DSHW-2024-008318






August 28, 2024

State of Utah, Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
c/o Brian Speer, Solid Waste Manager
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

RE: Comment on Proposed Rule R315-322

To Whom it May Concern,

Bountiful City owns and operates a Class I solid waste landfill that has been receiving waste since
about 1962. In about 1995, a stormwater retention pond was constructed, apparently as one of
many efforts to meet RCRA Subtitle D requirements. The retention pond has functioned well
since the time of its installation, however the elevation of the pond is too high to receive runoff
from a future phase of the landfill. Recognizing this, the city has identified two potential ways to
collect runoff from this future phase: 1) lower the bottom elevation of the existing pond or 2)
build a secondary pond at a lower elevation. Constructing a secondary pond at a lower elevation
has been identified as the most feasible option.

I first learned about proposed Rule R315-322 at a SWANA training event this spring. My
understanding is that the rule could affect drainage ponds. I have had discussions with Brian
Speer regarding the proposed rule, and how it may impact our plan to construct a secondary
retention pond. I appreciate Mr. Speer’s willingness to answer my questions and provide insight
and consideration for what we are intending.

I have reviewed the proposed Rule R315-322 regarding disposal of waste into surface
impoundments, now open for Public Comment. I want to preface my specific comments about
the proposed rule with a statement that my comments primarily hinge on whether the proposed
rule will apply to a stormwater retention pond at a solid waste landfill.

Comment:
R315-322 should not apply to a typical stormwater retention pond at a solid waste landfill facility.

BOUNTIFUL

KENDALYN HARRIS
MAYOR

CITY COUNCIL
JESSE BELL
KATE BRADSHAW
RICHARD HIGGINSON
MATT MURRI
CECILEE PRICE-HUISH

CITY MANAGER
GARY R. HILL

August 28, 2024
Page 2 of 4

When considering the risk of contaminated runoff from a solid waste facility, the risk is relatively
low, especially in an arid climate. First, the active waste disposal areas at any given time are very
small relative to the overall size of the facility. For example, at Bountiful’s facility the current area
contributing to runoff to the existing pond is 60 acres. Of this, the active landfilling area is
approximately 0.5 acres. This amounts to less than 1% of the contributing area. Second, the
waste is generally relatively dry such that precipitation falling on the waste, even with a long
duration storm, is absorbed and does not run off. Third, the waste in the active area, even if
compacted, has many non-uniform depressions allowing for a significant amount of interception
and small-pocket storage of the precipitation.

Additionally, according to information provided to the Division of Waste Management and
Radiation Control Board, R315-322 is intended to regulate the management of liquid waste.
However, stormwater runoff is not generally liquid waste, although stormwater may carry
impurities. Stormwater from any developed area including residential homes, parks, streets, etc.
is likely to carry impurities. Substances such as vehicle fluid drips on streets, fertilizer particles on
sidewalks, pet waste, litter, etc. can all impact stormwater but does not mean stormwater is liquid
waste. Practices to minimize pollution of stormwater can be effective, even at a solid waste
landfill facility, without the need to handle the runoff as liquid waste. Furthermore, industrial
facilities including solid waste landfills are regulated by the State of Utah for stormwater
discharges. Such facilities are required to prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan,
implement pollution prevention practices, perform stormwater inspections, and monitor
stormwater discharges.

Comment:
The definition of “surface impoundment” as found in R315-301-2 “means a facility or part of a
facility which is a natural topographic depression, human made excavation, or diked area formed
primarily of earthen materials, although it may be lined with synthetic materials, which is
designed to hold an accumulation of liquid waste or waste containing free liquids, and which is
not an injection well. Examples of surface impoundments are holding, storage, settling, and
aeration pits, ponds, and lagoons” (emphasis added). Although a retention pond at a solid waste
landfill could receive runoff that has come in contact with waste, litter, etc., the main purpose of
the retention pond is to manage stormwater runoff, not dispose of liquid or other waste. As
aforementioned, stormwater may carry impurities yet does not necessarily mean that the
stormwater is contaminated or liquid waste.

Comment:
The requirements and conditions set out in the proposed rule R315-322 mirror the requirements
of waste disposal and waste management. These many requirements include the following:
 Location Standards
 Plan of Operation Requirements

August 28, 2024
Page 3 of 4

 Recordkeeping
 Reporting
 Standards of Performance
 Limits on levees
 Control of run-on and run-off
 Groundwater protection (groundwater monitoring and leak detection)
 Minimum Freeboard
 Financial Assurance
These requirements are justifiable when applied to a waste disposal area but very excessive when
applied to a stormwater retention pond.

Comment:
Proposed R315-322-5(3)(b) requires that the vertical height of the levees shall not exceed 25% of
the total vertical depth of the surface impoundment. Also, R315-322(6)(2) requires a minimum of
three feet of freeboard. These requirements may make sense for impoundment of liquid waste
disposal but do not make sense if applied to stormwater retention where the pond would be
designed to hold the capacity of a particular storm scenario but available freeboard would be
dependent on the weather and drainage conditions. Furthermore, the requirements are far too
conservative if applied to stormwater retention.

Comment:
The proposed rule (R315-322-5(8) requires the surface impoundment be designed to control
surface water run-off, then refers to the existing rule about collecting and treating runoff from a
25-year storm. If the rule also applies to stormwater retention ponds, it would be a circular rule
where the retention pond would require itself. This further suggests that the rule was not
intended to address stormwater retention ponds.

Other aspects of the rule that indicate the rule is not intended to apply to stormwater retention:
 A stormwater retention pond would not have an unloading structure (R315-322-5(4)
 A stormwater retention pond would not normally have any reason to prevent run on
(R315-322-5(8) and R315-303-3(c)), but rather would be intended to receive run-on

Comment:
The proposed Rule R315-322-2(3)(a) refers to R315-322-3(3)(b) which I could not find. There
appears to be a mistake in this citation.

Your careful consideration of these comments would be appreciated. Feel free to contact me if I
can be of any assistance in this matter.

August 28, 2024
Page 4 of 4

Sincerely,

Todd Christensen, P.E.
Assistant City Engineer