DSHW-2024-008257

Deq submit <[e-mail]>
Fwd: IWM Comments on Proposed R315-321, Class VII E&P Waste Facility
Requirements
1 message
JaLynn Knudsen <[e-mail]>Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 4:49 PM
To: Deq submit <[e-mail]>
Solid Waste Public Comment Proposed E&P Rules
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Marty Banks <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 at 6:22:36 PM UTC-6
Subject: IWM Comments on Proposed R315-321, Class VII E&P Waste Facility Requirements
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: Walter J. Plumb III ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
<[e-mail]>, Russell Sorensen <[e-mail]>, Daniel Dean <[e-mail]>,
Michael W. Vorkink ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>, Blake Downey (bd@wasatch-
environmental.com) <[e-mail]>
Dear Waste Management and Radiation Control Board & DWMRC: On behalf of
Integrated Water Management, LLC, please accept the attached Comments to
Proposed Rule R315-321, Class VII E&P Waste Facility Requirements, prepared by
the law firm of Parr Brown Gee & Loveless, and well as the associated Reports and
Comments prepared by Langan Engineering, Terracon Consultants, Wasatch
Environmental, and GeoStrata Engineering & Geoscience.

Please confirm your receipt by reply email.

Appreciatively,

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.

9/6/24, 12:27 PM State of Utah Mail - Fwd: IWM Comments on Proposed R315-321, Class VII E&P Waste Facility Requirements
https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRRuo6JTPlU8mJix1Az3qAiU-Jb5OCPNar1NwtRtu8mnl5V0/u/0/?ik=adf9d5e615&view=pt&search=all&permthid…1/6
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
To:
Cc:
Bcc:
Date:
Subject: RE: IWM Pinnacle Fuels Landfill - Solid Waste Rules for Cell Liners

From: Nate Robinson <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2024 9:13 AM
To: Marty Banks <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: IWM Pinnacle Fuels Landfill - Solid Waste Rules for Cell Liners

Sent from my iPhoneBegin forwarded message:From: Brian Speer <[e-mail]>Date: March 27, 2024 at 12:31:28 PM MDTTo: Nate Robinson <[e-mail]>Cc: Ken Melrose <[e-mail]>, Bryan Watt <[e-mail]>, Mike Vorkink <mikev@ge

Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Brian Speer <[e-mail]>
Date: March 27, 2024 at 12:31:28 PM MDT
To: Nate Robinson <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ken Melrose <[e-mail]>, Bryan Watt <[e-mail]>, Mike Vorkink
<[e-mail]>, Russell Sorensen <[e-mail]>, Jalynn Knudsen
<[e-mail]>, Wade Hess <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IWM Pinnacle Fuels Landfill - Solid Waste Rules for Cell Liners
Good afternoon Nate,

No, the Division does not consider email responses to be official (see my email signature for reference).
We are preparing a response to the letter written by Ken Melrose.

Best regards,

Brian Speer
9/6/24, 12:27 PM State of Utah Mail - Fwd: IWM Comments on Proposed R315-321, Class VII E&P Waste Facility Requirements
https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRRuo6JTPlU8mJix1Az3qAiU-Jb5OCPNar1NwtRtu8mnl5V0/u/0/?ik=adf9d5e615&view=pt&search=all&permthid…2/6
Manager | Solid Waste
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
M: [phone]
P: [phone]
wasteandradiation.utah.gov
Emails to and from this email address may be considered public records and thus subject to Utah GRAMA
requirements.
Statements made in this email do not constitute the official position of the Director of the Division of Waste
Management and Radiation Control. If you desire a statement of the Division Director's position,
please submit a written request to the Director, including copies of documents relevant to your request.

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:24 AM Nate Robinson <[e-mail]> wrote:
Brian
Is this the divisions official response to the letter written by Ken Melrose dated October 20th 2023 or is
there an official letter response coming?
Thanks Nate
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 28, 2024, at 10:02 AM, Brian Speer <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hello Nate,
I was working on something that reminded me of this email, and I would like to add some
clarification. Both Bryan Watt and I discussed circumstances in the rules that allow for
various landfill cell liner types. However, we both provided statements that do not
accurately reflect the requirements that E&P landfills have been held to historically, and a
statement I made in response item #2 may be interpreted that the liner requirements of
R315-303-3(3) of the Utah Administrative Code (UAC) will be expected for E&P waste
landfills in the forthcoming draft rules.
However, E&P waste landfills have historically been permitted according to the design
standards of Class IIIb landfills as found in Rule R315-304 of the UAC. The definition of a
Class IIIb landfill (R315-304-3(2)) specifies that this landfill class is allowed to receive solid
9/6/24, 12:27 PM State of Utah Mail - Fwd: IWM Comments on Proposed R315-321, Class VII E&P Waste Facility Requirements
https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRRuo6JTPlU8mJix1Az3qAiU-Jb5OCPNar1NwtRtu8mnl5V0/u/0/?ik=adf9d5e615&view=pt&search=all&permthid…3/6
waste that is exempt from hazardous waste rules under Subsection R315-261-4(b)(5) of
the UAC. The wastes listed in Subsection R315-261-4(b)(5) of the UAC are, "Drilling fluids,
produced waters, and other wastes associated with the exploration, development, or
production of crude oil, natural gas or geothermal energy." Class IIIb landfill design
standards do not require liners, and the rules that have been drafted for E&P waste
landfills, which will soon be shared for stakeholder review, also do not require the liner
standards found in R315-303-3(3) of the UAC to be met.
There are some differences when comparing the first E&P waste landfills permitted in the
Uintah Basin to those that will be permitted in the future. First, the four E&P waste landfill
permits that were issued between 2013 and 2019 from the DWMRC were issued at the
request of the operators, and not because of requirements under the Solid and Hazardous
Waste Act. Second, until at least 2022, most E&P waste landfill operators were having
difficulty following the requirements of their DWMRC permit to exclude free liquids from the
landfill cells. These circumstances may have influenced requirements and comments from
DWMRC staff regarding liners in E&P waste landfill cells. However, in response to field
visits and letters from DWMRC, we are finding that waste operators are using better waste
acceptance practices and solidification processes. The new rules will also require a high
liquids waste management plan to further prevent the acceptance of free liquids into E&P
landfill cells.
I understand that you have been trying to decide whether a liner will be necessary in your
next landfill cell at the Pinnacle Fuels landfill. Hopefully the clarification above will be of
assistance to you.

Best regards,

Brian Speer
Manager | Solid Waste
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
M: [phone]
P: [phone]
wasteandradiation.utah.gov
Emails to and from this email address may be considered public records and thus subject to Utah GRAMA
requirements.
Statements made in this email do not constitute the official position of the Director of the Division of Waste
Management and Radiation Control. If you desire a statement of the Division Director's position,
please submit a written request to the Director, including copies of documents relevant to your request.
9/6/24, 12:27 PM State of Utah Mail - Fwd: IWM Comments on Proposed R315-321, Class VII E&P Waste Facility Requirements
https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRRuo6JTPlU8mJix1Az3qAiU-Jb5OCPNar1NwtRtu8mnl5V0/u/0/?ik=adf9d5e615&view=pt&search=all&permthid…4/6

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:02 AM Brian Speer <[e-mail]> wrote:
Good morning Nate,

It appears that your email addresses some of the matters that we discussed on the
phone yesterday. I will provide some responses to your email, which recounts some of
the things that I mentioned on the phone yesterday.
1. The Division treats every review and approval according to the unique
circumstances associated with the proposal. While the Integrated Water
Management Pinnacle Fuels Landfill (Pinnacle Fuels) may be accepting waste
that is practically identical to the waste that is accepted at the Environmental
Energy Innovations, LLC Cell #7 Waste Pile, these two facilities may not have
identical application, location, design, monitoring, maintenance, and operational
standards. The standards that apply are dependent on many factors which are
found in the rules. In some circumstances, the Director may use discretion to
require more stringent or less stringent variants of the standards when there is
documentation that provides appropriate justification.
2. I am not aware of any circumstance where representatives of the Division stated
that synthetic liners would be required at Pinnacle Fuels, though I suspect that
such statements may have been made for the Integrated Water Management
Landfill. As you shared with us previously, the latter landfill cell has received
significant quantities of waste containing free liquids, often without undergoing
solidification processes equivalent to what is being done at Pinnacle Fuels. As a
result, free liquids can regularly be seen on the surface at the Integrated Water
Management Landfill, as has been documented through our inspections. These
circumstances aside, the liner requirements that Bryan Watt provided, that are
found in R315-303-3(3), were applicable for construction of the existing Pinnacle
Fuels landfill cell and future landfill cells. For the purpose of E&P waste landfills
(with no free liquids) there are four ways to meet the liner requirements found in
subsections (3)(a) through (3)(d) of that section. Rules being drafted at this time
are also expected to require that the location standards relevant to groundwater,
found in R315-302-1(2)(e), be met for new cells.
3. The letter we received from your legal council has not been blown off; it has been
read, it has been considered, and a response has been drafted. The letter is
being addressed in the order that it was received, and I would estimate that the
response will be provided to you within the next month. Your email suggests that
you would like to consider filing a legal complaint. I would recommend that you
have your legal council reach out to the Environment & Health Division of the
Utah Office of the Attorney General for questions on this subject. The office
representing the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control may be
reached at 801-536-0290.

