document. Conclusions Most of the waste treated at the TTU in 2023 consisted of Hazard Class 1.1 propellant (C-4 and D-5) and smokeless powder. The total quantities of waste treated at the TTU in 2023 (1,198,552 lb) decreased by 768,137 lb from 2022. The inventory of C-4 segments scheduled for disposal is expected to be depleted by 2025. Disposal operations for the D-5 program are expected to increase and continue for the foreseeable future. References Jacobs 2023. Utah Test and Training Range Thermal Treatment Unit 2022 Human Health Risk Screen Evaluation. January. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste (UDEQ-DSHW). 2013. Hazardous Waste Operating Permit, U.S. Air Force, Utah Test and Training Range UT0570090001. Attachments 2 and 3. September. Figures Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD 0.2% Class 1.1 Sprint Motors OD 0.9% Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB 13.1% Class 1.1 (C-4) OD 85.8% Figure 1. Relative Percentages of Material Destroyed in 2002 (Total Mass Destroyed 3,133,361 lb) Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD Class 1.1 Sprint Motors OD Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB Class 1.1 (C-4) OD Class 1.1 Minuteman OD 0.1% Class 1.3 Minuteman OB 15.0% Class 1.1 ADR/MISC OD 0.0% Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD 0.0% Class 1.1 Sprint Motors OD 0.3% Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB 10.2% Class 1.3 Titan OB 15.4% Class 1.1 (C-4) OD 58.9% Figure 2. Relative Percentages of Material Destroyed in 2003 (Total Mass Destroyed 3,658,452 lb) Class 1.1 MinuteMan OD Class 1.3 MinuteMan OB Class 1.1 ADR/MISC OD Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD Class 1.1 Sprint Motors OD Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB Class 1.3 Titan OB Class 1.1 (C-4) OD Class 1.1 Minuteman OD 0.1% Class 1.3 Minuteman OB 15.0% Class 1.1 ADR/MISC OD 0.0% Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD 0.0% Class 1.1 Sprint Motors OD 0.0% Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB 0.1% Class 1.3 Titan OB 32.5% Class 1.1 (C-4) OD 60.0% Figure 3. Relative Percentages of Material Destroyed in 2004 (Total Mass Destroyed 3,700,224 lb) Class 1.1 MinuteMan OD Class 1.3 MinuteMan OB Class 1.1 ADR/MISC OD Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD Class 1.1 Sprint Motors OD Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB Class 1.3 Titan OB Class 1.1 (C-4) OD Class 1.1 MinuteMan OD 0.2%Class 1.3 MinuteMan OB 23.2% Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD 0.7% Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB 0.1% Class 1.1 (C-4) OD 75.9% Figure 4. Relative Percentages of Material Destroyed in 2005 (Total Mass Destroyed 2,208,566 lb) Class 1.1 MinuteMan OD Class 1.3 MinuteMan OB Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB Class 1.1 (C-4) OD Class 1.1 MinuteMan OD 0.5% Class 1.3 MinuteMan OB 7.1% Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD 0.1% Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB 0.3% Class 1.1 (C-4, D-5) OD 33.3% Class 1.3 Titan OB 58.8% Figure 5. Relative Percentages of Material Destroyed in 2006 (Total Mass Destroyed 2,313,522 lb) Class 1.1 MinuteMan OD Class 1.3 MinuteMan OB Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB Class 1.1 (C-4, D-5) OD Class 1.3 Titan OB Class 1.1 MinuteMan OD 1% Class 1.3 MinuteMan OB 1% Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD 0% Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB 0% Class 1.1 (C-4) OD 98% Figure 6. Relative Percentages of Material Destroyed in 2007 (Total Mass Destroyed 473,806 lb) Class 1.1 MinuteMan OD Class 1.3 MinuteMan OB Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB Class 1.1 (C-4) OD Class 1.1 Sprint Motors OD 12% Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD 0.2% Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB 38% Class 1.1 (C-4) OD 50% Figure 7. Relative Percentages of Material Destroyed in 2008 (Total Mass Destroyed 657,606 lb) Class 1.1 Sprint Motors OD Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB Class 1.1 (C-4) OD Class 1.1 (C-4) OD 94.6% Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD 0.1% Class 1.1 Sprint Motors OD 5.3% Figure 8. Relative Percentages of Material Destroyed in 2009 (Total Mass Destroyed 369,881 lb) Class 1.1 (C-4) OD Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD Class 1.1 Sprint Motors OD Class 1.3 Minute Man OB 27% Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD 0.1% Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB 0% Class 1.1 (C-4) OD 73% Figure 9. Relative Percentages of Material Destroyed in 2010 (Total Mass Destroyed 610,300 lb) Class 1.3 Minute Man OB Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB Class 1.1 (C-4) OD Class 1.1 (Minuteman Stg 3) OD 14% Class 1.1 (Scrap Propellant) OD 0.1% Class 1.3 (Scrap Propellant) OB 1% Class 1.1 (C-4) OD 74% Figure10. Relative Percentages of Material Destroyed in 2011 (Total Mass Destroyed 340,707 lb) Class 1.1 Minuteman OD Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB Class 1.1 (C-4) OD Class 1.1 (Minuteman Stg 3) OD 3% Class 1.3 (Minuteman) OB 38% Class 1.1 (Misc) OD <1% Class 1.1 (Talos) OD 3% Class 1.3 (Scrap Propellant) OB <1% Class 1.3 (Sparrow Propellant) OB 1% Class 1.1 (C-4) OD 54% Class 1.2 (Misc) <1% Figure 11. Relative Percentages of Material Destroyed in 2012 (Total Mass Destroyed 1,584,123 lb) Class 1.1 Minuteman OD Class 1.3 Minuteman OB Class 1.1 Misc OD Class 1.1 Talos OD Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB Class 1.3 Sparrow Propellant OB Class 1.1 (Minuteman Stg 3) OD 28% Class 1.3 (Minuteman) OB 14% Class 1.1 (Misc) OD <1% Class 1.1 (C-4) OD 57% Class 1.3 (Misc Propellant) OB <1% Figure 12. Relative Percentages of Material Destroyed in 2013 (Total Mass Destroyed 562,713 lb) Class 1.1 Minuteman OD Class 1.3 Minuteman OB Class 1.1 Misc OD Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB Class 1.1 (C-4) OD Class 1.2 (Misc) Class 1.1 Minuteman OD 3% Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB 8.3% Class 1.3 Minuteman OB 12%Class 1.1 Misc OD >1% Class 1.1 (C-4) OD 77% Figure 13. Relative Percentages of Material Destroyed in 2014 (Total Mass Destroyed 1,398,845 lb) Class 1.1 Minuteman OD Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB Class 1.3 Minuteman OB Class 1.1 Misc OD Class 1.1 (C-4) OD Class 1.1 Minuteman OD 1.3% Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB >0.01% Class 1.3 Minuteman OB 5.2% Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD >0.1% Class 1.1Polaris Motors (A-3) OD 6% Class 1.1 (C-4) OD 87.4% Figure 14. Relative Percentages of Material Destroyed in 2015 (Total Mass Destroyed 880,690 lb) Class 1.1 Minuteman OD Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB Class 1.3 Minuteman OB Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD Class 1.1 Polaris Motors (A-3) OD Class 1.1 (C-4) OD Class 1.3 Scrap Propellent OB 5.9% Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD 0.2% Class 1.1 Antares IIB X-259 OD 0.5% Class 1.1 (C-4) OD 93.4% Figure 15. Relative Percentages of Material Destroyed in 2016 (Total Mass Destroyed 1,049,528 lb) Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD Class 1.1 Antares IIB X-259 OD Class 1.1 (C-4) OD Class 1.3 Minuteman OB 2.61% Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB 3.15% Class 1.3 Smokeless Powder OB 