DSHW-2024-004627

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT/HEADQUARTERS
1 TOOELE ARMY DEPOT, BUILDING 1
TOOELE, UT 84074-5003
February 8, 2024
SUBJECT: Public Comment on UTTR Permit Renewal

Douglas J. Hansen, Director
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC)
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 144880
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880
Sent via email to: [e-mail]

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Draft Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (“RCRA”) Permit for Hazardous Waste Operations at the Utah Test and Training
Range (“UTTR”). Tooele Army Depot (TEAD) is a partner with the Air Force and uses UTTR
facilities as part of its mission to reduce the Department of Defense inventory of unnecessary,
unsafe and/or non-functional ammunition and to reduce reliance on open detonations to safely
dispose of these munitions and their component parts. TEAD, the Joint Munitions Command
and the Army are committed to developing and procuring viable alternative technologies to
accomplish this critical mission in ever safer and cleaner ways.

On behalf of TEAD, we would like to note our concurrence and endorsement of the Air
Force Comments submitted within this time period. We also ask for your full consideration of the
impacts of the proposed changes to the UTTR RCRA permit upon the TEAD mission of
providing the Joint Force with ready, reliable, lethal munitions at the speed of war while
sustaining global readiness in a manner that is consistent with human safety and the health of
the environment. Furthermore, TEAD would like to state its position that only the Department of
Defense Explosives Safety Board, in accordance with Section 172 of Title 10, U.S.C., and DoD
Directive 4715.1E determines procedures to safely dispose of munitions and their components.

With regard to the language in the proposed UTTR RCRA permit limiting future disposal
of smokeless powder/propellant, it is TEAD’s position that any permit conditions imposing
alternative technology requirements are premature in light of the forthcoming US EPA draft rule
on OB/OD and the current state of such technologies. It is TEAD’s position that DWMRC acts
outside of its authority when it attempts to insert permit requirements prior to a properly
promulgated final rule. Only then, can an alternative technology requirement be imposed
pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Part 264, Subpart X requirements or via the EPA Memorandum titled
Open Burning and Open Detonation (OB/OD) of Waste Explosives under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), dated 7 June 2022.

Moreover, it is important to communicate that the seemingly arbitrary four-year time limit
to cease treatment of Class 1.3 Smokeless Powder (even with a possible, but not guaranteed,
extension) will immediately impact the TEAD mission. The process of designating specific
2
ammunition for demilitarization, procuring funding for this effort and determining the optimal
process for disposal is a multi-year effort. Thus, were this draft permit to be finalized as written,
the Army would need to begin developing alternative plans for the part of the TEAD mission
which liberates propellant from munitions because it would be unknown (and unknowable)
whether the Army has satisfied the somewhat vague extension requirements of the proposed
permit until it is too late to proceed without a lengthy pause in operations.1F
i
2F
ii
0F
1

Finally, it is TEAD’s position that Permit section III.L.3, is unnecessary because the Army
(the generator of the smokeless powder) has for many years been pursuing alternative
technology to dispose of this waste stream. It is unclear what more would be required of the
Army to satisfy the proposed permit requirement of “adequately demonstrate[ing] that the
generator of the smokeless powder is in the process of pursuing alternative technology for this
waste stream.” To the extent this phrase is meaningful, it is unworkably vague. The permit fails
to express what is required for an “adequate demonstration [of pursuit of alternative
technologies]” nor is it obvious that attainment of any step in the acquisition process would
suffice for an extension. If certain milestones are to be reached before an extension is granted,
the permit fails to communicate which milestone is the first to be deemed “adequate.”

Thank you for consideration of these comments. We would be more than happy to set
up a virtual or in-person meeting for further discussion of our concerns with you. If you, or
members of your staff, have any questions, or would like us to set up this meeting, please
contact Lonnie Brown at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
ERIN TRINCHITELLA
Director, Base Operation
i The proposed permit states: The Permittee may petition to continue treatment of Class 1.3 Smokeless
Powder beyond four years by submitting documentation for Director approval that adequately
demonstrates that the generator of the smokeless powder is in the process of pursuing alternative
technology for this waste stream.
2 Possible alternatives to the Open Burn of smokeless powder propellant at UTTR include: indefinite
storage of obsolete munitions within Tooele County, transportation of hazardous propellant to alternative
sites across the country, open burn of propellant at the TEAD North area, and open detonation of
propellant at the TEAD South area, or most likely some combination of these. Each of these processes is
likely to prove a greater hazard to human health and the environment than open burn at the UTTR.
3 Any disruption in the demilitarization plan lasting more than several months would be likely to result in
the termination of some number of TEAD employees.