Best regards,

Brian Speer
Manager | Solid Waste
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
9/6/24, 12:27 PM State of Utah Mail - Fwd: IWM Comments on Proposed R315-321, Class VII E&P Waste Facility Requirements
https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRRuo6JTPlU8mJix1Az3qAiU-Jb5OCPNar1NwtRtu8mnl5V0/u/0/?ik=adf9d5e615&view=pt&search=all&permthid…5/6
M: [phone]
P: [phone]
wasteandradiation.utah.gov
...
[Message clipped] View entire message
8 attachments
RE: IWM Pinnacle Fuels Landfill - Solid Waste Rules for Cell Liners.eml
204K
Terracon Limited Site Investigation Report, 5.20.24 (clean) - 1.pdf
6829K
Langan Report, 9.3.24 - 1.pdf
266K
Terracon Consultants Comments on DWMRC Draft EP Rule (clean) - 1.pdf
84K
GeoStrata Engineering Comments on DWMRC EP Rule, 5.3..24 (clean) - 1.pdf
81K
Wasatch Environmental Comments on DWRMC Draft EP Rule, 5.2.24 - 1.pdf
217K
DWMRC Response to Comments, 7.3.24 (clean) - 1.pdf
13741K
IWM Comments to Board on DWMRCs Proposed E&P Rules 4855-6557-5119 v.1.pdf
300K
9/6/24, 12:27 PM State of Utah Mail - Fwd: IWM Comments on Proposed R315-321, Class VII E&P Waste Facility Requirements
https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRRuo6JTPlU8mJix1Az3qAiU-Jb5OCPNar1NwtRtu8mnl5V0/u/0/?ik=adf9d5e615&view=pt&search=all&permthid…6/6
1
STATE OF UTAH
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RADIATION CONTROL
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
DRAFT Exploration and Production Waste Rules Review Package
July 3, 2024
Proposed rules to regulate oil and gas exploration and production waste were recently shared with
stakeholders and other interested parties in a document titled Draft Exploration and Production Waste Rules
Review Package (“Rules Review Package”). Notification of an informal comment period of the Rules
Review Package from March 15, 2024, through May 3, 2024, was communicated by letter and email. A
minor revision to the initial Rules Review Package was released on April 29, 2024, and stakeholders were
notified of the change that included language for temporary permits to assist with the transition from
regulation under Rule R649-9 of the Utah Admin.Code to the requirements of Title R315 of the Utah
Admin. Code.
During the informal comment period, 144 total comments were received from 16 individuals representing 7
different “persons.” See Utah Code § 19-1-103(4). Duplicate comments have been combined in the
response and are arranged alphabetically by subject.
Citations referenced from Rules R315-301 through R315-320 in this response refer to those found in the
Utah Admin. Code on March 15, 2024. Citations referenced in proposed Rules R315-321 and R315-322
refer to those found in the Rules Review Package. If a numbering change was made during revisions to
draft rules, the updated citation is italicized and in brackets.
2
Contents
Definitions, E&P Waste ................................................................................................................................... 3
Depth of Waste ................................................................................................................................................. 3
Director Authority ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Enhanced Evaporation ..................................................................................................................................... 4
EPA Best Practices ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Existing Facility Requirements vs. New and Laterally Expanding Facility Requirements ............................ 5
Financial Assurance ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Groundwater .................................................................................................................................................... 7
Hazardous Waste Determination ...................................................................................................................... 9
Hazardous Waste from a Very Small Quantity Generator ................................................................................ 9
High Liquid Waste ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Hydrocarbon Accumulation on Surface Impoundments ................................................................................ 10
Landfarm Closure .......................................................................................................................................... 10
Landfill Transition from Class IIIb to Class VII ............................................................................................ 11
Liners ............................................................................................................................................................. 11
Location Standards, Existing Facilities .......................................................................................................... 15
Performance Standards .................................................................................................................................. 16
Professional Certifications ............................................................................................................................. 16
Recycle, Reuse, Reclamation ......................................................................................................................... 16
Run-off Control .............................................................................................................................................. 17
Skim Ponds and Open Tanks.......................................................................................................................... 17
Surface Impoundment Design ........................................................................................................................ 17
Training .......................................................................................................................................................... 18
Transfer of Waste Between Facilities ............................................................................................................. 19
Wildlife Protection ......................................................................................................................................... 19
3
Definitions, E&P Waste Landfills Surface
Impoundments Rule Change
1. Comment: One (1) comment stated, “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'...is confusing as written.”
Response: The definition the comment is addressing states, “ 'Exploration and
Production Waste' or 'E&P Waste' means solid wastes that are intrinsically derived
from primary field operations associated with the exploration, development, or
production of crude oil or natural gas, but only to the extent the waste is exempt from
hazardous waste regulation according to Subsection R315-261-4(b)(5).” The purpose
of the phrase, “but only to the extent the waste is exempt from hazardous waste
regulation” is to clarify that the earlier use of “intrinsically derived from primary field
operations” does not include wastes that are not exempt from the hazardous waste
regulations. For example, if a container of unused drill fluid is spilled at a drill site,
the drill fluid waste was not generated as the result of exploration and production of
oil or gas; it may have become waste because of human error or by a failure of
controls, but since it was never used to drill for oil or gas, it is not an E&P waste. The
unused drill fluid spill is not exempt and may be subject to hazardous waste
regulations. See Federal Register Volume 58, Pages 15284 to 15287; and EPA
document 530-K-01-004, Exemption of Oil and Gas Exploration and Production
Wastes from Federal Hazardous Waste Regulations. Although Subsection R315-261-
4(b)(5) provides that the E&P waste is exempt from hazardous waste regulation, E&P
waste may demonstrate characteristics of hazardous waste or contain constituents that
may be regulated as hazardous waste under other circumstances.
Depth of Waste Landfills Surface
Impoundments Rule Change
2. Comment: Three (3) comments inquired about any limitations of waste depth.
Response: While the comments used the term “depth,” the Division of Waste
Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC) interprets the question to ask about
the allowable aboveground height for a landfill. The height of a landfill may be
restricted on a siting basis by requirements of other state agencies, political
subdivisions of the state, federal agencies, or Indian governance. However, the
DWMRC limits landfill height according to required rule standards, as follows:
Subsection R315-302-1(2) provides location standards that may affect the height of a
landfill; Subsection R315-303-3(4) [R315-303-3(5)] provides that the side slope of a
landfill may not exceed 33%, “except where construction integrity and the integrity of
erosion control can be demonstrated at steeper slopes;” and Subsection R315-302-3(5)
requires proof of landfill stability to be released from post-closure care.
Director Authority Landfills Surface
Impoundments Rule Change
3. Comment: Four (4) comments addressed the Director's authority. Generally, the
comments requested specification through articulable standards when the Director
may approve an alternative, exempt or waive a requirement, or when the Director may
require a more stringent standard. Phrases from the rules that led to this comment
include “as determined by the Director,” “unless determined unnecessary by the
4
Director,” and “if the Director determines that the exemption will cause no adverse
impact.”
Response: In each case that allows for Director discretion, a standard is set in the
rules. Administrative rules cannot account for every possible scenario. The
discretionary options provided in the rules allow the Director to consider
circumstances that are unforeseen or for which there is not an explicit definition or
framework, and provides flexibility for the Director to determine how to protect
human health and the environment in any given situation. This might include but is
not limited to proposed alternative waste handling or treatment practices, alternative
designs, technologies, and infrastructure. In cases where the rule allows Director
discretion, an applicant normally provides the justification for the alternative requested
and is responsible to ensure that all required performance standards are achieved. The
justification should be compelling and may require the applicant to conduct trials to
demonstrate the validity of the proposal. The justification should include rationale
that the proposed alternative protects human health and the environment using current
and forecasted environmental conditions, and best available technology. The
Director's staff will conduct a review of the justification and may request additional
information. The Director's staff will make a recommendation to the Director, and any
alternatives that are approved are recorded in the administrative record.
Enhanced Evaporation Landfills Surface
Impoundments Rule Change
4. Comment: Four (4) comments request that DWMRC create rules for preventing
overspray on enhanced evaporation systems. All comments request a wind speed at
which enhanced evaporation may not be used. One comment recommends
establishing setbacks from surface water, roads, and property boundaries.
Response: The DWMRC has revised proposed Subsection R315-322-5(6)(a)
R315-322-5(7)(a)] to say, “Enhanced evaporation systems shall be no closer than 100
feet from a facility’s exterior boundary.” Proposed Subsection R315-322-6(5) has
been revised to include provisions that say:
5) Overspray including foam from sprinklers, wind, or enhanced evaporation
systems, outside of lined areas shall be prevented.
a) Operation of enhanced evaporation systems is prohibited when wind speeds
at the unit are equal to or greater than 15 mph.
i) If overspray outside of the lined area occurs, it shall be corrected and
cleaned up to soil background levels immediately, or as soon as wind speeds
allow.
ii) Sampling and analysis of soils suspected to be contaminated from
overspray may be required by the director.
Additionally, Proposed Subsection R315-322-3(1)(b) has been added to say:
b) For solid waste surface impoundments that use enhanced evaporation
systems, a plan to control overspray, including corrective actions to cleanup
waste shall be included in the plan of operation.
5
EPA Best Practices Landfills Surface
Impoundments Rule Change
5. Comment: Three (3) comments inquire about differences between best practices
identified in a letter from EPA Region 8 dated October 18, 2023, and the proposed
DWMRC rules. Comments were provided on a single bullet point in the letter that
states, “Landfills 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.”
Response: The DWMRC appreciates EPA's letter and acknowledges that the best
practices identified therein are recommended to “help ensure compliance with the
RCRA requirements . . . depending on site-specific conditions.” While these best
practices are commendable, the groundwater monitoring requirements of 40 CFR Part
257 are applicable only to non-municipal non-hazardous wase disposal units that
receive hazardous waste from a very small quantity generator (see 40 CFR
257.5(a)(2)), and coal combustion residuals (CCR) landfills that receive CCR (see 40
CFR 257.90). The DWMRC has incorporated groundwater monitoring requirements
for facilities that receive hazardous waste from very small quantity generators. The
liner requirements of 40 CFR Part 257 are applicable only to CCR landfills that
receive CCR, as defined by 40 C.F.R. 257.53. E&P Waste landfills are authorized to
receive E&P waste, not CCR. Therefore, as further discussed under the response to
comment #28 below, the liner requirements under 40 CFR Part 257 are not applicable
to E&P waste landfills.
Existing Facility Requirements vs. New and Laterally Expanding Facility
Requirements Landfills Surface
Impoundments Rule Change
6. Comment: One (1) comment refers to proposed Subsection R315-321-3(1), which
states, “A new Class VII Facility or the lateral expansion of an existing Class VII
Facility shall be subject to the following location standards...” and asks, “Does new
Class VII refer to newly constructed or for the initial permit?”
Response: The DWMRC is addressing this comment broadly because “new and
laterally expanding” and “existing” requirements are found throughout the rules and
this discussion is important for both landfills and solid waste surface impoundments.
First, a “new” facility is one that is not “existing.” The current definition for
existing” includes all current DWMRC-permitted solid waste disposal facilities and
has been revised to include all solid waste disposal facilities that had a Division of Oil,
Gas, and Mining (DOGM) permit as of October 1, 2023. Second, wherever “lateral
expansion” of an existing facility is used, the requirement applies to the expansion of a
facility beyond the property boundaries outlined in the permit application for the
current permit under which the facility is operating. See Subsection R315-301-2(22)
R315-301-2(23)]. Unless otherwise specified in the rules, the horizontal expansion or
construction of a cell, module, or unit within the boundaries outlined in the permit
application of the current permit is considered “existing.” See Subsection R315-301-
2(40) [R315-301-2(43)].
6
Financial Assurance Landfills Surface
Impoundments Rule Change
7. Comment: One (1) comment requested financial assurance to be calculated based
on the amount of material received by a facility.
Response: Rule R315-309 details how financial assurance is to be calculated and
can be summarized as being equal to the full cost of closure and post-closure care of a
facility, based on third party supply of all materials and performance of all activities.
The amount of waste received by a facility does not directly correlate to the cost to
perform closure of the facility or to any required post-closure care.
8. Comment: One (1) comment requested that the transition of bonding from
DWMRC to DOGM not force a double bonding scenario.
Response: The DWMRC will allow operators to apply for and obtain a temporary
permit as described under proposed Subsection R315-321-4(8) or proposed Subsection
R315-322-3(2)(a). In calculating the appropriate financial assurance amount for the
temporary permit, the Director may (but is not required to) rely on bond calculations
performed by DOGM. Neither agency expects this transfer to result in double
bonding. During the time that the temporary permit is in effect, an owner and operator
will calculate the amount of financial assurance required by DWMRC under Rule
R315-309 for a third party to supply all materials and perform all required closure and
post-closure activities. Any increases in the estimated costs for closure and post-
closure care greater than the existing bond amount must be accounted for and funded
by the financial assurance mechanism before a 10-year permit is issued from
DWMRC. Any decreases in the estimated costs will be released to the owner or
operator. The DWMRC will release a temporary permit application and instructions
soon.
9. Comment: Two (2) comments were received about fairness in applying financial
assurance requirements.
Response: The financial assurance requirements found in Rule R315-309 require
the same coverage for all facilities.
10. Comment: One (1) comment asked what form of financial assurance will be
allowed, and whether certificates of deposit are allowed.
Response: Rule R315-309 details the financial assurance instruments that are
allowed. A certificate of deposit is not currently allowed per Solid Waste Permitting
and Management Rules, but it is being considered.
11. Comment: One (1) comment inquired about the exemptions found in proposed
Subsections R315-321-4(6)(b) and R315-322-7(1)(a) from the financial assurance
requirements of Rule R315-309 when a federal or other state agency has financial
assurance requirements that are at least as stringent as Rule R315-309.
Response: The purpose of financial assurance is to ensure that DWMRC has funds
available to perform any required closure, post-closure care, and any known corrective
actions for a facility. Proposed Subsections R315-321-4(6)(b) and R315-322-7(1)(a)
allow DWMRC to exempt an owner and operator from additional financial assurance
obligations if a federal or other state agency holds funds for the same purpose and in
7
the amounts required by Rule R315-309. DWMRC does not guarantee an exemption
and such an exemption may be dependent on DWMRC's ability to ensure that another
agency holding funds will adequately perform the required activities or transfer the
funds to DWMRC to ensure that the activities are completed.
12. Comment: Two (2) comments inquired about the release of financial assurance
upon closure of landfill cells and one of the comments requested confirmation on the
ability to close a landfill cell by cell.
Response: Subsection R315-309-2(3)(a) states that the amount of financial
assurance required for closure is based on the “most expensive cost to close the largest
area of the disposal facility ever requiring final cover at any time during the active
life...” Therefore, the closure of a landfill cell may result in a reduction of overall
closure costs. When the Director has approved the closure of a portion or all of a
facility, and the closure results in a reduction of closure and post-closure costs, an
owner or operator may request the release of the respective funds. Additionally,
Subsection R315-309-2(2) requires that the owner or operator submit an annual update
of its financial assurance cost estimate “to adjust for inflation or facility modification
that would affect closure or post-closure care costs” and Subsection R315-311-1(4)(b)
requires a full calculation of market costs every five years. Each of these updates
provides an opportunity to reduce the amount of funding when appropriate.
Groundwater Landfills Surface
Impoundments Rule Change
13. Comment: Two (2) comments requested quantitative standards for what qualifies