17.05% Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD 0.05% Class 1.1 (D-5) OD 4.29% Class 1.1 (C-4) OD 72.85% Figure 16. Relative Percentages of Material Destroyed in 2017 (Total Mass Destroyed 1,148,310 lb) Class 1.3 Minuteman OB Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB Class 1.3 Smokeless Powder OB Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD Class 1.1 (D-5) OD Class 1.1 (C-4) OD Class 1.3 Minuteman OB 36.47% Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB 0.24% Class 1.3 Smokeless Powder OB 45.09% Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD 0.05% Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD 0.08% Class 1.1 (D-5) OD 13.86% Class 1.1 (C-4) OD 4.22% Figure 17. Relative Percentages of Material Destroyed in 2018 (Total Mass Destroyed 355,178 lb) Class 1.3 Minuteman OB Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB Class 1.3 Smokeless Powder OB Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OB Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD Class 1.1 (D-5) OD Class 1.1 (C-4) OD Class 1.3 Smokelss Powder OB 22.52% Misc OD 0.09% Class 1.1 Scrap Propellent OD 0.15% Class 1.1 (D-5) OD 3.80% Class 1.1 (C-4) OD 73.44% Figure 18: Relative Percentages of Material Destroyed in 2019 (Total Mass Destroyed 470,749 lbs) Class 1.3 Smokeless Powder OB Misc OD Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OD Class 1.1 (D-5) OD Class 1.1 (C-4) OD Class 1.3 Smokelss Powder OB 98,040 lbs 13.31% Misc OD 561 lbs 0.08% Class 1.3 Scrap Propellent OB 43,435 lbs 5.90% Class 1.1 (D-5) OD 109,149 lbs 14.82% Class 1.1 (C-4) OD 466,768 lbs 63.36% Class 1.1 (MOAB) OD 18,700 lbs 2.54% Figure 19: Relative Percentages of Material Destroyed in 2020 (Total Mass Destroyed 736,653 lbs) Class 1.3 Smokeless Powder OB Misc OD Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB Class 1.1 (D-5) OD Class 1.1 (C-4) OD Class 1.1 (MOAB) OD Class 1.3 Smokelss Powder OB 196,080 lbs 31.29% Misc OD 1,174 lbs 0.19%Class 1.3 Scrap Propellent OB 17,185 lbs 2.74% Class 1.3 Scrap Propellent MinuteMan OB 91,600 lbs 14.62% Class 1.1 Scrap Propellent OB 760 lbs 0.12% Class 1.1 (D-5) OD 164,164 lbs 26.20% Class 1.1 (C-4) OD 155,656 lbs 24.84% Figure 20: Relative Percentages of Material Destroyed in 2021 (Total Mass Destroyed 626,619 lbs) Class 1.3 Smokeless Powder OB Misc OD Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant MinuteMan OB Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OB Class 1.1 (D-5) OD Class 1.1 (C-4) OD Class 1.3 Smokelss Powder OB 196,080 lbs 9.97% Class 1.3 Scap Propellant OB 25,016 lbs 1.27% Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant MinuteMan OB 1,241,180 lbs 63.11% Class 1.1 Scrap Propellent OD 1,981 lbs 0.10% Class 1.1 (D-5) OD 307,862 lbs 15.65% Class 1.1 (C-4) OD 194,570 lbs 9.89% Figure 21: Relative Percentages of Material Destroyed in 2022 (Total Mass Destroyed 1,966,689 lbs) Class 1.3 Smokeless Powder OB Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant MinuteMan OB Class 1.1 Scrap Propellant OB Class 1.1 (D-5) OD Class 1.1 (C-4) OD Class 1.3 Smokeless Powder OB 147,060 lbs 12.27% Misc OD 2,237 lbs 0.19% Class 1.3 Scrap Propellent OB 84,223 lbs 7.03% Class 1.1 (D-5) OD 806,860 lbs 67.32% Class 1.3 Polaris A-3 Stage 1 OB 41,430 lbs 3.46% Class 1.1 (C-4) OD 116,742 lbs 9.74% Figure 22: Relative Percentages of Material Destroyed in 2023 (Total Mass Destroyed 1,198,552 lbs) Class 1.3 Smokeless Powder OB Misc OD Class 1.3 Scrap Propellant OB Class 1.1 (D-5) OD Class 1.3 Polaris A-3 Stage 1 OB Class 1.1 (C-4) OD 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Ne t Ex p l o s i v e We i g h t (l b s ) Year FIGURE 23 Annual Mass (NEW) of Materials Destroyed at the TTU (2002-2023)