DSHW-2024-006149

Deq submit <[e-mail]>
(no subject)
1 message
Marty Banks <[e-mail]>Fri, May 3, 2024 at 6:17 PM
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "Brian Speer ([e-mail])" <[e-mail]>
To DWMRC: On behalf of Integrated Water Management, LLC, please accept the
attached Comments to Draft E&P Waste Rules, prepared by the law firm of Parr
Brown Gee & Loveless, and well as the associated Comments prepared by
GeoStrata Engineering & Geoscience, Terracon Consultants, and Wasatch
Environmental.

Please confirm your receipt by reply email.

Marty Banks | Attorney | Parr Brown Gee & Loveless | A Professional Corporation
101 South 200 East, Suite 700 | Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
D: 801.257.7936 | T: 801.532.7840 | F: 801.532.7750 | [e-mail] | www.parrbrown.com

Informaon in this message (including any aachments) is confidenal, may be legally privileged, and is intended solely for the
use of the person(s) idenfied above. The sender did not intend to waive any privilege by sending this message. If you are not
the intended recipient of this message, please nofy the sender by replying to this message and delete the original and any
copies of the message. Any duplicaon, disseminaon or distribuon of this message by unintended recipients is prohibited.

4 attachments
IWM Comments on Proposed E&P Rules - 1.pdf
152K
GeoStrata Comments on DWMRC EP Rule.pdf
77K
Terracon Comments on DWMRC Draft EP Rule.pdf
84K
Wasatch Comments on DWRMC Draft EP Rule.pdf
212K
5/6/24, 12:51 PM State of Utah Mail - (no subject)
https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRR7iQeljWFqWDk5PQsnGV0n1MeTkhofqHSHCUMdDOupaVZD/u/0/?ik=adf9d5e615&view=pt&search=all&per…1/1
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
R315-321.Class VII Exploration and Production Wa ste Facility Requirements.
R315-321-3.Exploration and Production Wa ste Facility Location Standards.
(1)A new Class VII Facility or the lateral expansion of an existing Class VII
Facility shall be subject to the following location standards:
Question: Does new Class VII refer to newly constructed or for the initial permit?
R315-322-5.Standards for Design
(10)Groundwater Protection.
(i)install and maintain leak detection equipment and conduct monitoring according
to…
Question/comment: Wi ll the Division have an allowable leakeage rate to delineate when
corrective actions will need to be taken? Most of the existing evaporation ponds in the Uinta
Basin were constructed with a primary 60 ml liner and a natural clay secondary liner. The
primary and secondary liners in cells constructed in this manner are not sealed and often have
water between the liners in areas of shallow groundwater.
R315-322-6. Standards for Operation.
4(a) Hydrocarbon accumulation, other than de minimis quantities, on a Class VII solid waste
surface impoundment is prohibited. Any such accumulation shall be removed within 24 hours of
the time accumulation began.
Comment: In order to make sure that operators and regulators have the same expectation, a
clearer definition should be considered.
5 Overspray including foam, from sprinklers, wind, or enhanced evaporation systems, outside of
lined areas shall be corrected and cleaned up immediately.
Question/comment: DOGM currently limits wind speed during usage of enhanced evaporations
systems. Any wind speed restrictions for using enhanced evaporation systems?
Additional questions and comments
Wi ll skim ponds have the same de minimis oil limitation as surface impoundments?
Wi ll netting be required for skim ponds?
Can waste be removed from a class 7 landfill and if so what are the cleanup standards?
What analytes are to be tested when testing background soils?
Will facilities with existing WMRC permits need permit mods or new permits if they want to
convert an existing DOGM permitted pond to a surface impoundment?
How do operators reconcile differences in design standards between EPA and WMRC? Who has
primacy?
WMRC has stated that landfarms can be reclaimed by covering them in soil or clay. Is any post
closure monitoring required in this process?
Is any soil testing required of both the material in the landfarm and or the soil cap?
Can water from the landfill be moved into surface impoundments?
Liner requirements:
R 315-302 -2 v (e) Ground Wa ter.
(i) No new facility or lateral expansion of an existing facility shall be located at a site:
(A) where the bottom of the lowest liner is less than five feet above the historical high