as an “extreme depth to groundwater” and a “natural impermeable barrier” as found in
the location standard of Subsection R315-302-1(2)(e)(vi)(A).
Response: The term “extreme depth to groundwater” is undefined because an
owner or operator must make such a demonstration using technical analysis unique to
the facility. The Director has discretion to make a determination of an “extreme depth
to groundwater” based on evaluation of the technical analysis provided by the owner
or operator and other site-specific characteristics. For reference, Subsections R315-
302-1(2)(e) and R315-308-1(3) provide further detail and should be considered when
demonstrating that a location has an “extreme depth to groundwater.”
Regarding a “natural impermeable barrier,” Subsection R315-301-2(54) defines
permeability, and states that “Soils and synthetic liners with a permeability for water
of 1 x 10-7 cm/sec or less may be considered impermeable.” This standard does not
conclude that a “natural impermeable barrier” above groundwater is present but may
be considered when as part of the necessary technical analysis.
14. Comment: Two (2) comments requested either an exemption from groundwater
monitoring at Class VII Landfills or more direction concerning groundwater
monitoring at Class VII Landfills.
Response: Owners and operators of Class VII Landfills will not be required to
monitor groundwater at their facility unless they receive hazardous waste from a very
small quantity generator. See proposed Subsection R315-321-4(4)(a) [R315-321-
4(3)(a)]. If they do accept this waste, they must monitor the groundwater according to
8
Rule R315-308 or receive approval for a groundwater alternative or waiver according
to Subsection R315-302-1(2)(e)(vi).
15. Comment: Two (2) comments request that a groundwater monitoring waiver option
be excluded from the rules for solid waste surface impoundments, and one of the
commenters suggests that no evaluation of horizontal contaminant migration is
included in proposed Subsection R315-322-5(10)(b) [R315-322-5(11)(b)].
Response: Regarding groundwater monitoring alternatives and waivers, Subsection
R315-302-1(2)(e)(vi) provides the Director the authority to “approve, on a site specific
basis, an alternative groundwater monitoring system at the facility or…wave the
groundwater monitoring requirement.”
Under the alternative monitoring option, an owner or operator may propose the
alternative monitoring system. This allows the Director to consider an alternative
groundwater monitoring system that has sampling capability, and a sampling regime
or a detection trigger as part of the monitoring system. Under the waiver option, the
Director may grant a groundwater monitoring waiver if the owner or operator
demonstrates, according to Subsection R315-308-1(3), that there is no potential for
groundwater contamination during the active life and post-closure care period of the
facility. This demonstration requires significant knowledge of the waste
characteristics, degradation processes, and modeling of contaminant fate and transport.
Importantly, neither a groundwater monitoring alternative, nor a groundwater
monitoring waiver, relieve an owner or operator from the responsibility to take
corrective action if groundwater is contaminated.
Regarding horizontal contaminant migration, all groundwater protection options
outlined in proposed Subsection R315-322-5(10)(b) [R315-322-5(11)(b)] include
monitoring of horizontal groundwater movement.
16. Comment: Two (2) comments requested that all surface impoundments be required
to both monitor groundwater and have a leak detection system.
Response: If a facility monitors groundwater according to Rule R315-308, when
contamination is detected for an extended period, the facility must enter the corrective
action program detailed in Section R315-308-3. This requires the facility to remedy
the contamination. Similarly, for facilities performing leak detection outlined in
proposed Subsection R315-322-5(12) [R315-322-5(13)] , any leak detection will
require repair. The DWMRC maintains that one or the other is sufficient for
environmental protection.
17. Comment: One (1) comment expressed concern that 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.”
Response: The dual liner requirements drafted for surface impoundments are based
on best available technologies and include the use of leak detection risers and leak
detection surveys. Upon discovery of a leak, a liner integrity survey may assist an
owner or operator find and repair leaks quickly, and the installation of an electrically
conductive geofabric between liners may be useful. This construction option is
9
available to owners or operators, but the DWMRC does not intend to prescribe this in
the rules.
Hazardous Waste Determination Landfills Surface
Impoundments Rule Change
18. Comment: One (1) comment referenced the definition of E&P waste in Subsection
R315-301-2(25), and stated, “The Department needs to provide quantifiable criteria
for how hazardous waste will be classified, including the provision of specific analytic
testing standards.”
Response: Hazardous waste is identified according to Rule R315-261, “General
Requirements -- Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste.” The process that a
generator of a solid waste must follow to determine whether waste is hazardous is
found in Section R315-262-11, “General -- Hazardous Waste Determination and
Recordkeeping.” The requirements for an owner of a treatment, storage or disposal
facility to obtain a detailed chemical and physical analysis of a representative sample
of the hazardous waste is found in Section R315-264-13, “General Waste Analysis.”
Hazardous Waste from a Very Small Quantity Generator Landfills Surface
Impoundments Rule Change
19. Comment: Three (3) comments expressed concern over acceptance and
management of hazardous waste from a very small quantity generator. The comments
requested that facilities track hazardous waste acceptance or demonstrate that
hazardous waste is not accepted.
Response: The federal requirements for non-municipal solid waste facilities that
accept hazardous waste from a very small quantity generator have been incorporated
into the proposed rules. Namely, exemptions to wetland and floodplain location
standards must meet certain requirements, and groundwater monitoring may not be
exempted at such a facility without meeting certain standards. See proposed
Subsection R315-321-4(4)(a) [R315-321-4(3)(a)] ; and proposed Subsection R315-
322-2(5)(b). Whether a solid waste facility is to accept hazardous waste from a very
small quantity generator is a business decision left to owners and operators.
Section R315-262-11 requires a generator of solid waste to determine whether
waste is hazardous and to maintain records of each hazardous waste determination.
The DWMRC recommends that the owner and operator of a solid waste facility
request the record of the waste determination and maintain it in the facility's daily
operating record. The daily operating is required to contain, among other information,
the weights, in tons, or volumes, in cubic yards, of solid waste received each day,
number of vehicles entering, and if available, the type of wastes received each day.”
Subsection R315-302-2(3)(a)(i). The daily operating would be an ideal place to
maintain hazardous waste determinations as waste is received at the facility.
High Liquid Waste Landfills Surface
Impoundments Rule Change
20. Comment: Two (2) comments expressed concern over the management of high
liquid wastes, specifically requesting guidance for high liquid waste off-loading and
stabilization areas outside of the landfill cell and protections for liners and operation
areas inside of the landfill cell.
10
Response: Solid waste surface impoundments may accept high liquid waste. Class
VII landfills may not accept high liquid waste without implementing appropriate
measures in an approved high liquid waste management plan as required by
Subsection R315-303-3(1.1) [R315-303-3(2)]. The plan must detail waste acceptance,
dewatering unit designs and techniques, other stabilization techniques, and a
communication plan to inform customers of high liquid waste acceptance criteria.
Additionally, as required by Subsection R315-303-3(1.1)(b) [R315-303-3(2)(b)] , all
unloading areas and structures, staging areas, and areas used for dewatering,
stabilization, or other treatment, which may be located in a landfill cell, must have a
permeability of no more than 1 x 10-7 cm/sec and be capable of maintaining integrity
under the operation of heavy equipment. The permeability of the areas must be
demonstrated by testing or other certification.
Hydrocarbon Accumulation on Surface Impoundments Landfills Surface
Impoundments Rule Change
21. Comment: Six (6) comments addressed proposed Subsection R315-322-6(4)(a),
which 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.” Commenters requested a
clearer definition.
Response: Any amount of hydrocarbons on a surface impoundment increases risk
to birds and other wildlife, and increases emissions of volatile organic compounds.
Although it would be difficult to operate in such a way that hydrocarbons are never
observed, a prescriptive regulatory standard would require owners or operators to
frequently measure hydrocarbons on surface impoundments, possibly multiple times
each day. The use of the term “de minimis” meaning lacking significance, trifling,
minimal, or of little importance, is preferred over a specified, measurable amount. For
illustration purposes, a minimal sheen on a surface impoundment may be de minimis,
but a sheen that covers the whole surface impoundment may not be considered de
minimis.
Landfarm Closure Landfills Surface
Impoundments Rule Change
22. Comment: Four (4) comments asked whether soil testing of waste in a landfarm is
necessary for closure, if testing of the soil used for a closure cap is necessary, and if
post-closure monitoring is required.
Response: Landfarm owners and operators that seek closure under DWMRC
requirements at the time of regulatory transition may apply for a closure and post-
closure permit, or they may apply for risk-based closure.
For owners and operators choosing a closure and post-closure care permit for any
portion of an existing facility, a closure plan must be submitted that meets the
requirements of proposed Subsection R315-321-4(2) [R315-321-4(5)] , and an
application for a post-closure permit must be submitted according to Section R315-
310-10.
Under the requirements of a closure and post-closure permit, no testing of waste to
be covered is required. However, the soil used for final cover must be uncontaminated
soil that never had waste applied to it. The application for a closure and post-closure
11
care permit will require a post-closure care monitoring plan to meet the applicable
requirements of Subsections R315-302-3(5) and R315-302-3(6).
Risk-based closure will only apply to facilities that have selected this option at the
time of transition from regulation under Rule R649-9 to regulation under Title R315.
For risk-based closure, all standards are found in Rule R315-101, Cleanup Action and
Risk-Based Closure Standards.
23. Comment: One (1) comment requested that “Existing landfarms with a closure plan
approved by DOGM should be allowed to complete closure with DOGM after the
WMRC rule change is in effect.”
Response: As part of the November 17, 2021 Stakeholder Meeting, a DOGM -
DWMRC E&P Waste Outline stated that landfarms would no longer be permitted, and
that landfarm operators would have three options that include two closure scenarios
and one conversion to landfill option. The option for closure under DOGM program
requirements expressly states that it must be completed prior to the regulatory
transition date.
Landfill Transition from Class IIIb to Class VII Landfills Surface
Impoundments Rule Change
24. Comment: Two (2) comments asked about whether existing E&P landfills
permitted by DWMRC will need new permits.
Response: E&P waste landfills with existing DWMRC permits that do not have a
need to add additional waste management units to the existing permit and are not
expanding the facility footprint, are not required to apply for a new permit as part of
the regulatory shift. E&P waste landfill owners and operators with existing DWMRC
permits will be required to get a Class VII landfill permit at the next scheduled
renewal for each existing permit. For all circumstances that include transitioning a
waste management unit permitted by DOGM to DWMRC’s jurisdiction, owners and
operators will need to apply for and get a temporary permit for waste management
units not permitted by DWMRC before the regulatory shift, followed by a Class VII
Permit before the expiration of the temporary permit.
25. Comment: Two (2) comments asked about permit requirements when converting a
DOGM-permitted pond to a DWMRC-permitted landfill or surface impoundment.
Response: All conversions of DOGM-permitted facilities to DWMRC-permitted
facilities require an application that meets DWMRC requirements. This includes any
E&P solid waste management unit that has not received closure approval or completed
post-closure care requirements if applicable. To facilitate the regulatory transition, an
owner and operator must acquire a temporary permit or a Class VII permit before the
regulatory shift. If a Temporary permit is sought, a Class VII Permit must be acquired
before the expiration of the temporary permit. Detailed instructions for the temporary
permit application will be provided soon.
Liners Landfills Surface
Impoundments Rule Change
26. Comment: Three (3) comments identify that there are existing surface
impoundments that do not have the dual synthetic liner system found in proposed
12
Subsection R315-322-5(11)(f) [R315-322-5(12)(f)] and would like more direction on
how these facilities will be managed.
Response: The dual synthetic liner system described in proposed Subsection R315-
322-5(11)(f) [R315-322-5(12)(f)] applies to “Solid waste surface impoundments
following the leak detection monitoring requirements of proposed Subsection R315-
322-5(10)(b)(iii),” [R315-322-5(11)(b)(iii)] and the referenced subsection is only
applicable to new facilities. For existing surface impoundments, the applicable
requirements for leak detection and groundwater monitoring are found in Subsections
proposed Subsections R315-322-5(10)(c) [R315-322-5(11)(c)] and R315-322-5(10)(d)
R315-322-5(11)(d)] , and the existing surface impoundment requirements for
synthetic liners are found in proposed Subsections R315-322-5(11)(a) [R315-322-
5(12)(a)] through R315-322-5(11)(d) [R315-322-5(12)(d)]. These provisions are not
expected to result in design changes to an existing facility.
27. Comment: Three (3) comments requested clarity on whether landfarms may
operate without liners, and asked where the rules specify when a liner is or is not
required for a landfill.
Response: Upon the repeal of the current Rule R649-9, administrative rules
allowing landfarming will cease to exist. Landfarms that are not closed prior to the
transition from DOGM regulation to DWMRC regulation will be required to either
apply for a closure and post-closure permit with DWMRC or operate under the landfill
requirements as proposed in Rules R315-301 through R315-322.
While Class VII landfill cells do not require liners, Rule R315-303 provides liner
requirements for other facilities under the “Landfilling Standards.” DMWRC is
proposing to clarify the applicability of Rule R315-303 to Class VII landfills by
adjusting Section R315-303-1 to say, “The standards of Rule R315-303 apply to: (4)
Class VII Landfills as specified in Rule proposed R315-321.” Accordingly, only the
requirements of Rule R315-303 specified within proposed Rule R315-321 are
applicable to Class VII landfills. Proposed Rule R315-321 does not reference the liner
standards in Subsection R315-303-3(3) [R315-303-3(4)] , and therefore liners are not
required for Class VII landfill cells.
28. Comment: Three (3) comments request that DWMRC require Class VII landfills to
have a liner.
Response: DWMRC maintains that, unless otherwise determined by the Director,
liners are not required for new or expanding Class VII E&P waste landfill cells under
proposed Rule R315-321. The relevant regulations are outlined below.
Liners are not required for new or expanding E&P waste landfill cells under federal
law. Federal law requires liners for two types of landfills—Coal Combustion
Residuals landfills (“CCR landfills”) and municipal solid waste landfills (“MSWLF”).
The federal CCR landfill requirements are codified under 40 C.F.R. 257. Under 40
C.F.R. 257.70(a)(1), a new or expanding CCR landfill “must be designed,
constructed, operated, and maintained with either a composite liner [. . .] or an
alternative composite liner.” A CCR landfill is a landfill that receives CCR. 40
C.F.R. 257.53. Importantly, CCR is defined as “fly ash, bottom ash, boiler, slag, and
flue gas desulfurization materials generated from burning coal for the purpose of
13
generating electricity by electric utilities and independent power producers.” 40
C.F.R. 257.53. E&P waste is not CCR, and the liner requirements under 40 C.F.R.
257 are inapplicable to E&P waste landfills.
The federal MSWLF unit requirements are codified under 40 C.F.R. 258. Under
40 C.F.R. 258.40(a)(1), new or expanding MSWLF units “shall be constructed with a
composite liner.” A MSWLF unit is “a discrete area of land or an excavation that
receives household waste, and that is not a land application unit, surface
impoundment, injection well, or waste pile.” 40 C.F.R. 258.2. Household waste is
any solid waste (including garbage, trash, and sanitary septic tanks) derived from
households.” 40 C.F.R. 258.2. E&P waste is not household waste, and the liner
requirements under 40 C.F.R. 258 are inapplicable to E&P waste landfills.
High liquid waste is prohibited from being disposed of in any Class VII landfill cell
and must be managed appropriately. See Subsection R315-303-3(1.1) [R315-303-
3(2)] ; and proposed Subsection R315-321-4(3)(c) [R315-321-4(2)(c)]. High liquid
waste is “nonhazardous solid waste that is liquid in its natural state, contains free
liquids, or is expected to liquefy or vaporize under the circumstances that is managed
or disposed.” See Subsection R315-301-2(27) [R315-301-2(29)]. However, the
prohibition against disposing of high liquid waste is but one control to protect
groundwater. The proposed rules include other controls to protect groundwater,
including run-on and run-off controls, final cover, and post-closure monitoring. See
Proposed Subsections R315-321-4(3)(a), (d), (e); and R315-321-4(2) [R315-321-
4(2)(a), (d), (e); and proposed R315-321-4(5)]. The provisions in the draft rule are
protective of groundwater and ensure the long-term stability of Class VII landfill cells.
Most Class VII landfill cells are located (or expected to be located) in arid areas of
the state where groundwater resources are not prevalent, groundwater tables are deep,
and natural silts and clays provide varying degrees of inherent protection. However,
as discussed below, the Director has full discretion to require a liner. The current
regulatory structure is preferable to a structure where liners are always required but
provides operators the right to seek exemptions and variances from the liner
requirement due to site-specific conditions.
Unlike Class VII landfills, liners are required for new or expanding solid waste
surface impoundments under proposed Rule R315-322. The waste disposed of in an
E&P waste landfill is fundamentally distinct from the waste disposed of in a surface
impoundment. Solid waste surface impoundments may accept high liquid waste,
leachate, or sludge and need only comply with the high liquid waste management
requirements under Subsection R315-303-3(1.1) [R315-303-3(2)] if a dewatering or
other stabilization technique is used in association with the solid waste surface
impoundment. See proposed Subsection R315-301-2(71) [R315-301-2(73)]; and
proposed Subsection R315-322-5(4) [R315-322-5(5)]. The distinction in liner
requirements for E&P waste landfills and solid waste surface impoundments addresses
