The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDSHW-2024-0061531 Law Office of Kenneth J. Melrose 310 Gardengate Lane Lompoc, California 93436 Tel. (775) 934-4491 kmelrose89@gmail.com May 3, 2024 Utah Department of Waste Management and Radiation Control dwmrcpublic@utah.gov US Mail PO BOX 144880 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880 Re: Public Comments to Utah Department of Waste Management and Radiation Control Proposed Exploration and Production Waste Rules Review Package To Whom it May Concern: My name is Kenneth Melrose and I represent Integrated Water Management, LLC, which attended the recent stakeholder meeting discussing these proposed Exploration and Production Waste Rules Review Package which modifies the Solid Waste Management and Permitting rules. Below please find attached comments of IWM relating to the proposed modifications: R315-310.2 • Definition No. (25): This definition needs to 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. Because E&P waste, by definition, is not hazardous waste, it is unclear why there is draft language elsewhere about VSQG waste acceptance (which appears irrelevant for E&P waste). •The Department needs to provide quantifiable criteria for how hazardous waste will be classified, including the provision of specific analytic testing standards. R315-321-1 •With respect to Class VII facilities, are current Class 3b facilities included in such definition? What is the Department’s stance vis a vis land farms? This needs to be clarified. 2 •How do these facilities demonstrate that they are not accepting hazardous waste, especially if VSQG hazardous waste is accepted in some instances and E&P waste is nonhazardous by definition? •How are Class VII facilities to be monitored in order to ensure that groundwater, air quality, explosive gas and surface water standards are not exceeded? Articulable standards and regular reporting requirements need to be incorporated into this section. R315-321-3(3)(a) •This rule should be amended to provide minimum analytic criteria and testing standards/thresholds that must be met in order for the Director to exercise discretion on a site-specific basis. R315-321-4(1) •Again, with respect to the phrasing “as determined by the Director”, there must be minimum analytic and objective criteria established before the Director can create an exception. R315-321-4(4) •Ground water monitoring should be accompanied by specific criteria and regular reporting requirements. R315-321-5(b)(ii) •There should be specific testing and analytic thresholds and regular reporting requirements in order for petroleum contaminated soils to be classified as “non- hazardous” R315-321-6 •Financial assurances should be directly correlated to the number of yards of material or tons of material that any Class VII facility takes on. R315-322-1(1) •The Director’s discretion should be premised upon minimum articulable standards or some analytic framework to prevent abuse. The Director should not have the ability to simply disregard any and all provisions applicable to solid waste surface impoundment requirements, and must provide articulatable, rational grounds for 3 any such decision, but in no event should be able to abridge the clear requirements of these rules. R315-322-2(3)(a) • An exemption involving exploration and production waste, if granted, must conform to more stringent design, construction, monitoring and operational practices. In no event should the Director be empowered to require less stringent standards. R315-322-3 • Overall, there is a concern as to whether the E&P waste chemical composition is being tested, monitored, assessed and accounted for when determining whether a liner is necessary and what kind of liner is required at a specific site. If it is, where is that stated, and what are the articulable requirements and standards for such E&P waste? R315-322-3(2)(d) • IWM seeks clarification, does this rule mean some impoundments can accept VSQG waste? Revisions need to clarify the rules regarding when VSQG hazardous waste can be accepted at VII facilities or surface impoundments. R315-322-4(2) • As part of the requirements hereunder, storm water must be allowed to be injected into a DOGM approved injection well. Additionally, the term “appropriate measures” is vague and should conform to some uniform standard. R315-322-5(2)(b) • With respect to the requirements of levees, vertical height is less important than slope and erosion controls which should be required and specified in this section. R315-322-5(3)(c) • The Director’s discretion to omit a leak detection system must be based upon site- specific findings and articulable standards. R315-322-5(5)(b) • Additionally, storm water run-off must be redirected to one or more retainment ponds. /// /// 4 R315-322-5(10) •While this section discusses vertical migration, horizontal migration has been omitted. This section should include a robust discussion of horizontal migration controls and standards. R315-322-5(10)(b)(i) •Due to the barium levels and other contaminants, this should not be permitted, as leaching of toxic metals from land farms can cause contamination of groundwater. Articulable standards, testing and analysis of the site geology and hydrology must be required before a groundwater alternative can be stated to have been met or a waiver issued. https://deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/e- and-p-waste-management R315-322-5(11)(f)(i) •In no case does a clay liner qualify as an “equivalent liner”. R315-322-5(11)(f)(ii) •An equivalent secondary liner should only be permitted based on articulable standards, testing and analysis of the site geology and hydrology, and not simply in the Director’s sheer discretion. In any case, such secondary liner must be proven to at least meet the minimum 40-mil HDPE standards. Sincerely, /s/ Kenneth J. Melrose Kenneth J. Melrose Attorney for Integrated Water Management, LLC