level of ground water; or
(B) for a landfill that is not required to install a liner, the lowest level of waste must be at
least ten feet above the historical high level of ground water.
This reference clarifies the groundwater conditions required when a liner is not required for a
landfill. If you could provide the reference in the code that determines when a liner is or is not
required for a landfill that would be appreciated.
MARTIN K.BANKS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
101 SOUTH 200 EAST,SUITE 700
SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111
[e-mail]
[phone]
Via Email & Regular Mail May 3, 2024
Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
PO Box 144880
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880
[e-mail]
Re:Comments on DWMRC’s Draft E&P Waste Rules
Dear Division:
On March 15, 2024, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Waste
Management and Radiation Control (“DWMRC”) issued its Draft Exploration and Production
Waste Rules Review Package. That Package sets forth the process by which interested
stakeholders may participate by submitting informal comments on the proposed modifications of
the existing rules and proposed new rules that DWMRC has prepared relating to the regulatory
oversight of wastes generated from the exploration and production (“E&P”) of crude oil and
natural gas in Utah (“Draft E&P Rules”). The comments below prepared by this law firm are
submitted on behalf of our client Integrated Water Management, LLC (“IWM”). The three (3)
additional sets of comments attached hereto, prepared by GeoStrata Engineering & Geosciences,
Terracon Consultants, and Wasatch Environmental, are also submitted herewith on behalf of
IWM.
COMMENTS: IWM respectfully requests that DWMRC review and consider the comments
below relating to IWM’s concerns with and objections to the Draft E&P Rules. For the reasons
set forth below, IWM requests that DWMRC revise the Draft E&P Rules to include a liner
requirement for new or expanded solid waste landfills under the proposed R315-321, just as it
has for new or expanded solid waste surface impoundments under the proposed R315-322.
1.EPA’s Federal Requirements and Best Practices Letter Instructs Use of Liners.
On October 18, 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued a formal letter
captioned Federal Requirements and Best Practices for Oil and Gas Waste Management
Facilities, addressed to “Owners and Operators of Oil and Gas Waste Facilities Managing
Exploration and Production Wastes.”The attachment to that Letter summarizes EPA’s
instructions regarding the various applicable requirements and best practices
(“Requirements/Best Practices Letter”)for the design of landfills. In that portion of the Letter
relating to “Landfills,” EPA emphatically asserts that “Landfills should be designed and
constructed per industry standard,to include appropriate composite liner systems and leak
2
4882-0417-5547, v. 1
detection to ensure the protectiveness required under part 257 [of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (“RCRA”)].” To emphasize that instruction, EPA notes that “if EPA determines
that handling of E&P waste may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human
health or the environment under section 7003 of RCRA, EPA may take action to restrain such
handling and take other actions as necessary.” Requirements/Best Practices Letter, at p.2.
2.DWMRC Acknowledges Landfills with Liners are More Protective. In
connection with its Draft E&P Rule, DWMRC prepared a separate Oil and Gas Exploration and
Production Waste Management webpage on its website to explain the anticipated changes
associated with the Draft E&P Rule, and therein included a “FAQ” section. One of those
questions is “What protection do landfills offer for the environment?” Notably, its response
expressly acknowledges that “Landfills are more protective of the environment than landfarming
or beneficial uses,” because of the “lined cells” that landfill standards “often include.”
3.Industry Practice is for Landfills to Include Liners. As acknowledged and
referenced above by both EPA and DWMRC, the industry standard is for such solid waste E&P
landfills to include liners. See EPA’s Requirements/Best Practices Letter (“Landfills should be
designed and constructed per industry standard, to include appropriate composite liner systems . .