the type of waste accepted in the respective facilities and the associated risks.
Additionally, the Director of DWMRC is the statutory “Director” under the Water
Quality Act, Utah Code § 19-5-101 et seq., and the rules promulgated thereunder for
groundwater protection at any facility licensed by and under the jurisdiction of
DWMRC. Utah Code § 19-5-102(6). Pursuant to this statutory directive, the Director
has the authority and regulatory tools necessary to protect groundwater through
permitting, enforcement, and corrective actions. The Director’s authority includes the
14
duty and ability to require liners, monitoring, and other measures necessary to protect
groundwater resources at E&P facilities through rules outside of the proposed solid
waste rules. See Utah Admin. Code R317-6 et seq. In short, the substance of the
groundwater protection program under the Water Quality Act applies to Class VII
landfills and solid waste surface impoundments, as implemented by the DWMRC
Director.
Under the DWMRC Board’s rulemaking authority, no rule may be enacted that is
more stringent than federal law unless the Board makes specific findings that federal
law is not adequate to protect human health and the environment. Utah Code § 19-6-
106(1), (2). Because the Director may require liners and other appropriate controls to
protect groundwater at sites where conditions warrant such protections, there is no
reason for the E&P waste rules to be more stringent than federal law.
Accordingly, DWMRC’s design standards for E&P waste landfills align with
federal law, the Director’s statutory authority under the Water Quality Act, and the
distinct nature of waste accepted by such facilities.
29. Comment: One (1) comment raises concerns about the use of anything but
synthetic liners for surface impoundment cell design, including concerns about the
allowance of equivalent designs or alternative designs specified in Subsection R315-
303-3(3) [R315-303-3(4)]. Additionally, the comment states that potassium chloride-
based drill muds may increase the permeability of clay, thus presenting liner integrity
risks when clay is selected as a secondary liner.
Response: The proposed rules require synthetic liners for solid waste surface
impoundments under proposed Subsection R315-322-5(11) [R315-322-5(12)]. While
some owners and operators may use dual synthetic liner systems with leak detection,
others may choose the liner systems detailed in Subsection R315-303-3(3) [R315-303-
3(4)] when groundwater monitoring wells are installed that allow for detection, regular
sampling, and correction of any groundwater contamination.
Subsection R315-303-3(3) [R315-303-3(4)] provides three liner design options,
including standard design, equivalent design, or alternative design. The standard
design found in Subsection R315-303-3(3)(a) [R315-303-3(4)(a)] requires a composite
liner system and a leachate collection system. The equivalent design found in
Subsection R315-303-3(3)(b) [R315-303-3(4)(b)] requires the owner and operator to
demonstrate that the equivalent design will be as protective as the standard design,
including evaluation of the volume and physical and chemical characteristics of the
leachate generated by the waste accepted at the facility. The alternative design found
in R315-303-3(3)(c) [R315-303-3(4)(c)] similarly requires demonstrations, including
predictions of contaminate fate and transport and leachate flows. The DWMRC
maintains that the liner requirements of Subsection R315-303-3(3) [R315-303-3(4)], as
applied to solid waste surface impoundments under proposed Section R315-322-5, are
protective of human health and the environment.
The commentor's statement about potassium chloride-based drill muds increasing
the permeability of clay liners is unclear since drill muds are not an acceptable waste
for solid waste surface impoundments. However, the DWMRC was interested to learn
about any risks introduced by accepting potassium chloride-based drill mud into clay-
lined landfill cells. The scholarly articles that DWMRC reviewed discuss how
potassium chloride is used in clay soils for stabilization purposes, including a
15
reduction of plasticity, lending to reduced permeability, swelling, and greater
compactability of the clay soil. Potassium chloride is used for oil and gas drilling and
production purposes to reduce clay blocking, which is the swelling of clays that can
make well drilling more difficult, and during production, can reduce performance of a
well. Research shows that potassium chloride alters the characteristics of clay soils
because of cation exchange. The positive charge of potassium chloride is attracted to
the negative charge in clay, and at an optimum concentration of potassium chloride
between 6% and 8%, clays become more stable than without the additive. The articles
seem to indicate that clean water may reverse some of the stability provided by the
potassium chloride, and that elevated concentrations of potassium chloride above 15%
may not be beneficial. Given that potassium chloride is added to drilling fluids to
reduce clay blocking, the DWMRC believes that potassium chloride-based drill mud
will not have a negative effect on clay-lined landfill cells. A few of the articles
DMWRC reviewed include:
Abrams, Megan E., et. al, 2016, Everything You Wanted to Know About Clay
Damage but Were Afraid to Ask, American Association of Drilling Engineers,
accessed June 24, 2024, at:
https://www.aade.org/application/files/7815/7131/8490/AADE-16-FTCE-35_-
Abrams.pdf
Jones, Frank O., Jr, 1964. Influence of Chemical Composition of Water on Clay
Blocking of Permeability. Pan American Petroleum Corp. Accessed June 24, 2024,
at: https://onepetro.org/JPT/article/16/04/441/160716/Influence-of-Chemical-
Composition-of-Water-on-Clay
Shukla, Rajesh Prasad, et. al, 2018. Stabilization of Expansive Soil Using
Potassium Chloride. The Civil Engineering Journal 1-2018. Accessed June 24, 2024,
at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324626030_Stabilization_of_expansive_soil
using_potassium_chloride
Location Standards, Existing Facilities Landfills Surface
Impoundments Rule Change
30. Comment: One (1) comment stated that an existing facility should be exempt from
location standards and that a rule should be added stating this exemption.
Response: Proposed Rule R315-321 for Class VII landfills, and proposed Rule
R315-322 for solid waste surface impoundments effectively grandfather most of the
location standards for existing facilities. However, existing facilities cannot be
exempted from the ecologically and scientifically significant natural area requirements
of Subsection R315-302-1(2)(a)(ii) or the floodplain standards of Subsection R315-
302-1(2)(c)(ii), because these correspond with mandatory federal requirements and
Utah's requirements cannot be less stringent than the federal requirements. In
addition, the draft rules require an existing facility to maintain any standards already in
place at an existing facility that provide increased protection of human health and the
environment, unless otherwise determined by the director.
16
Performance Standards Landfills Surface
Impoundments Rule Change
31. Comment: Two (2) comments asked about how to meet requirements to ensure that
groundwater, air quality and explosive gas, and surface water standards are not
exceeded as required by proposed Sections R315-321-2 and R315-322-4(1).
Response: Both of the above citations direct the reader to Section R315-303-2
where performance standards are found for all regulated solid waste facilities.
Performance standards broadly describe protections that the owner and operator of a
regulated operation must provide, and intentionally do not provide methods to achieve
the standards. Performance standards may be achieved through a combination of
location standards, design standards, and operation standards, for which minimum
requirements are provided in the regulations. Additionally, an owner and operator
may exceed the minimum standards and to occasionally evaluate the conditions of the
facility's performance to prevent contamination that may lead to expensive
remediation. When performance standards are not met, an owner and operator may be
required to conduct an environmental assessment and take corrective actions to
remediate any contamination in accordance with Subsection R315-301-6(2), which
says, “Any contamination of the ground water, surface water, air, or soil that results
from the management of solid waste which presents a threat to human health or the
environment shall be remediated through appropriate corrective action.”
Professional Certifications Landfills Surface
Impoundments Rule Change
32. Comment: One (1) comment suggests that all geological and hydrogeological data
in a permit application be certified and collected under the direction of a professional
geologist. The comment also suggests that every Class VII Facility should be required
to provide the stamped engineering plans and reports detailed in Subsection R315-
310-4(2)(c).
Response: When geological or hydrogeological data are required, it is in the form
of a geohydrological assessment as detailed in R314-310-4(2)(b). By nature of the
strict requirements of a geohydrological assessment, a professional geologist would be
involved with the collection of the data. Furthermore, engineered facility plans,
designs, and drawings are required for specific facility types. The extensive plans and
reports outlined in Subsection R315-310-4(2)(c) are not reflective of the
environmental risks posed by E&P waste managed in Class VII landfills.
Recycle, Reuse, Reclamation Landfills Surface
Impoundments Rule Change
33. Comment: Three (3) comments inquired whether waste may be removed from a
Class VII landfill, what cleanup standards would apply, and where an oil cleaning
facility is found in the rules. One of the commenters also asked, “Can solid
precipitates and other solids that accumulate in the surface impoundments be removed
and placed in a landfill?”
Response: The DWMRC does not have a full understanding of what the
commenters mean by asking if waste can be removed from a Class VII landfill; or
what the question about associated cleanup means; or what is meant by an oil cleaning
facility. However, precipitates and other solids that accumulate in a Class VII solid
waste surface impoundment may be placed in a Class VII landfill cell, provided that
17
such precipitates and other solids are an acceptable waste and managed appropriately
under proposed Rule R315-321.
34. Comment: One (1) comment inquired whether soils from a landfarm closed under
DOGM requirements may be used as mixing soil to meet the requirements of a high
liquids waste plan.
Response: Yes, the DWMRC will consider soils from a landfarm closed under
DOGM authority as acceptable mixing soil for the purpose of managing high liquid
waste.
Run-off Control Landfills Surface
Impoundments Rule Change
35. Comment: One (1) comment stated that the inclusion of another line to proposed
Subsection R315-322-5(5) [R315-322-5(6)] should state that “storm water run-off
must be redirected to one or more retainment ponds.”
Response: The addition of a Subsection R315-322-5(5)(b) to address stormwater
run-off being directed to one or more containment ponds is accounted for in
Subsection R315-303-3(1)(d) in its requirement to design the landfill to treat run-off of
surface waters and other liquids. Design drawings of run-on/run-off control systems
are also required per Subsection R315-303-3(6)(a) [R315-303-3(7)(a)]. Although the
rules don't specify “containment ponds,” this is a common way to manage large storm
events and resulting surface water.
Skim Ponds and Open Tanks Landfills Surface
Impoundments Rule Change
36. Comment: Three (3) comments requested guidance concerning skim ponds and
open tanks, specifically requesting information about hydrocarbon accumulation and
skim pond applicability with new rules.
Response: The solid waste surface impoundment rule applies to any part of a solid
waste facility that is a natural topographic depression, human-made excavation, or a
diked area designed to hold nonhazardous high liquid waste, leachate, or sludge, to
dispose of, reduce the volume of, or otherwise separate or treat the waste. Skim ponds
qualify as solid waste surface impoundments, and proposed Rule R315-322 will apply.
If surface impoundments are used for oil separation, the de minimis hydrocarbon
accumulation standard applies. See the response to question #21 for more information
on de minimis hydrocarbon accumulation.
Surface Impoundment Design Landfills Surface
Impoundments Rule Change
37. Comment: Four comments (4) requested maximum allowable leakage rates to be
set for surface impoundments and stated that liquid in the leak detection riser could
result from shallow groundwater when the dual liners are not sealed together and that
the presence of liquid should not be assumed to be a reportable leak or one that
requires repair.”
Response: The DWMRC will treat all liquid found in a leak detection system as a
leak until evidence suggests otherwise. The operator will be responsible for providing
evidence that the water is not a leak that requires repair. Maximum allowable leakage
rates are a technical issue that should be addressed on a site-specific basis.
18
38. Comment: One (1) comment mentioned that some facilities do not have leak
detection risers that are a minimum of 18 inches in diameter as required by proposed
Subsection R315-322- 5(12)(c)(i).
Response: The language of proposed Subsection R315-322-5(12)(c)(i) [R315-322-
5(13)(c)(i)] has been changed in response to this comment, and is now proposed to
say:
i) to be large enough in diameter to allow for visual observation and sampling
of any fluid, at least 18 inches in diameter and extend to two feet below the
inlet line from the pond the lowest elevation of the lower secondary liner of the
solid waste surface impoundment, allowing visual detection of any fluid and
sampling of fluid;”
39. Comment: Three (3) comments requested further clarification on the director's
discretion about the allowable size of a surface impoundment as found in proposed
Subsection R315-322-5(1) [R315-322-5(2)] and specifically requested that a
maximum surface area be included in the rules.
Response: Please see the response to comment #3 regarding the director's
discretion authority. As to the maximum allowable surface area as a standard, it was
determined that a volumetric size only is sufficient.
40. Comment: One (1) comment suggested that slope and erosion controls be included
in surface pond engineering.
Response: The current rule includes a slope requirement that, when followed, is
also an erosion control measure.
41. Comment: Two (2) comments requested that freeboard in surface impoundments
remain at two feet rather than three feet.
Response: Large surface impoundments are prone to wave action that can impact
embankments, detach soil particles, and spill waste outside of the surface
impoundment. Based on the potential circumstances, three feet of freeboard is
appropriate.
Training Landfills Surface
Impoundments Rule Change
42. Comment: Two (2) comments recommend that the requirement in proposed
Subsection R315-322-3(2) to “submit details of controls and employee training
programs used to prevent the acceptance of very small quantity generator waste” for
surface impoundments not permitted to receive hazardous waste from very small
quantity generators, should also be a requirement for Class VII landfills. Additionally,
commenters request that the DWMRC define the controls and training programs that
should be in place.
Response: The DWMRC appreciates this suggestion. Proposed Subsection R315-
321-4(1)(e) has been added to say:
e) for Class VII facilities with landfill cells that do not accept hazardous waste
from a very small quantity generator as defined by Subsection R315-260-10(c),
19
submit details of controls and employee training programs used to prevent the
acceptance of hazardous waste.
As to specific controls and training requirements, the DWMRC recommends that
owners and operators seek out, evaluate, and enroll in training courses that are
commercially available on hazardous waste management and are offered by various
educators and consulting groups. Additionally, the DWMRC recommends that owners
and operators supplement available training courses with facility-specific training to
ensure that the specific wastes that arrive at each facility are understood, handled
properly, appropriate documentation is maintained, and that any facility-specific
hazards are addressed.
Transfer of Waste Between Facilities Landfills Surface
Impoundments Rule Change
43. Comment: Two (2) comments inquired if leachate and water collected in DWMRC
regulated cells may be transferred to a surface impoundment or put down a Class II
injection well.
Response: Leachate collected from Class VII landfill cells may be transferred to a
solid waste surface impoundment that is permitted to receive it. Leachate from E&P
waste is exempt from hazardous waste regulations, and environmental precipitation is
non-hazardous to begin with. Questions regarding whether leachate from disposal
cells may be injected down a Class II injection well should be directed toward DOGM.
Wildlife Protection Landfills Surface
Impoundments Rule Change
44. Comment: Two (2) comments requested clarification on what is required to
demonstrate] that uncovered waste is not a threat to human health, the environment,
wildlife, or other receptors,” as required to relieve a Class VII facility owner and
operator of the requirement for daily cover under proposed Subsection R315-321-
4(5)(a)(i) [R315-321-4(4)(a)(i)].
Response: Demonstrating that uncovered waste is not a threat to human health, the
environment, wildlife, or other receptors, is a site-specific requirement that the
Director will address on a case-by-case basis. In this context, an owner or operator
can make such a demonstration during the application process, specifically within the
facility's plan of operation. For example, a facility might specify that the type of waste
to be accepted is not a food or nutrient source that may attract wildlife or livestock. If
the waste to be accepted could attract wildlife or livestock, then the owner or operator
may be required to demonstrate that implementing deterrents or other measures will be
protective of such wildlife or livestock.
45. Comment: Five (5) comments referred to proposed Section R315-322-4, some
requesting clarification, and others expressing requesting that standards for netting or
flagging be expressly required on surface impoundments for the protection of
livestock, migratory birds, and other wildlife.
Response: All entities in the U.S. are subject to wildlife protection laws, such as
the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act, and applicable State laws requiring wildlife protection. proposed
Subsection R315-322-4 generally addresses solid waste surface impoundments and is
not specific to E&P derived liquids. Requiring the installation, monitoring, and
20
Created by Andrew Doane from Noun Project
and Created by Adrien Coquet from Noun Project
maintenance of specific wildlife and livestock deterrents may negate other alternative
efforts utilized by industry. Such deterrents may include avian predator sound
devices, abrupt noise producing devices, such as propane cannons, or dedicated onsite
personnel trained to utilize non-lethal deterrents such as shotgun blanks, lasers, or a
licensed falconer. Additionally, wildlife-proof fencing is a broad category and may
also include the installation of barriers that deter small mammals, reptiles, or
amphibians that are subject to Federal or State protection. Each surface impoundment
will have a unique set of local conditions, including migratory bird flyway, elevation,
proximity to anthropogenic influences, habitat conditions suitable for particular
species, etc. Such local conditions may make certain deterrents more effective than
others. DWMRC encourages owners and operators to account for these unique
conditions when seeking to comply with applicable wildlife protection laws.
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 September 3, 2024

Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
Attn: Members of the Waste Management and Radiation Control Board
PO Box 144880
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880
[e-mail]

Re: Comments to Board on DWMRC’s Proposed E&P Waste Rules

Dear Board Members:

The comments below prepared by this law firm are submitted on behalf of our client
Integrated Water Management, LLC (“IWM”). The comments attached hereto, prepared by
Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, LLC (“Langan”), are also submitted herewith
on behalf of IWM. IWM has served the energy production industry with landfill and
environmental mitigation services for nearly 15 years. Its state-of-the-art facility near Duchesne,
Utah allows it to be a leader in the industry in both safety and environmental protection.

BACKGROUND

On July 11, 2024, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Waste
Management and Radiation Control (“DWMRC”), requested that the Utah Waste Management
and Radiation Control Board (“Board”) proceed with formal rulemaking and public comment on
proposed rule changes to the Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Rules R315-321, Class VII
Exploration and Production Waste Facility requirements, and R315-322, Solid Waste Surface
Impoundment Requirements, of the Utah Administrative Code. These rules pertain to the
management of wastes such as drilling muds, produced water, and other waste associated with
the exploration, development, or production of oil, gas, or geothermal energy (“E&P Waste”)

IWM generally applauds the proposed rules that DWMRC has prepared pertaining to the
management of E&P Waste. The proposed rule R315-321, Class VII Exploration and
Production Waste Facility Requirements, is proposed to regulate E&P waste landfills (“Proposed
E&P Landfill Rule”), whereas draft rule R315-322, Solid Waste Surface Impoundment
Requirements, is proposed to regulate the management of waste liquids from all industries
disposed of into surface impoundments. The scope of these Comments is limited to the R315-
321, the Proposed E&P Landfill Rule, and more specifically, to the issue of whether the final
Proposed E&P Landfill Rule should include a liner requirement.

2

4855-6557-5119, v. 1

TECHNICAL COMMENTS

IWM and its consultants and attorneys have had multiple meetings and communications
with Mr. Brian Speer, Environmental Program Manager of DWMRC’s Solid Waste Division,
addressing the industry’s and IWM’s contention that the Proposed E&P Landfill Rule should
include a liner requirement. Mr. Speer has tried to justify the absence of a liner requirement on
his presumption that the anticipated E&P waste would not present a threat to the environment,
based on his assertion that (1) the involved soils are relatively impermeable, and (2) the
groundwater is relatively deep (and the surface waters are relatively far away). See DWMRC’s
Response to Comments (7/3/24), p.13 (e.g., “Most Class VII landfill cells are located (or
expected to be located) in arid areas of the state where groundwater resources are not prevalent,
groundwater tables are deep, and natural silts and clays provide varying degrees of inherent
protection”), attached Exhibit.

To address Mr. Speers’ primary justification for omitting a liner requirement in the
Proposed E&P Landfill Rule (i.e., no threat of harm to the environment), IWM sought the
expertise of two expert environmental consultants to ascertain whether operating such landfills
without liners would present a threat to the environment. After identifying and assessing the
particular types of E&P waste that has been and is expected to continue to be received at such
landfills, and evaluating the conditions of the soils and groundwater in the potentially impacted
areas, both of those expert environmental consultants concluded that if the expected E&P
waste were placed in unlined landfills, it would indeed present a threat to the environment.
For details, see the attached Exhibits:

1) Langan Engineering & Environmental Report, dated 9/3/24 (concluding,
among other things, that “wastes that are disposed of at Class VII landfill facilities without free
liquids at the time of acceptance could potentially generate leachate by direct precipitation even
if the run-on controls prescribed in R315-303-3(1)(c) are followed,” that “[i]t is a baseline
assumption that non-exempt waste with characteristics of hazardous waste or containing
constituents that may be regulated as hazardous waste under other circumstances will become
comingled with E&P waste and be disposed of at Class VII landfill facilities,” that
“distinguishing non-exempt hazardous waste from exempt E&P waste at the point of acceptance
at a disposal facility may be difficult, if not impossible,” that “multiple samples of E&P wastes
accepted at the Integrated Water Management facility reporting concentrations of multiple
analytes that could be potentially characteristic of hazardous waste,” that “[t]o meet the standards
for performance for groundwater as specified in Section R315-303-2(1) as required by R315-
321-2(1), Class VII landfill facilities should be required to implement and maintain
impermeable liners equivalent to the liner requirements for surface impoundments per
R315-322-5(12)),” that “[[b]ecause sodium contributes to clay dispersion more strongly than
potassium, these high ESP and SAR wastes have potential to negatively affect the hydraulic
conductivity of both engineered compacted clay liners and native clays that may be considered as
alternatives to synthetic liners,” etc.

2) Terracon Limited Site Investigation Report, dated 5/20/24 (concluding, among
other things, that “The results of this LSI indicate elevated levels of petroleum-related

3

4855-6557-5119, v. 1

constituents and elevated salinity parameters, consistent with the types of oilfield wastes that the
facility receives from oil and gas producers in the region. Based on the contaminant
concentrations identified, the waste streams do not appear to meet the DOGM or EPA
criteria for direct land application or discharge to surface water. Concentrations of
constituents also the potential to negatively impact the environment and leach to
groundwater, if applied to the ground surface without an appropriate liner.”).

In addition to the two above-referenced expert technical reports, three other
environmental consultants evaluated various aspects of storing the expected E&P waste in
unlined landfills, and commented on the associated threats to the environment. For details, see
the attached Exhibits:

3) Terracon Consultants Comments, regarding R315-321 Proposed Rules for
Class IVV E&P Waste Facilities, dated 5/3/24 (explaining, among other things, that EPA’s
10/18/23 letter stated that E&P landfills “should be designed and constructed per industry
standard, to include appropriate composite liner systems and leak detection to ensure
protectiveness,” and that “Division rules for E&P waste facilities should be consistent with
EPA’s best practices.”).

4) Wasatch Environmental Comments, regarding Proposed E&P Waste Rules,
dated 5/2/24 (explaining, among other things, that “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.”).

5) GeoStrata Engineering (raising related questions/concerns).

IWM respectfully requests that DWMRC review and consider all of the above technical opinions
and comments relating to the industry’s and IWM’s concerns with and objections to the
Proposed E&P Landfill Rule. For these technical reasons alone, the Board should request that
DWMRC revise the Proposed E&P Landfill Rule 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.

GENERAL COMMENTS

In addition to the reasons set forth in the Technical Comments and associated reports
above, there are several other important reasons why the Proposed E&P Landfill Rule should be
revised to include a liner requirement. IWM respectfully requests that the Board consider the
comments below relating to IWM’s other concerns with and objections to the Proposed E&P
Landfill Rule, and requests that DWMRC revise the Proposed E&P Landfill Rules to include a
liner requirement for solid waste landfills under the proposed R315-321, just as it has for solid
waste surface impoundments under the proposed R315-322.

4

4855-6557-5119, v. 1

1. Mere Switching of the Default Presumption & Burden of Proof. As addressed
above, DWMRC’s justification for omitting a liner requirement is that the expected waste
materials will not present a threat to the environment, based on its (i.e., Mr. Brian Speer’s)
assertion that (1) the involved soils are relatively impermeable, and (2) the groundwater is
relatively deep. Mr. Speer actual language, however, is itself very uncertain and equivocal --
“Most Class VII landfill cells are located (or expected to be located) in arid areas of the state
where groundwater resources are not prevalent, groundwater tables are deep, and natural silts
and clays provide varying degrees of inherent protection.” DWMRC’s Response to Comments,
p.13. Even if “most” Class VII landfills are located in arid areas, some will not be; even if the
groundwater in the expected locations is not “prevalent,” it is still present at substantial
quantities that constitute an important resources for groundwater users; even if the groundwater
tables are “deep” relative to other groundwater tables in the state, the groundwater tables are still
shallow enough to constitute and important resources for groundwater users in the area; even if
the natural silts and clays provide “varying” degrees of inherent protection, where those varying
degrees vary toward the lower end of protection, that degree of protection will be minimal and
inadequate to protect the groundwater resource. It is no consolation for the actual users who
need the protection of their groundwater resource in this area of the State to know that the
groundwater resource in other areas is not so prevalent and do not need protection, or that the
groundwater tables in other areas of the State are deeper and do not need protection, or that the
silts and clays in other areas of the State do provide adequate degrees of protection.

Mr. Speer essentially acknowledges that some areas of the State may well need the
groundwater protection that would be afforded by a liner requirement. After noting that “many”
landfills are located “in arid areas of the state where groundwater resources are not prevalent,
groundwater tables are deep, and natural silts and clays provide varying degrees of inherent
protection,” he immediately acknowledges “[h]owever…, the Director has full discretion to
require a liner. The current regulatory structure is preferable to a structure where liners are
always required but provides operators the right to seek exemptions and variances from the liner
requirement due to site-specific conditions.” DWMRC’s Response to Comments, p.13. This
approach of defaulting to a presumption of invulnerability (don’t require protection unless it can
be demonstrated it is needed) rather than a presumption of vulnerability (require protection
unless it can be demonstrated it is not needed) is contrary to most analogous environmental
protection regimes. See, e.g., R649-9 (DOGM’s Waste Management and Disposal Rules
imposing certain requirements and standards (including liners), but allowing requests for
variances from Director when warranted by the particular circumstances); U.C.A. § 19-2-113
(Utah Air Conservation Act mandating various permits and requirements, but allowing variances
when certain conditions are present); 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq. (federal hazardous materials
regulations requiring permits for transportation of hazardous materials, but allowing variances if
certain circumstances can be demonstrated).

IWN is certainly not suggesting that liners be required for every E&P waste landfill;
rather, IWN is proposing that the default presumption be one of vulnerability (requiring a liner
unless it is demonstrated one is not needed) rather than invulnerability (not requiring liner unless
it is demonstrated one is needed). IWN is simply requesting that the default presumption and the
burden of proof be switched.

5

4855-6557-5119, v. 1

2. Industry Practice is for Landfills to Include Liners. As acknowledged and
referenced below in detail 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 addressed
in detail below (“Landfills should be designed and constructed per industry standard, to include
appropriate composite liner systems . . . .”), and DWMRC’s webpage addressed in detail below
(“Landfill standards often include lined cells”). IWM’s consultants that 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 above-referenced
and attached comments that the industry practice for solid waste E&P landfills is to include a
liner.

