DSHW-2024-008255

Deq submit <[e-mail]>
Fwd: Public Comments for New Rules R315-321 and R315-322
1 message
JaLynn Knudsen <[e-mail]>Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 4:50 PM
To: Deq submit <[e-mail]>
Solid Waste Public Comment Proposed E&P Rules
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jon Peaden <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 at 4:53:23 PM UTC-6
Subject: Public Comments for New Rules R315-321 and R315-322
To: Mike Vorkink <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Brian Speer
<[e-mail]>
Attached is a memorandum of the comments that GeoStrata has on the proposed rules for R315-321 and R315-322. This
is delivered as part of the public comment on the proposed rules.
--
Best regards,
Jon Peaden
Environmental Regulatory and Compliance Specialist
cid:image001.jpg@01C991DD.D85C0900
14425 Center Point Dr.
Bluffdale, UT 84065
Office: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
https://www.geostrata-llc.com
2 attachments
image001.jpg
3K
MEMO - Comments on R315-321 and R315-322.pdf
212K
9/6/24, 12:25 PM State of Utah Mail - Fwd: Public Comments for New Rules R315-321 and R315-322
https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRRuo6JTPlU8mJix1Az3qAiU-Jb5OCPNar1NwtRtu8mnl5V0/u/0/?ik=adf9d5e615&view=pt&search=all&permthid…1/1

Engineering & Geosciences
14425 S. Center Point Way, Bluffdale, Utah 84065 ~ T: [phone] ~ F: [phone]

MEMORANDUM

To: Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
From: Mike Vorkink P.G., Jon Peaden
Date: September 3, 2024
Subject: Public Comment Response to Proposed Rules for Class VII Facility

GeoStrata has reviewed the draft rules that the Division of Waste Management and Radiation
Control (DWMRC) has proposed for a Class VII Landfills and Surface Impoundments found in
R315-321 and R315-322. It is also understood that a Class VII facility may have a landfill
permitted that will take Exploration and Production(E&P) Waste and R315-321 is specific for the
landfilling requirements. R315-322 is intended for regulation of Surface Impoundments are to be
used for liquid waste such as production water. The following are comments on specific rules that
are within the proposed class of landfill.

Comment 1. Propose Rules for Class VII Landfill require under R315-321-2:

“Each Class VII Facility shall meet the standards for performance as specified in
Section R315-303-2”

Rule R315-303-2 specifies that the owner or operator of a disposal facility shall not
contaminate the groundwater unlaying a facility. The presence of groundwater at
the facility must be investigated as part of the permit process and is required in the
Utah code R315-302-1 (2) (e). An operator’s responsibility to not contaminate
groundwater is primarily done by meeting landfill liner design requirements that
are also provided in Utah code R315-303-3. We are concerned that the personnel
at the DWMRC are suggesting that Class VII landfills may be permitted without
fully investigating the presence of groundwater and suggesting that liners are not
required for a Class VII landfill.

R315-303-3 specifies that all landfills have a liner and meet the design criteria of
using a synthetic primary liner. We understand that current Utah code allows
scenarios where synthetic liners may not be required. Not having a synthetic liner
should be a last resort allowance that is only approved after an extensive evaluation
of subsurface conditions that demonstrates liner equivalence. To approve solid
waste disposal landfills without a synthetic liner puts the operator, the regulator and
Utah’s natural resources at risk, and is bad for industry and the environment.

In addition, it is important to note that the Utah Division of Oil, Gas & Mining
(DOGM) determined in 2013 that solids treated in landfarms should demonstrate
liner equivalence as outlined in R649-9. Not requiring new or expanding landfills
under R315-321 to demonstrate liner equivalence is reverting backward more than
a decade in state environmental standards. The generators of E&P waste have not
changed and E&P waste in a Class VII landfill is intended for permanent disposal
and not remediation.

It is inconsistent to have different liner requirements for surface impoundments and
landfills as they take waste from the same sources, the only difference is the liquid
content. Assuming that the liquid content in a waste in a landfill will be low is a
bad assumption based on our decade of experience working with these types of
landfills.

Comment 2. Proposed rule R315-322-5 (10)(b) says:

“(b) The owner or operator of a new solid waste surface impoundment or lateral
expansion of an existing solid waste surface impoundment shall either:

(i) meet the groundwater alternative or waiver found in Subsection R315-
302-1(2)(e)(vi)7;

(ii) monitor the groundwater beneath the impoundment as specified in Rule
R315-308-2-4; or

(iii) install and maintain leak detection equipment and conduct monitoring
according to Section R315-322-5(12).

Due to the liquid nature of the waste and the potential that liquids will accumulate
in the impoundment it is possible that liquids could be found in the subsurface if
the liners are compromised. If an exemption is approved in part (i) at the time of
permitting and no monitoring is required a leak will not be detected unless a leak
detection system is in place or down gradient wells intercept liquid from the leak.
Having a waiver does not make sense if there is no means to identify a leak in the
future.

At a minimum, this rule should call for a leak detection system of each
impoundment if waiver is granted. We would like to see the DWMRC have a more
aggressive approach to the protection of groundwater and prevent a contamination
plume of impoundment leachate in the event of a compromised liner. It may be
more appropriate to require all impoundments have downgradient monitoring wells
constructed in a way to identify problems with the liner and not allow exemption
of groundwater monitoring.

Comment 3. Proposed rule R315-322-5 (10)(i) and (12) has guidance on the use of a Leak
Detection System. It is in GeoStrata’s experience that leak detection systems are
not a reliable measure of problems with liner systems. Problems with leak detection
systems have often been remedied by construction of monitoring wells
downgradient from the impoundment. We would not recommend that leak
detections system be the only means to identifying problems with the liner or in
place of a groundwater monitoring system.
Ponds and impoundments that have HDPE lining systems that meet industry
construction standards will still have leaks. Other regulatory agencies have used
allowable leakage rates for HDPE liners to help identify problems with liners. Will
the DWMRC have an allowable leakage rate to delineate when corrective actions
will need to be taken?
The rule does not mention that the construction of the collection system for leak
detection system should include an electrically conductive geofabric or similar
material between synthetic liners to allow for a liner integrity survey.

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 together and can have
groundwater water between the liners in areas of shallow groundwater. As a result,
differentiating the source of water in a leak detection system can be difficult. What
guidance can the DWMRC provide for impoundments that have this type of
construction?

Comment 4. In the proposed rule for Standards for Design R315-322-5 (1) it states:

“(1) Surface impoundments shall be designed for 55 acre-feet of water or less,
unless otherwise approved by the director.”

The statement at the end “unless otherwise approved by the director” leaves the rule
to be open for wide interpretation and has potential for unlimited size of a surface
impoundment without the indication of how size of impoundment should be
limited. Phrases of this type through the proposed rules and existing rules should
be carefully evaluated and have limitations if the director will allow for exceptions
to a rule. It is also unclear whether this rule applies to only liquid waste. Further
clarification on the size of an impoundment would be helpful for applicants.

Comment 5. In the proposed rule for Standards of Operation R315-322-6 (4)(a) it states:

“(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.”

In order to make sure that operators and regulators have the same expectation, a
clearer definition should be considered.

Comment 6. In the proposed rule for Standards of Operation R315-322-6 (5) it states:

“(5) Overspray including foam, from sprinklers, wind, or enhanced evaporation
systems, outside of lined areas shall be corrected and cleaned up immediately.”
The Utah Division of Oil Gas and Mining (DOGM) currently limits wind speed
during usage of enhanced evaporations systems. Will there be any wind speed
restrictions for using enhanced evaporation systems?