. to ensure the protectiveness required under part 257”), and DWMRC’s webpage (“Landfill
standards often include lined cells”). IWM’s consultants that have assisted in connection with
the preparation and permitting of IWM original landfill (“IWM Landfill”) and its anticipated
new landfill (“Pinnacle Fuels Landfill”) have confirmed in their attached comments that the
industry practice for such solid waste landfills is to include a liner.
4.DWMRC’s Historical Direction to Use Liners. DWMRC has historically directed
and required operators of new or expanding landfills to include liners.
a.Initial 2014 Conversion of Lined Pond to Lined Landfill. In 2014,in
anticipation of converting its existing lined pond into a lined permitted landfill,IWM informed
DWMRC of its plans to convert and obtain a landfill permit. To its credit, DWMRC put IWM to
the painstaking task of meticulously evaluating and demonstrating the condition, strength,
fitness,and overall integrity of every component of the existing liner, and thoroughly reviewed
and scrutinized the submittals that IWM provided to confirm the integrity of that liner. Other
operators in the area that were going through the same conversion and permitting process,
including Dalbo Holdings, Inc., were subject to that same scrutiny by DWMRC regarding the
integrity of their respective existing liners. Such rigor and scrutiny is indicative of DWMRC’s
historical practice of requiring liners for such solid waste landfills.
b.DWRMC Communication with IWM on Developing Second Cell. In 2019,
when IWM was getting ready to design and construct another cell at its IWM Landfill, IWM
scheduled a project kick-off meeting with DWMRC. At that meeting IWM informed DWMRC
that it contemplated following the same application process that another operator had recently
undertaken to obtain a permit for a similar landfill. In that context, IWM asked DWMRC for a
copy of the permit application that had been submitted by the operator of that previously
permitted landfill. When DWMRC indicated that they were unaware that that other operator had
sought or obtained such a permit, IWM provided a copy of that other operator’s permit to
3
4882-0417-5547, v. 1
DWMRC. After reviewing that permit, DWMRC responded by indicating that said permit
should never have been issued because that landfill did not have a liner. That response is further
indicative of DWMRC’s historical practice of requiring liners for such solid waste landfills.
5.DWMRC’s Existing Rules Requiring Liners. DWMRC’s existing solid waste
rules for landfills have long required liners. For example, DWMRC’s Solid Waste Facility
Location Standard is structured such that, as a practical matter, almost all solid waste landfills
are required to have a liner. More specifically, that Location Standard provides as follows:
(iv) Unless each unit of the proposed facility is constructed with a composite liner or
other equivalent design approved by the director:
(A) a new facility located above any aquifer containing groundwater that has a TDS
content below 1,000 mg/l that does not exceed applicable groundwater quality standards
for any contaminant is permitted only where the depth to groundwater is greater than 100
feet; or
(B) a new facility located above any aquifer containing groundwater that has a TDS
content between 1,000 and 3,000 mg/l and does not exceed applicable groundwater
quality standards for any contaminant is permitted only where the depth to groundwater
is 50 feet or greater.
R315-302-1(2)(e)(iv)(emphasis added). In short, this Location Standard mandates that a liner is
required unless the proponent of a new or expanded facility can satisfy three specified criteria –
that the new facility is (1) “located above any aquifer containing groundwater that has a TDS
content below 1,000 mg/l,” (2) that said groundwater “does not exceed applicable groundwater
quality standards for any contaminant,” and (3) that “the depth to groundwater is greater than
100 feet.” The great majority of existing and anticipated new landfills in the subject vicinity do
not satisfy those criteria. Even if some of those landfills may satisfy 1 or even 2 of those criteria,
very few can satisfy all three criteria.
6.Numerous Policy Objectives Will Be Achieved by Requiring Liners. In addition
to the above-referenced points that argue in favor of requiring liners for solid waste landfills,
numerous other policy objectives will also be achieved by requiring liners.