It is notable that the Utah Petroleum Association, which represents the interests of the
Utah broad oil and gas industry, has submitted written comments in DWMRC’s initial
rulemaking phase, and again now in the Board’s rule-making process, emphatically advocating
for a liner requirement. Other individual members of the Utah oil and gas industry have also
submitted written comments advocating for a liner requirement. Even more notable, IWM is not
aware of ANY member of the Utah oil and gas industry, or any other industry, that has submitted
comments opposed to a liner requirement.

3. Neighboring States Require Liners for Such E&P Waste. The Proposed E&P
Landfill Rule’s omission of a liner requirements is contrary not just to the EPA’s instructions and
best practices, as addressed immediately below, but it is contrary to the requirements in most of
the States in the country,1 including states surrounding Utah. Some of those states have an
outright synthetic liner requirement. See, for example, Colorado’s 6 CCR 1007-2, Part 1,
Section 17.3.1(A) (Design, Construction and Operation requirements mandating composite liner
system for managing E&P waste); New Mexico’s Solid Waste Management General
Requirements, Section 20.9.4.13.A (“special waste [which includes industrial solid waste,
petroleum contaminated soils, sludge, etc.] landfills shall provide a containment layer beneath
the solid waste which is constructed: (1) with a composite liner….”); Idaho’s Solid Waste
Management Rule 58.02.06.009 (providing that smaller landfills, Tier I and Tier II landfills (less
than 600 or 2000 cubic yards) are not required to have liners, but “Tier III facilities shall …
install leachate collection systems, liners, air containment control systems and any applicable
Tier III facility specific requirements.”). Other of those states have an option for either a
synthetic liner, or an equivalent liner where it can be affirmatively demonstrated that the liner
ensures ground water protection standards are satisfied. See, for example, Texas’ Rule
335.590(24)(A)(i) allows either a “composite liner” or “a design that ensures that the
concentration values … will not be exceeded in the uppermost aquifer….”

4. EPA’s Federal Requirements/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

1 The only State IWM is aware of that does not require a liner for such E&P-type waste is Oklahoma.

6

4855-6557-5119, v. 1

relating to “Landfills,” EPA emphatically asserts that “Landfills 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 [of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (“RCRA”)].” Requirements/Best Practices Letter, p.2, attached as Exhibit ?.2

5. A Liner Requirement Would Not Be “More Stringent” than Federal Rule.
Adding a liner requirement for such E&P waste landfills would not render the Proposed E&P
Waste Landfill Rule “more stringent than the corresponding federal regulations which address
the same circumstances,” which would ordinarily be prohibited under UCA § 19-6-106(1).
First, there are no “corresponding federal regulations which addresses the same circumstances,”
as the federal regulations neither expressly require or expressly exempt a liner for such E&P
waste; rather, they are simply silent on the matter. A Utah liner requirement would not conflict
with any federal regulation, it would simply fill the void in the federal regulations. Moreover, it
would fill the void that the above-referenced EPA Requirements/Best Practices Letter clarified
by emphasizing that “Landfills should be designed and constructed per industry standard, to
include appropriate composite liner systems and leak detection . . . .” Notably, as to those many
States that have imposed liner requirements, the EPA has not deemed any of those requirements
to be “more stringent than the corresponding federal regulations . . . .” Any suggestion that the
EPA would even consider doing so for a Utah liner requirement is extremely implausible given
the EPA Requirements/Best Practices Letter and its emphasis that “Landfills should be designed
and constructed per industry standard, to include appropriate composite liner systems . . . .”3

6. DOGM & DWMRC’s Historical Direction to Use Liners. DWMRC has
historically directed and required operators of new or expanding landfills to include liners.

a. DOGM’s Historical Permitting Role and Liner Requirement, &
DWMRC’s Assumption of that Role and Requirement. The Utah Division of Oil, Gas & Mining
(“DOGM”) has historically had primary responsibility for the permitting and regulating of the
disposal of solid waste, including E&P related waste. Those Rules include detailed requirements
for the installation of liners, the procedures for detecting and responding to liner failures, the
repair and inspection of liners, and the closure-related methods for disposal of liners. See, e.g.,
R649-9-10.2; R649-9-11.4; R649-9-11.4.1; R; 649-9-12.1.4. Starting in 2013, that responsibility

2 In its Response to Comments, DWMRC acknowledges that EPA’s instructions are “commendable.” Comment 5.
DWMRC suggests, however, that because EPA’s instruction is that “’landfills should be designed . . . to include
appropriate composite liner systems … to ensure protectiveness required under part 257,” and the only portion of
Part 257 that expressly requires a liner is Subpart D for CCR waste, that EPA’s instruction is not applicable to other
non-CCR waste. DWRMC’s suggestion, however, ignores Subpart A of Part 257 which applies to a myriad of other
solid wastes besides CCR wastes. Because Part D expressly requires liners for CCR waste, that is in part why
EPA’s “letter is intended to provide clarity … for O&G waste facilities managing both non-E&P and E&P exempted
wastes… Although EPA does not issue permits for solid waste manageme nt facilities, operators of E&P waste
management facilities … must still comply with the requirements of 40 CFR part 257 subpart A.” Subpart A has
extensive sections requiring the protection of groundwater, surface water and animal life.
3 In the unlikely event the Board were to find that the Proposed E&P Waste Landfill Rule were “more stringent,”
than some “corresponding federal regulations which address the same circumstances,” IWM provisionally invokes,
and requests that the Board implement, subsection (2) of UCA § 19-6-106, which notwithstanding such finding
would allow the Board to approve a liner requirement “if it makes a written finding after public comment and
hearing and based on evidence in the record that corresponding federal regulations are not adequate to protect public
health and the environment of the state.”

7

4855-6557-5119, v. 1

started shifting from DOGM to DWMRC, and DWMRC started permitting E&P waste landfills
in 2014. Upon assuming that responsibility, DWMRC continued with the long-established
industry practice, and DOGM’s long-established rule, of requiring a liner for such E&P waste.
Indeed, from 2013 through 2019, it issued permits for multiple new or expanded E&P waste
landfills, all of which required liners.

b. DWMRC’s Acknowledgment of Having Required Liners. In recent
meetings and communications with IWN, DWMRC has acknowledged that historically it has
insisted that E&P waste landfills include synthetic liners. “[IWM’s Nate Robinson asserting
that] Mike, Russell and myself have been in multiple meeting with your department and told
there would be no way our waste stream would ever be permitted without a synthetic liner that is
why all 3 of my cells were permitted and I spent 1/2 a million dollars to install liners in each cell.
[DWMRC’s Brian Speer acknowledging that] I suspect that such statements may have been
made for the Integrated Water Management Landfill.” 2/14&15/2024 emails between DWMRC
and IWM, attached as Exhibit ?. Indeed, Mr. Speer acknowledged that he and his colleague had
“both provided statements that do not accurately reflect the requirements that E&P landfills have
been held to historically, and a statement I made in response item #2 may be interpreted that the
liner requirements of R315-303-3(3) of the Utah Administrative Code (UAC) will be expected
for E&P waste landfills in the forthcoming draft rules.” See 2/18/24 email from DWMRC to
IWM, attached as Exhibit.

c. IWM’s 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. (aka RN Industries), 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.

d. 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
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.

e. DWMRC’s Further Acknowledged its Liner Requirement in Trying to
Justify its Reversal. In an effort to justify its recent reversal from its historical practice of

8

4855-6557-5119, v. 1

requiring liners, DWMRC attempted to explain away the “differences when comparing the first
E&P waste landfills permitted in the Uintah Basin to those that will be permitted in the future.”
2/28/24 email from DWMRC’s Brian Speer to IWM’s Nate Robinson, attached as Exhibit.
“First, the four E&P waste landfill permits that were issued between 2013 and 2019 from the
DWMRC were issued at the request of the operators, and not because of requirements under the
Solid and Hazardous Waste Act.” Id. As addressed above, those DWMRC-issued permits were
not requested at the whim of the operators, but rather because DOGM told those operators that
responsibility for issuing such permits was transferring to DWMRC and those operators would
need to obtain such permits from DWMRC, and DWMRC confirmed that it rather than DOGM
would now be issuing such permits. Mr. Speer continued his attempt to justify the reversal --
“Second, until at least 2022, most E&P waste landfill operators were having difficulty following
the requirements of their DWMRC permit to exclude free liquids from the landfill cells. These
circumstances may have influenced requirements and comments from DWMRC staff regarding
liners in E&P waste landfill cells.”4 This, however, is a further acknowledgement that DWMRC
has historically required, and communicated to operators that it required, liners for such E&P
waste landfills.

In summary, and as evident from the history recounted above, DOGM was transferring
its role and responsibility for permitting E&P waste to DWMRC, and DWMRC initially
recognized that it would need to continue the industry’s and DOGM’s long-established practice
of a liner requirement. DWMRC later realized this responsibility of evaluating liners would take
additional time, effort and oversight, and is now trying to shed that newly-transferred
responsibility because the federal program (40 CFR 257) neither expressly requires nor expressly
exempts such E&P waste landfills from a liner. DOGM should not disregard industry practice,
DOGM’s historical requirement or DWMRC’s own historical practice of requiring liners for
such E&P waste landfills simply because the federal program does not expressly address the
issue.

7. DWMRC Acknowledges Landfills with Liners are More Protective and
Usually Required. In connection with its initial 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 its 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.”

8. DWMRC’s Existing Rules Require Liners for Other Classes of Landfills.
DWMRC’s existing solid waste rules for landfills have long required composite or equivalent
protective liners for all of the existing classes of landfills – Classes I-VI. See Utah Admin. Rule
R315-303-3(3). The Proposed E&P Landfill Rule’s omission of a liner requirement for the new

4 Mr. Speer went on to note – “However, in response to field visits and letters from DWMRC, we are finding that
waste operators are using better waste acceptance practices and solidification processes.” Whether one or two of
those operators may have anecdotally been using better waste acceptance practices and solidification processes” is
not a sufficient basis for abandoning industry practice, DOGM’s long-established previous practice, and DWMRC’s
adopted and long-continued practice, of requiring liners.

9

4855-6557-5119, v. 1

Class VII landfills would be contrary to well established precedent requiring landfill liners in
Utah. In addition, 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 three criteria. Even if some of those landfills may satisfy one or even two of
those criteria, very few, if any, can satisfy all three criteria.

In addition, DWMRC has analogous rules for Facility Standards for Piles Used for
Storage and Treatment. R315-314. Those rules contain specific “Requirements for Solid Waste
Likely to Produce Leachate,” like the E&P waste here, and among those is a requirement that
waste piles shall be placed on a “liner underlying the pile to prevent subsurface soil and potential
ground water contamination and to allow collection of run-off and leachate.” R315-314-2(2).

9. DWMRC’s Reliance on Class IIIB Landfills as Justification for Not
Requiring Liners for E&P Waste Landfills is Misplaced. DWMRC has attempted to
analogize to and rely on Class IIIb landfills (whose design standards do not require liners per
R314-304-3(2) & R315-304-5(3)) as justification for not requiring liners in the Proposed E&P
Waste Landfill Rule. That analogy and reliance is wholly misplaced, however, because Class
IIIb landfills are “non-commercial” landfills. R315-301-2(9).

10. Important Policy Objectives Will Be Achieved by Requiring Liners. Several
important 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 . . . to ensure the protectiveness….”),

10

4855-6557-5119, v. 1

and as acknowledged by DWMRC in the 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 five of the environmental professionals whose reports and
comments are attached hereto, the environment will be much better protected if the Proposed
E&P Landfill Rule is revised to require liners.5 The environmental sensitivities that warranted
the 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 confirmed by the supporting comments submitted by the Utah
Petroleum Association, and individual producers of oil and gas.
3. Encourage Use of Responsible Landfill Operators. If the Proposed E&P
Landfill 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 waste at their own sites without liners,
either without any regard to the other 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 almost always have
liners. In either case (without any regard to other 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
Proposed E&P Landfill Rule, competitors would be able to construct new or expanded landfills
without having to incur those same significant costs of designing, constructing and maintaining
liners, thus penalizing IWM and other responsible 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 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 some 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.

11

4855-6557-5119, v. 1

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
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 the other reasons addressed above, IWM believes that
DWMRC’s approval and implementation of the Proposed E&P Landfill 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 the Technical Comments and associated reports and comments
referenced above, and on the General Comments referenced above, IWM respectfully requests
that the Board asks DWMRC to revise the Proposed E&P Landfill Rule to require liners for
landfills under the proposed R315-321 (for solid waste landfills), as they are required under the
proposed R315-322 (for solid waste surface impoundments).

