DSHW-2024-006139

6952 High Tech Drive, Suite B
Midvale, Utah 84057
P [phone]
Terracon.com
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 1
May 3, 2024
State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
Attn: Doug Hansen
Division Director
E:[e-mail]
P: [phone]
Re: Comments Regarding R315-321 and R315-322 Proposed Rules for Class VII Exploration
and Production Waste Facilities and Solid Waste Surface Impoundments
Dear Mr. Hansen:
Terracon Consultants Inc. (Terracon) is pleased to provide the following comments to the Utah
Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
(Division) regarding the Division’s R315-321 and R315-322 Exploration and Production (E&P)
Waste Rules Review Package (Revision 0.1 dated April 29, 2024), which will regulate
Exploration and Production Waste Facilities and Solid Waste Surface Impoundments:
E&P Class VII waste disposal facilities are exempted from the daily cover requirements of
Subsection R315-303-4(4) “upon demonstration that uncovered waste is not a threat to
human health, the environment, wildlife, or other receptors,” but the draft rules do not
appear to provide standards through which such a demonstration must be made.
The definition of E&P waste should explicitly state that E&P waste is not hazardous
waste, in accordance with R315-261-4(b)(5). The "...but only to the extent the waste is
exempt...." language is confusing as written.
At a minimum, E&P Class VII waste disposal facilities that do not receive very small
quantity generator (VSQG) hazardous waste should be subject to the same requirements
for E&P solid waste surface impoundments specified in R315-322-3(2)(d) which are
required to “submit details of controls and employee training programs used to prevent
the acceptance of very small quantity generator waste.” No such requirement appears to
be present for waste disposal facilities.
6952 High Tech Drive, Suite B
Midvale, Utah 84057
P [phone]
Terracon.com
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 2
E&P Class VII waste disposal facilities that receive VSQG hazardous waste are subject to
more rigorous groundwater protection rules. But, the draft rules do not appear to
provide standards through which it can be quantitatively determined whether a facility
receives VSQG waste and whether said waste was generated “incidental to oil and gas
exploration and production and related operations” per R315-321-4(5)(b)(iv).
Per R315-322-3(2)(d), E&P solid waste surface impoundments that do not receive VSQG
hazardous waste are required to “submit details of controls and employee training
programs used to prevent the acceptance of very small quantity generator waste.”
Division rules should specify minimum levels and standards for “controls and employee
training programs” that must be implemented by owner/operators.
Per R315-322-4(2), Solid Waste Surface Impoundment facilities are required to “plan for
and implement appropriate measures to protect waterfowl and other wildlife receptors”
but no “appropriate measures” are explicitly required except fencing. Requirements for
“flagging or netting to deter entry by birds and waterfowl” are at the discretion of the
director. Flagging and/or netting should be a minimum statutory requirement for the
protection of birds and waterfowl. Further, the fencing requirement should explicitly
require wildlife-proof fencing.
Per R315-322-5(1), Solid Waste Surface Impoundment facilities “shall be designed for
55 acre-feet of water or less, unless otherwise approved by the director.” It is
concerning that the director can approve larger impoundments with no statutory
maximum upper limit. Further, it is our professional opinion that R315-322-5(1) should
also specify a maximum surface area in addition to a maximum volumetric capacity.
Per R315-322-5(10), the owner or operator of a new solid waste surface impoundment
that does not meet the groundwater alternative found in Subsection R315-302-
1(2)(e)(vi) shall “monitor the groundwater beneath the impoundment” or “install and
maintain leak detection equipment and conduct monitoring.” It is our professional
opinion that both groundwater monitoring and leak detection are necessary to protect
groundwater and both should be required.
R315-322-5(10) should set maximum allowable leakage rate limits for solid waste
surface impoundments that choose to utilize leak detection for protection of
groundwater.
R315-322-6(4)(a) prohibits hydrocarbon accumulation on Class VII solid waste surface
impoundments in greater than “de minimis” quantities. Division rules should provide an
explicit statutory definition of what constitutes quantities that exceed the “de minimis”
standard, e.g. a specified depth in fractions of an inch, accumulations exceeding a
specified surface area, etc.
6952 High Tech Drive, Suite B
Midvale, Utah 84057
P [phone]
Terracon.com
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 3
R315-322-6(5)(a) should set rules to prevent overspray contamination and not just
require overspray contamination to be cleaned up, e.g. wind speed limits for use of
sprinklers and/or enhanced evaporation, minimum setbacks from surface water, roads,
or property boundaries, etc.
“Groundwater Alternative” rules incorporated by reference in R315-302-1(7)(vi)(A)
should require quantitative confirmation of the presence of a “natural impermeable
barrier” above the groundwater, i.e. collection of a representative sample and laboratory
testing to confirm that the material has a hydraulic conductivity of <1x10-7 centimeters
per second.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a letter on October 18,
2023, to owners and operators of oil and gas waste facilities managing E&P wastes in
Indian country detailing Federal requirements and best practices for said facilities. EPA’s
letter stated that E&P waste landfills and surface impoundments “should be designed
and constructed per industry standard, to include appropriate composite liner systems
and leak detection to ensure the protectiveness required under part 257.” As such, it is
EPA’s explicit position that composite liner systems and leak detection are required to
achieve compliance with the performance standards prescribed by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act for E&P waste facilities (i.e., protection of soil and
groundwater). Division rules for E&P waste facilities should be consistent with EPA’s best
practices.
We appreciate the opportunity to have provided these comments to the Division. Please contact
our office at [phone] if you have questions regarding the information contained herein.
Sincerely,
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Daniel Dean Andy King
Group Manager Authorized Project Reviewer