1.Environmental Protection: As emphasized by EPA in its
Requirements/Best Practices Letter (““Landfills should be designed and constructed per industry
standard, to include appropriate composite liner systems and leak detection to ensure the
protectiveness….”), and as acknowledged by DWMRC in FAQ section of its webpage
(“Landfills are more protective of the environment” because of the “lined cells” that landfill
standards “often include”), and as affirmed by all three of the environmental professionals whose
comments are attached hereto, the environment will be much better protected if the Draft E&P
Rule is revised to require liners for landfills.1 The environmental sensitivities that warranted the
1 IWN notes that in previous deliberations on the Draft E&P Rule, some have suggested that the potential
environmental impact associated with not requiring liners is not particularly significant inasmuch as much of the
material that will deposited in such unlined landfills would be relatively benign bentonite. Some bentonite,
however, can contain toxic metals. More importantly, although bentonite only makes up a fraction (less than 50%)
of the anticipated material, the other portion of those materials contain a number of other very toxic contaminants.
4
4882-0417-5547, v. 1
requirement for liners in the past have not gone away. On the contrary, with the dramatically
increased oil and gas development and other commercial and industrial development in the
Uintah Basin over the recent decades, and the anticipated increase in that development, the
environmental sensitivities are increasing. Now is not the time to reel back the environmental
protections afforded by requiring liners; rather, now is the time to maintain and even reinforce
those environmental protections.
2.Protection of Oil and Gas Producers. Under RCRA, producers of oil and
natural gas are responsible and potentially liable for the products they introduce into the
marketplace on a forever,ongoing cradle-to-grave basis. For that reason, producers will be best
protected if solid waste from their operations are disposed of at landfills that contain protective
liners. This point will be addressed at length in supporting comments submitted by the Utah
Petroleum Association and by the Duchesne County Commission.
3.Encourage Use of Responsible Landfill Operators. If the Draft E&P Rule
were to be approved and implemented as is, without a liner requirement, it is likely that certain
producers would opt to landfill their E&P solid waste at their own sites without liners, either
without any regard to the landfill permitting requirements, or without the same level of
familiarity, sophistication and specialized professional oversight that is inherent in specialized
industrial landfill operations, which, consistent with industry practice, will be much more likely
to have liners. In either case (without any regard to permitting requirements or without the same
level of sophistication), if producers are incentivized (by not having to construct liners) to
landfill their E&P solid waste at their own facilities, the level of environmental protection and
compliance will likely decline dramatically.
4.Unlevel Playing Field. As addressed above, when IWM designed and
constructed its IWM Landfill and its Pinnacle Fuels Landfill, because of DWMRC’s direction,
industry practice, and the other factors addressed above, IWM included a liner. Under the Draft
E&P Rule, competitors would be able to construct new or expanded landfills without having to
incur those significant costs of designing, constructing and maintaining liners, thus penalizing
IWM and other landfill operators who have complied with DWMRC’s directions and industry
practice, and creating an unfair economic advantage for operators of new or expanded landfills
for which DWMRC would not require a liner and which would ignore industry practice. Under
these circumstances, the Draft E&P Rule would deprive those operators who have complied with
DWMRC direction and industry practice of a level playing field.
5.Arbitrary and Capricious Agency Action. Under the Utah Administrative
Procedures Act, a person or entity is entitled to judicial relief if it “has been substantially
prejudiced” by any of the following:
(a) the agency action, or the statute or rule on which the agency action is based, is
unconstitutional on its face or as applied; (b) the agency has acted beyond the jurisdiction
conferred by any statute; (c) the agency has not decided all of the issues requiring
resolution; (d) the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law; (e) the agency
has engaged in an unlawful procedure or decision-making process, or has failed to follow
prescribed procedure; (f) the persons taking the agency action were illegally constituted
as a decision-making body or were subject to disqualification; (g) the agency action is
5
4882-0417-5547, v. 1
based upon a determination of fact, made or implied by the agency, that is not supported
by substantial evidence when viewed in light of the whole record before the court; (h) the
agency action is: (i) an abuse of the discretion delegated to the agency by statute; (ii)
contrary to a rule of the agency; (iii) contrary to the agency's prior practice, unless the
agency justifies the inconsistency by giving facts and reasons that demonstrate a fair and
rational basis for the inconsistency; or (iv) otherwise arbitrary or capricious.
Utah Code Ann. §§ 63G-4-403(4). Based on DWMRC’s past liner-related direction to IWM and
other solid waste landfill operators, and other reasons, IWM believes that DWMRC’s approval
and implementation of the Draft E&P Rule as-is would constitute, among other things, action
“based upon a determination of fact . . . that is not supported by substantial evidence…,” an
“abuse of discretion,” “contrary to the agency’s prior practice,” and “otherwise arbitrary or
capricious.”
In summary,based on EPA’s Requirements/Best Practices Letter, DWMRC’s
acknowledgment that liners are more protective, industry practice for liners, DWMRC’s
historical direction to use liners, DWMRC’s existing Rules requiring liners, numerous policy
objectives favoring liners, and the Utah Administrative Act’s prohibition on arbitrary and
capricious agency action, IWM respectfully requests that DWMRC revise its Draft E&P Rule to
require liners for landfills under the proposed R315-321 (for solid waste landfills), just as it has
under the proposed R315-322 (for solid waste surface impoundments).
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: See three (3) sets of additional comments also submitted on
behalf of IWM, prepared by GeoStrata Engineering, Terracon Consultants and Wasatch
Environmental, attached hereto.
Best regards,
PARR BROWN GEE &LOVELESS
/s/ Martin K. Banks
Martin K. Banks
cc:Walter Plumb
Nate Robinson
Russell Sorensen
Mike Vorkink (GeoStrata Engineering)
Daniel Dean (Terracon Consultants)
Blake Downey (Wasatch Environmental)