Best regards,

PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS

/s/ Martin K. Banks
Martin K. Banks

cc: Walter Plumb
Nate Robinson
Russell Sorensen
Daniel Dean
Mike Vorkink
Blake Downey

MARTIN K. BANKS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
101 SOUTH 200 EAST, SUITE 700
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
[e-mail]
[phone]

September 3, 2024

Privileged and Confidential – Prepared at the Request of Counsel

Marty Banks
Attorney
Parr Brown Gee & Loveless
101 South 200 East, Suite 700
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Re:

Review of DWMRC Proposed Exploration and Production Waste
Rules Review Package
Langan Project No. 631027301

Dear Mr. Banks:

Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, LLC (Langan) reviewed several documents
from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Waste Management and
Radiation Control (DWMRC) related to proposed regulation of oil and gas exploration and
production waste. Documents reviewed include: DWMRC’s draft Exploration and Production
(E&P) Waste Rules Review Package, dated 29 April 2024; DWMRC’s “Response to Comments”
document, dated 3 July 2024; DWMRC’s proposed Rule R315-321; Class VII E&P Waste Landfill
Requirements; and DWMRC’s proposed Rule R315-322, Solid Waste Surface Impoundment
Requirements. Langan was also provided with a Limited Site Investigation Report prepared by
Terracon dated 20 May 2024 which provided analytical data from samples of soil, sludge, and
leachate water collected from Integrated Water Management’s E&P waste disposal facility near
Duchesne, Utah. The purpose of Langan’s review is to provide technical comments regarding
the proposed Rule R315-321 and Rule R315-322.
Langan offers the following comments per our review of these documents, based on our
professional experience and our general familiarity with the requirements of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act; the soil, water, and other environmental conditions in the Uinta
Basin region from professional experience; and current and potential regional land uses in the
Uinta Basin region. Specifically, our comments focus on the lack of an explicit requirement for
engineered impermeable liners at E&P waste Class VII landfill facilities in DWMRC’s proposed
R315-321.
Comment 1 – Mobility of E&P Wastes in Class VII Landfill Facilities
The key distinction between Class VII landfill facilities regulated per R315-321 and solid waste
surface impoundments regulated per R315-322 is that solid waste surface impoundments are
permitted to accept high liquid waste without treatment, while Class VII landfills are either not
Review of DWMRC Proposed Exploration and Production Waste Rules Review
Package
Langan Project No. 631027301
September 3, 2024
Page 2 of 5

permitted to accept such high liquid wastes or much treat such wastes to stabilize the free liquid
content of such wastes. Solid waste surface impoundments mandate more robust engineering
controls and operating requirements (engineered impermeable liners, leak detection, etc.) due to
the higher mobility of E&P wastes with free liquids. DWMRC states in their “Response to
Comments” document that most Class VII landfills are or are expected to be located “in arid
areas of the state,” but even “arid areas of the state” can be impacted by major storm events
that could leach contaminants from uncovered active landfill cells. Weather records for Vernal,
Utah (a representative location in the Uinta Basin where Class VII landfills are or will likely be
located and weather records are readily available) indicate that recorded daily precipitation is as
high as 2.2 inches and daily snowfall is as high as 16.0 inches.1 Thus, wastes that are disposed
of at Class VII landfill facilities without free liquids at the time of acceptance could potentially
generate leachate by direct precipitation even if the run-on controls prescribed in R315-303-3(1)(c)
are followed. Further, Class VII landfill facilities could potentially accept high liquid waste without
treatment as required by R315-303-3(1.1)(a) inadvertently or even intentionally. Thus, regulations
for Class VII landfill facilities should assume that Class VII landfills will generate leachate.
The potential for Class VII landfill waste to generate leachate via precipitation, acceptance of high
liquid waste inappropriately, or via other mechanisms should be considered in the design and
operations standards for all Class VII landfill facilities. By the time a monitoring system detects
groundwater pollution by landfill leachate, widespread groundwater pollution would have already
occurred.2 Remediation of this potential groundwater contamination will come at a cost that far
exceeds the cost of preventing such contamination, and may be effectively impossible.2
Comment 2 – Non-Exempt Wastes and Hazardous Waste in Class VII Landfill Facilities
Per R315-321-4(4)(b), Class VII landfill facilities are permitted to accept both E&P waste and very
small quantity generator (VSQG) hazardous waste as defined in R315-260-10(c)(172) and
generated incidental to oil and gas exploration and production and related operations. As stated
by DWMRC in their “Response to Comments” document, many wastes could be generated at
oil and gas production sites that do not qualify as exempt E&P wastes. DWMRC further provided
a hypothetical example of a spill of unused drill fluid — the unused drill fluid is not exempt since
it was never used to drill for oil or gas. It is a baseline assumption that non-exempt waste with
characteristics of hazardous waste or containing constituents that may be regulated as hazardous
waste under other circumstances will become comingled with E&P waste and be disposed of at
Class VII landfill facilities. Similar to DWMRC’s hypothetical example of a spill of unused drill fluid,
it is also probable that VSQG waste that is not generated incidental to oil and gas exploration and
production and related operations may nevertheless become comingled with incidentally-
generated VSQG waste and/or exempt E&P waste and be disposed of at Class VII landfill
facilities.
The owner or operator of a Class VII landfill that does not accept VSQG waste must “submit
details of controls and employee training programs used to prevent the acceptance” of VSQG
waste. However, there are no required controls or employee training requirement for the
prevention of acceptance of comingled non-incidentally-generated VSQG waste, non-exempt

1 https://www.weather.gov/wrh/Climate?wfo=gjt
2 Lee, G.F., Jones-Lee, A., Ph., D., & Macero, E. (2013). Impact of Municipal and Industrial Non-
Hazardous Waste Landfills on Public Health and the Environment : An Overview.
Review of DWMRC Proposed Exploration and Production Waste Rules Review
Package
Langan Project No. 631027301
September 3, 2024
Page 3 of 5

E&P waste, and/or other hazardous waste that may become comingled with exempt E&P waste.
Even with appropriate training, distinguishing non-exempt hazardous waste from exempt E&P
waste at the point of acceptance at a disposal facility may be difficult, if not impossible, since
exempt E&P waste and non-exempt hazardous waste can contain the same chemical
constituents and thus cannot be distinguished even with laboratory analytical data.
For Class VII landfill facilities that explicitly accept VSQG waste, R315-321 places no restrictions
on the number of VSQG generators that an individual Class VII facility can accept VSQG waste
from. Thus, a Class VII landfill facility could accept VSQG waste from many different VSQGs and
have no statutory upper limit on the total amount of VSQG waste that could be accepted.
As noted in DWMRC’s “Response to Comments”, E&P waste may “demonstrate characteristics
of hazardous waste or contain constituents that may be regulated as hazardous waste under
other circumstances.” Data presented in the Terracon Limited Site Investigation Report indicates
that this is the case, with multiple samples of E&P wastes accepted at the Integrated Water
Management facility reporting concentrations of multiple analytes that could be potentially
characteristic of hazardous waste. Analyte concentrations also commonly exceeded U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Soil Screening Levels for protection of groundwater.
DWMRC’s “Response to Comments” states that the “distinction in liner requirements for E&P
waste landfills and solid waste surface impoundments addresses the type of waste accepted in
the respective facilities and the associated risks.” However, because Class VII landfill facilities
are explicitly allowed to accept VSQG waste in theoretically unlimited quantities (due to no upper
limit on mass or volume), it appears likely, if not inevitable, that under the current proposed Rule,
Class VII landfill facilities will accept non-incidentally-generated VSQG waste, non-exempt E&P
waste, and/or other hazardous waste in non-de minimis quantities. They will likely also accept
exempt E&P waste that demonstrates characteristics of hazardous waste or contains
constituents that would be regulated as hazardous waste under other circumstances. Thus,
DWMRC’s utilization of the presence or absence of high liquid wastes as the sole criteria for the
distinction in liner requirements for Class VII landfills and solid waste surface impoundments
appears to be arbitrary.
To meet the standards for performance for groundwater as specified in Section R315-303-2(1) as
required by R315-321-2(1), Class VII landfill facilities should be required to implement and
maintain impermeable liners equivalent to the liner requirements for surface impoundments per
R315-322-5(12). A regulatory structure where liners are required, but allows operators the right
to seek exemptions and variances from the liner requirement due to site-specific conditions,
would be consistent with DWMRC standards for Class I through Class VI landfills and E&P waste
landfills in most other states.
Comment 3 – Effect of High-Salt Wastes on Clay Liners and Native Clays, and Potential Presence
of Dispersive Native Clays
DWMRC’s “Response to Comments” includes a response regarding a comment submitted
about potassium chloride-based drill muds affecting the permeability of clay materials. DWMRC
states in the response that drill muds “are not an acceptable waste” for disposal at E&P waste
facilities. However, the definition of exempt E&P wastes provided in R315-261-4(b)(5) includes
“drilling fluids.” Drilling fluid is a broad term that encompasses all kinds of fluid used in the drilling
Review of DWMRC Proposed Exploration and Production Waste Rules Review
Package
Langan Project No. 631027301
September 3, 2024
Page 4 of 5

process and includes drilling mud.3 Thus, it appears potassium chloride-based drill muds are an
exempt E&P waste acceptable for disposal at E&P waste facilities in Utah.
More importantly, DWMRC cites several references indicating that potassium chloride is added
to well drilling fluids to reduce clay blocking, from which DWMRC concludes that potassium
chloride-based drill mud “will not have a negative effect on clay-lined landfill cells.” However, the
inapt references DWMRC cites are specific to the utilization of potassium chloride under specific
and tightly controlled conditions. It is a well-established principle in soil science that potassium
and sodium cause and contribute to dispersion of clay soils, leading to an increase in hydraulic
conductivity and the potential for tunnel erosion.4567 In addition, data presented in the Terracon
Limited Site Investigation Report indicates that multiple samples of E&P wastes accepted at the
Integrated Water Management facility reported exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) and
sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) results that exceeded Utah Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Oil, Gas and Mining cleanup levels for oil and gas E&P related sites by up to several
fold. Because sodium contributes to clay dispersion more strongly than potassium, these high
ESP and SAR wastes have potential to negatively affect the hydraulic conductivity of both
engineered compacted clay liners and native clays that may be considered as alternatives to
synthetic liners.
Sodic and saline soils are common in the Uinta Basin,89 as are high-sodium subsurface geologic
units due to the Uinta Basin’s geologic history as a former paleolake that experienced multiple
hypersaline phases.10 Thus, native clays that may be considered as an equivalent or alternative
liner may have naturally-occurring dispersive properties due to naturally high concentrations of
sodium. Further, addition of divalent ions (e.g., Ca2+) to clays with high sodium content can lead
to flocculation (i.e., collapse) of the clay structure, potentially leading to cracking or similar
structural changes that may increase hydraulic conductivity.6
DWMRC states in their “Response to Comments” document that “Most Class VII landfill cells
are located (or expected to be located) in arid areas of the state where…natural silts and clays
provide varying degrees of inherent protection.” This is not necessarily an incorrect statement,
but should be considered incomplete since consideration of native clays as an equivalent or
alternative liner at an E&P waste facility site requires a more sophisticated geological and
mineralogical analysis than the simple presence or absence of native clays in a drilling log.

3 https://petgeo.weebly.com/drilling-fluidsmud-and-components.html
4 https://vro.agriculture.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/soilhealth_soil_structure_dispersion
5 J. Dutta, A.K. Mishra, A study on the influence of inorganic salts on the behaviour of compacted
bentonites, Applied Clay Science, Volumes 116–117, 2015, Pages 85-92, ISSN 0169-1317,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2015.08.018.
6 Shackelford, C. "Waste-Soil Interactions that Alter Hydraulic Conductivity." Hydraulic Conductivity and
Waste Contaminant Transport in Soil. Ed. Daniel, D, & Trautwein, ASTM International, 1994.
7 Serhiy Marchuk, Alla Marchuk, Effect of applied potassium concentration on clay dispersion, hydraulic
conductivity, pore structure and mineralogy of two contrasting Australian soils, Soil and Tillage Research,
Volume 182, 2018, Pages 35-44, ISSN 0167-1987, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.04.016.
8 https://www.coloradoriversalinity.org/docs/Uinta%20Basin%20-%20Final%20Report%20complete.pdf
9https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/lup/68145/86319/103490/3.13_Soil_and_Water_Resources.pdf
10https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318449934_An_examination_of_the_hypersaline_phases_of_
Eocene_Lake_Uinta_upper_Green_River_Formation_Uinta_Basin_Utah
Review of DWMRC Proposed Exploration and Production Waste Rules Review
Package
Langan Project No. 631027301
September 3, 2024
Page 5 of 5

Comment 4 – Applicability of R315-303 Landfilling Standards
R315-322-4(1) states that solid waste surface impoundments shall meet the standards for
performance as specified in R315-303-2. However, DWMRC states in their “Response to
Comments” document that “DMWRC is proposing to clarify the applicability of Rule R315-303
to Class VII landfills by adjusting Section R315-303-1 to say, “The standards of Rule R315-303
apply to: (4) Class VII Landfills as specified in Rule proposed R315-321.” DWMRC’s proposed
clarification to R315-303-1 appears to need to be expanded to cover solid waste surface
impoundments in addition to Class VII landfills.