2410 WEST CALIFORNIA AVENUE • SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84104
PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]
Website: www.wasatch-environmental.com • e-Mail: [e-mail]
Mr. Nate Robinson May 2, 2024
Integrated Water Management Project No: 2784-001
P.O. Box 1068
Duchesne, Utah 84021

SUBJECT: Comments of Proposed Regulatory Documents

In accordance with your request, Wasatch Environmental, Inc., (Wasatch) has prepared these comments
regarding the proposed rule and regulation changes for the documents described below.

REGULATORY DOCUMENT COMMENTS

Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC) - Draft Exploration and
Production (E&P) Waste Rules Review Package (dated March 15, 2024)

Wasatch has identified the following concerns and comments regarding this document:

1. R315-321-3(3)(a) and R315-322-2(3)(a) states “the director may grant an exemption from any
location standard of Subsection R315-302-1(2) for a Class VII Facility, on a site-specific basis if
the director determines that the exemption will cause no adverse impacts to human health or the
environment. If an exemption is granted, the director may require that the facility have more
stringent design, construction, monitoring program, or operational practice to protect human
health or the environment.

This verbiage is too vague and leaves facility applicants open to potential unfair treatment
compared with other facility applicants. The verbiage “will cause no adverse impacts” seems to
be impossible to meet or should be clearly defined. Maybe be more specific and what adverse
impacts would include. The “the director may require” verbiage is too vague. Maybe state
situations that would require more stringent designs etc.

2. R315-321-4(4) states that Class VII facilities shall prevent contamination of groundwater by
monitoring the groundwater per R315-308 or by applying for and receiving a groundwater
alternative or waiver according to subsection R315-302-1(2)(e)(vi) which states “if a solid waste
disposal facility is to be located over an area where the groundwater has a TDS [total dissolved
solids] of 10,000 mg/L or greater, or where there is an extreme depth to groundwater, or where
there is a natural impermeable barrier above the groundwater, or where there is no groundwater,
the Director may approve, on a site-specific basis, and alternative groundwater monitoring system
at the facility or may waive the groundwater monitoring requirements.”

There needs to be a specific depth assigned to “extreme depth to groundwater” as that definition
is relative, unclear, and debatable. Also, it should be stated that a “natural impermeable barrier”
must be proved to be impermeable via chemical and physical property testing and must be of
sufficient thickness as determined by a Professional Geologist, and should be very specifically
defined (i.e., permeability of 10-7 and 10 feet thick). A simple lithological log stating clay, is
insufficient to determine a natural impermeable barrier is able to prevent groundwater impacts
from a facility. This also applies to the Solid Waste Surface Impoundment Standards (R315-322).

3. R315-322-3 states that the owner operator of a facility shall apply for and obtain a permit to
operate by meeting the applicable requirements of R315-310.

Wasatch Environmental Inc.
Page 2
R315-310 states the facility must provide various topographic, geologic, and hydrological data. It
should be stated that all geological and hydrological data be certified and collected under the
direction of a Professional Geologist, as many applicants tend to use general drilling logs
obtained from unqualified personnel to determine that their facility has an “impermeable natural
barrier” without any other testing of the materials. It is typical for drillers to provide insufficient
lithological logs for borings. Additionally, a Class VII facility is not required to provide engineering
plans, reports, etc. It is Wasatch’s opinion that Class VII facilities should also have to provide
stamped engineering plans and reports as described in R315-310-4(c).

4. R315-322-5(3)(c) states “Unloading structures shall be designed with a leak detection system
unless determined unnecessary by the Director.”

Either the reasons to determine a leak detection system is not required should be stated
specifically, or it is Wasatch’s opinion that a leak detection system should be mandatory to
prevent adverse effects to human health or the environment.

5. R315-322-5(4) states “The design, construction, and operation of any dewatering or other
stabilization or treatment technique used in association with a solid waste surface impoundment
shall comply with the requirements in Subsection R315-303-3(1.1)(b).” R315-303-3 states the
requirement for Standard Desing, Equivalent Desing, or Alternative Desing for liners.

Wasatch concurs with the Standard Desing specifications; however, a double synthetic line would
be more appropriate given that some E&P waste (KCL [potassium chloride]-based muds) will
degrade a clays ability to remain impermeable to the specification stated. Given this, it is
Wasatch’s opinion that clay liners or natural barriers of clay are not appropriate as an equivalent
or alternative liner. Wasatch believes that to comply with R315-303-2 all facilities receiving E&P
waste should be required to use synthetic double liners with an interstitial leak detection system
in place. If clay liners are to be considered, it is Wasatch’s opinion that robust physical property
testing be completed and certified under the direction of a Professional Engineer.

6. R315-322-6(4)(a) states “Hydrocarbon accumulation, other than de minimis quantities, on a Class
VII solid waste surface impoundment is prohibited. Any such accumulation shall be removed
within 24 hours of the time accumulation began.”

This is likely to happen to every facility given the waste stream. Please define clearly what would
not be considered de minimis, as that term is likely to be used to suit an individual facility’s needs.

7. General Comments: DWMRC should specify how E&P waste is to be properly sampled and
analyzed to determine the waste is not hazardous. The goal of these regulations is to prevent
impact to human health and the environment. It is Wasatch’s opinion that the use of synthetic
liners at these facilities is the best way to achieve this goal.

Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining (DOGM) – R649 Natural Resources; Oil, Gas, and Mining, Oil and
Gas

1. R649-9-3(1)(c) states a contingency plan to minimize impacts to human health and the
environment for an unplanned release of contaminants shall be submitted.

Wasatch recommends that these plans be certified by either a Professional Geologist or
Professional Engineer, and language to suggest that be added to this section.

2. R649-9-3(3) states geological and hydrogeological evidence be provided to prove the facility
location is suitable for this use.

This section is very vague and provides little guidance. More specifics should be added here.

Wasatch Environmental Inc.
Page 3
Wasatch recommends that these documents be certified by either a Professional Geologist or
Professional Engineer, and language to suggest that be added to this section.

3. R649-9-3(4)(a) states the produced water intake shall be designed with a leak detection system
unless it is determined unnecessary by the division.

This is extremely vague, please specify the requirements that need to be met to be deemed
unnecessary.

4. R649-9-3(9) states applicants should verify if they need a permit from the Utah Division of Air
Quality (DAQ).

It should also be added to this section that the applicant needs to provide a copy of an approved
DAQ permit or documentation exempting the facility from DAQ regulations to DOGM.

5. R649-9-3(10) states applicants shall provide at least one background water sample from each
surface and subsurface water resource within one half mile of the E&P recycling facility.

Does this include aquifers beneath the facility. If so, does that mean they need to drill up to a half
a mile for a groundwater sample?

6. R649-9-4(2) and R649-9-6(3) state that drawings shall be of professional quality.

This is a vague and relative statement, please specify required elements of the drawings to deem
it “professional” (i.e., scale, north arrow, clear images, P.G. or P.E. stamp).

7. R649-9-4(4)(a) and R649-9-6(5)(a) state that long-term facilities shall not be located in
geologically or hydraulically unsuitable areas and mentions areas where permeable soil is
present with groundwater less than 50 feet below the lowest elevation at which E&P waste will be
placed.

All soils are “permeable” please specify what DOGM considers to be permeable. Additionally, it
may be prudent to have a Professional Geologist certify that the facility is not located within any
of the restricted areas.

8. R649-9-4(4)(b) states that test borings shall be taken at sufficient quantity and to an adequate
depth no less than 50 feet to define subsurface conditions.

Wasatch recommends that DOGM specify a minimum number of borings per an area to give
some direction to this section. Additionally, Wasatch recommends that verbiage be added stating
the test borings are required to be logged by a qualified geologist.

9. R649-9-4(4)(e) and R649-9-6(5)(d) state that geologic cross-sections be submitted to DOGM that
includes depth to shallow groundwater and other data.

What is considered to be shallow groundwater? Additionally, Wasatch recommends that
verbiage be added stating that these data are completed and certified by a Professional
Geologist.

10. R649-9-4(4)(f) and R649-9-6(5)(e) state that “if deemed necessary by the division, applicants
shall submit groundwater analysis of aquifers beneath the proposed site.

Sufficient verbiage should be provided that specifies the conditions that would deem it necessary
or not necessary. How deep do you need to drill to get this information? R649-9-3(10) says 0.5
miles. Additionally, Wasatch recommends that verbiage be added stating the required
groundwater samples be collected and certified under the direction of a Professional G eologist.

Wasatch Environmental Inc.
Page 4
11. R649-9-4(8)(b) states that the secondary liner for a storage pond shall be constructed with a
minimum of 40-mil HDPE or an equivalent liner.

The equivalent liner is not specified. It is Wasatch’s opinion given that some E&P waste
degrades clays, that DOGM provide verbiage here stating that clay liners are not appropriate.

12. R649-9-4(11)(c)(i) and R649-9-5(6)(a) state that earthen berms used for secondary containment
shall be of “adequate impermeability and compaction to withstand a tank or pond failure”.

This is vague, please provide permeability and compaction specifications.

13. R649-9-6(8)(c)(i) states that for waste crude oil treatment facilities secondary containment shall
be bermed and lined to withstand a tank failure.

This is vague, please provide specifications for acceptable berms and liners.

14. R649-9-13 discusses closure requirements and plans for facilities.

Wasatch recommends that verbiage be added stating these plans and environmental closure
sampling be certified and completed under the direction of a Professional Geologist or
Professional Engineer. Additionally, please provide what residual impacts would require the
facility to submit a closure monitoring plan.

15. General Comments: Anywhere it states “If deemed necessary” sufficient verbiage should be
provided that specifies the conditions that would deem it necessary or not necessary.

Sincerely,

WASATCH ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.

Blake B. Downey, P.G.
Vice President and Senior Project Hydrogeologist