Sincerely,
Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, LLC

Daniel Dean, P.G.
Senior Project Manager

Mimi S. Raygorodetsky
Principal/Vice President

cc: Nate Robinson (Integrated Water Management)
Cover Page

Limited Site Investigation Report
Integrated Water Management Facility
20250 West 2000 South
Duchesne, Utah
Revised May 20, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 61237383

Prepared for:
Integrated Water Management
201 South Main Street, 20th Floor
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
6952 South High Tech Drive, Suite B
Midvale, Utah 84047
P [phone]
Terracon.com

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials i

Cover Letter
Revised May 20, 2024

Integrated Water Management
201 South Main Street | 20th Floor
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Attn: Mr. Nathan Robinson
P: 435-315-5649
E: [e-mail]

Re: Limited Site Investigation
Integrated Water Management Facility
20250 West 2000 South, Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383

Dear Mr. Robinson:
Terracon is pleased to provide this report regarding the Limited Site Investigation (LSI)
activities conducted at the above-referenced site. Terracon performed the LSI as part of the
on-call environmental consulting services pursuant to our proposal P61237383, dated
November 14, 2023.
As fully detailed in the report, this LSI involved sampling and analysis of contaminated soil,
sludge, and wastewater at Integrated Water Management’s permitted disposal facility near
Duchesne, Utah. The results indicate high levels of petroleum-related constituents and
elevated salinity parameters, consistent with the types of oilfield wastes that the facility
receives from oil and gas producers in the region.
We appreciate the opportunity to have performed these services for you. Please contact our
office at [phone] if you have questions regarding this information or if we can
provide any other services.
Sincerely,
Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Jill Hernandez Andy King
Senior Project Manager Authorized Project Reviewer

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials ii

Table Of Contents
Page
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................... 1
1.1 Objectives ............................................................................................... 1
1.2 Standard Of Care ...................................................................................... 1
1.3 Additional Scope Limitations ......................................................................... 1
1.4 Reliance ................................................................................................. 2
2.0 Methodology .................................................................................. 2
2.1 Field Procedures....................................................................................... 2
2.2 Laboratory Analyses .................................................................................. 3
3.0 Results ........................................................................................ 4
3.1 Soil and Sludge Analytical Results ................................................................. 4
3.2 Leachate Water Analytical Results ................................................................. 6
4.0 Conclusion .................................................................................... 7
5.0 References ................................................................................... 7

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials iii

Appendices
Appendix A Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Site Location Map
Exhibit 2 Sample Location Map
Appendix B Tables
Table 1 Summary of Analytical Results – Soil and Sludge Inorganics
Table 2 Summary of Analytical Results – Soil and Sludge Petroleum
Hydrocarbons and VOCs
Table 3 Summary of Analytical Results – Soil and Sludge SVOCs
Table 4 Summary of Analytical Results – Leachate Water Inorganics
Table 5 Summary of Analytical Results – Leachate Water Petroleum
Hydrocarbons and VOCs
Table 6 Summary of Analytical Results – Leachate Water SVOCs
Appendix C Chain of Custody Forms and Laboratory Reports
Limited Site Investigation Report
Integrated Water Management | Duchesne, Utah
Revised May 20, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 61237383

1.0 Introduction
This report documents the results of a Limited Site Investigation (LSI) conducted at the
Integrated Water Management (IWM) site located at 20250 West 2000 South, Duchesne, Utah.
The site includes disposal facilities that are permitted by the Utah Department of Environmental
Quality (UDEQ), Division of Waste Management & Radiation Control (DWMRC) for the disposal of
oilfield exploration and production (E&P) wastes. Exhibit 1 (Appendix A) shows the site location
approximately 6 miles north of the town of Duchesne. Exhibit 2 (Appendix A) depicts the sample
locations.
1.1 Objectives
The objective of this LSI was to assess concentrations of regulated constituents at the permitted
landfill facility that are typically associated with oilfield E&P wastes. This objective was
accomplished by collecting representative samples of E&P wastes for laboratory analysis at a
Utah-certified analytical laboratory.
1.2 Standard Of Care
Terracon’s services were performed in a manner consistent with generally accepted practices of
the profession undertaken in similar studies in the same geographical area during the same time
period. Please note that Terracon does not warrant the work of laboratories, regulatory agencies,
or other third parties supplying information used in the preparation of the report. These LSI
services were performed in accordance with the Scope of Services agreed with Integrated Water
Management, our client, as reflected in our proposal, and were not restricted by ASTM E1903-19.
1.3 Additional Scope Limitations
Findings, conclusions, and recommendations resulting from these services are based upon
information derived from the on-site activities and other services performed under this scope of
work. Such information is subject to change over time. Certain indicators of the presence of
hazardous substances, petroleum products, or other constituents may have been latent,
inaccessible, unobservable, non-detectable, or not present during these services, and we cannot
represent that the site contains no hazardous substances, toxic materials, petroleum products, or
other latent conditions beyond those identified during this LSI. Subsurface conditions may vary
from those encountered at specific borings, wells, or during other surveys, tests, assessments,
investigations, or exploratory services; the data, interpretations, findings, and our
recommendations are based solely upon data obtained at the time and within the scope of these
services.
Limited Site Investigation Report
Integrated Water Management | Duchesne, Utah
Revised May 20, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 61237383

1.4 Reliance
This LSI report has been prepared for the exclusive use and reliance of Integrated Water
Management. Use or reliance by any other party is prohibited without the written authorization of
Integrated Water Management and Terracon. Reliance on the LSI report by Integrated Water
Management and all authorized parties will be subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations
stated in the proposal, LSI report, and Terracon’s Agreement. The limitation of liability defined in
the Agreement is the aggregate limit of Terracon’s liability to Integrated Water Management and
all relying parties.
2.0 Methodology
This LSI consisted of sampling and analysis of soils, sludges, and leachate water representative of
E&P wastes disposed at the site.
2.1 Field Procedures
Mr. Mark Lilly of Terracon mobilized to the site on December 20, 2023, for collection of E&P waste
samples from three areas: the active soil disposal cell, sludge containment area, and leachate
evaporation pond. Upon arrival, Mr. Lilly met with IWM personnel to discuss site safety protocols
and the overall sampling approach, after which IWM personnel escorted him to the landfill area
for sampling. At the time of sampling, haul trucks were actively discharging to the sludge
containment area, and the eastern portion of the soil disposal cell was covered by surface water.
The sampling locations are shown in Exhibit 2 (Appendix A).
For sampling purposes, soil in the disposal cell was subdivided into four quadrants with collection
of one grab sample from each quadrant. Each of these samples was collected from a depth of one
foot using a decontaminated shovel. The sludge containment area was similarly subdivided into
four quadrants, with collection of one grab sample from each quadrant at a depth of one foot
using a decontaminated shovel. A single water sample was collected from the northern portion of
the leachate evaporation pond, and the water’s pH was field measured during sampling at 12.5
standard units (S.U.).
Sample collection was completed following Terracon’s standard operating procedures. Equipment
used for the collection of soil and sludge samples was decontaminated using an Alconox®
detergent wash and potable water rinse prior to the commencement of the project and between
the collection of each sample. Water from the leachate evaporation pond was sampled using a
dedicated disposable bailer. A new pair of nitrile gloves was used during collection of each
sample. All samples were collected in laboratory-provided containers, properly labeled, and
placed on ice in a cooler for transportation to the laboratory.
Mr. Lilly, of Terracon, remobilized to the site on March 5, 2024, for the collection of two additional
E&P waste samples from the sludge pit reportedly containing a new waste stream referred to by
IWM personnel as “saltwater-based mud.” The sludge pit is located south of the soil disposal cell.
Upon arrival, Mr. Lilly met with IWM personnel to discuss site safety protocols and the proposed
Limited Site Investigation Report
Integrated Water Management | Duchesne, Utah
Revised May 20, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 61237383

sampling approach, after which IWM personnel escorted him to the sludge pit for sampling. The
sampling locations are shown in Exhibit 2 (Appendix A).
One grab sample was collected from the upper four inches from the east and west portions of the
sludge pit using a decontaminated trowel. Sample collection was completed following Terracon’s
standard operating procedures. Equipment used for collection of the sludge samples was
decontaminated using an Alconox® detergent wash and potable water rinse prior to
commencement of the project and between the collection of each sample. A new pair of nitrile
gloves was used during collection of each sample. The samples were collected in laboratory-
provided containers, properly labeled, and placed on ice in a cooler for transportation to the
laboratory.
2.2 Laboratory Analyses
The samples and completed chain-of-custody forms were relinquished under chain of custody
procedures to Chemtech-Ford Laboratories, an independent Utah-certified laboratory located in
Sandy, Utah. Samples were submitted for analysis on standard turnaround time. The samples
were analyzed for a suite of parameters including Oil & Grease; Total Recoverable Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (TRPH); Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons—Diesel Range Organics (TPH-DRO); Total
Petroleum Hydrocarbons—Gasoline Range Organics (TPH-GRO); Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs); Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) metals (total, dissolved, and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure [TCLP]);
dissolved beryllium, copper, and zinc; Electrical Conductivity (EC); Exchangeable Sodium
Percentage (ESP); Sodium Adsorption Ration (SAR); Total Suspended Solids (TSS); Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS); and pH.
Samples were analyzed for these constituents as follows, depending on sample medium:
Soil/Sludge (10 Samples)
■ Oil & Grease (Method EPA 1664B modified)
■ TRPH with silica gel treatment (Method EPA 1664B modified)
■ TPH-DRO (Method EPA 8015C)
■ TRP-GRO (Method EPA 8260D/5030B)
■ VOCs (Method EPA 8260D/5030B)
■ SVOCs (Method EPA 8270E/3570)
■ RCRA 8 Metals (Method EPA 6010D/3050B, EPA 7471A)
■ TCLP - RCRA 8 Metals (Method EPA Method 1311, EPA 6010D/3010A, EPA 7470A)
■ EC (Method SSSA 10-3.3)
Limited Site Investigation Report
Integrated Water Management | Duchesne, Utah
Revised May 20, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 61237383

■ ESP (calculation based on soluble calcium, magnesium, and sodium)
■ SAR (calculation based on ESP)
Leachate Water (1 Sample)
■ Oil & Grease (Method EPA 1664B)
■ TRPH with silica gel treatment (Method EPA 1664B)
■ TPH-DRO (Method EPA 8015C)
■ TRP-GRO (Method 8260D/5030B)
■ VOCs (EPA Method 8260D/5030B)
■ SVOCs (EPA Method 8270E/3511)
■ Dissolved RCRA 8 Metals, Beryllium, Copper, and Zinc (Method EPA 200.8/200.8,
200.7/200.2, 245.1)
■ pH (Method SM 4500 H-B)
■ TDS (Method SM 2540C)
■ TSS (Method SM 2540D)
3.0 Results
Analytical results for the soil and sludge samples are presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3 in Appendix
B. Tables 4, 5, and 6 in Appendix B present analytical results for the leachate water samples.
Copies of the laboratory analytical reports are included in Appendix C.
3.1 Soil and Sludge Analytical Results
Soil and sludge sample analytical results were compared to several sets of regulatory screening
levels depending on the types of analyses performed.
■ The soil/sludge sample results for metals, VOCs, and SVOCs were compared to:
o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for
soil under both Residential and Industrial use scenarios. The RSLs use a Target
Cancer Risk of 1x10-6 (one-in-a-million) and a Hazard Quotient of 1.
o EPA Protection of Groundwater Soil Screening Levels (SSLs) under both Dilution
Attenuation Factor (DAF) 1 and DAF 20 criteria.
■ Results for salinity parameters (EC, ESP, and SAR) were compared to screening criteria
adopted by the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining
Limited Site Investigation Report
Integrated Water Management | Duchesne, Utah
Revised May 20, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 61237383

(DOGM), as were results for TRPH, TPH-DRO, TPH-GRO, and selected VOCs associated
with petroleum releases.
■ Results for TRPH, TPH-DRO, TPH-GRO, and selected VOCs were also compared to the
UDEQ’s Initial Screening Levels (ISLs) and risk-based Tier 1 Screening Levels (Tier 1) for
petroleum storage tank releases.
■ Results for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX) were also compared
to the DWMRC’s “Special Waste Requirements” provided in Utah Administrative Code
(UAC) R315-315-8 for Petroleum Contaminated Soils.
■ Results for TCLP-metals analyses were compared to EPA’s RCRA-characteristic hazardous
waste thresholds.
Although arsenic concentrations in these samples were higher than the EPA Industrial RSL of 3
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) for arsenic, the range of arsenic concentrations detected was
consistent with the normal range of background concentrations in the Western U.S. Arsenic
concentrations were less than the default background value of 22 mg/kg as adopted by the UDEQ
DWMRC for Duchesne County except for two samples (Sludge-1 NW, 41.8 mg/kg and Sludge-1
W, 116 mg/kg) (UDEQ, 2023). Reported concentrations of barium, mercury, and silver exceeded
DAF 1 criteria. Barium exceeded DAF 20 criteria in two samples. The TCLP metals analytical
results did not exceed the EPA’s characteristic hazardous waste thresholds. The salinity
parameter EC exceeded the DOGM standard in all four soil samples and four of the six sludge
samples. The salinity parameters ESP and SAR were higher than the DOGM criteria in two of the
soil samples and four of the six sludge samples.
The soil And sludge sample results for petroleum hydrocarbons and VOCs indicated exceedances
of multiple screening levels (including DOGM criteria) for petroleum constituents and VOCs,
including TRPH; TPH-DRO; TPH-GRO; Oil and Grease; 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene;
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene; benzene; cyclohexanone; ethylbenzene; hexachloro-1,3-butadiene;
isopropylbenzene; naphthalene; n-butylbenzene; n-propylbenzene; sec-butylbenzene; styrene;
toluene; and xylenes. These constituents typically exceeded DOGM criteria and DWMRC’s Special
Waste Criteria for Petroleum Contaminated Soils by 1 to 2 orders of magnitude, with benzene
exceedances ranging over 4 orders of magnitude above the DOGM threshold value or DWMRC’s
Special Waste Criteria. Per UAC R315-315-8, petroleum contaminated soils containing BTEX
constituents at concentrations exceeding the DWMRC Special Waste Criteria require disposal at a
Class I, Class II, Class III, or Class V landfill.
Benzene is a highly flammable liquid and vapor that reacts violently with oxidizing agents and
strong acids. Benzene is a carcinogen and mutagen, and repeated exposure can cause damage to
blood cells (aplastic anemia). It is highly mobile, with the potential to impact outdoor air quality
through volatilization, indoor air quality through upward migration of impacted soil vapor, surface
water through runoff, and groundwater due to leaching from soil. Benzene can easily migrate
through groundwater and adsorb to solids present in aquifers. Benzene can persist in soil and
groundwater at concentrations above regulatory criteria for decades. When BTEX is present,
toluene is generally degraded first, followed by xylenes, with benzene and ethylbenzene
degraded last. Although E&P waste is by definition non-hazardous, several of the sludge samples
Limited Site Investigation Report
Integrated Water Management | Duchesne, Utah
Revised May 20, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 61237383

with benzene concentrations ranging up to 1,800 mg/kg would have the potential to leach
benzene at concentrations exceeding the EPA's RCRA-characteristic hazardous waste threshold of
0.5 mg/L if it were applied to the ground surface without an appropriate liner.
The soil and sludge sample results for SVOCs indicated exceedances of multiple screening levels
for SVOCs including 1-methylnaphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, fluorene, and naphthalene.
In a 1987 EPA Report to Congress, EPA concluded that adverse impacts had resulted from
mismanagement of oil and gas wastes and some improvements were necessary. EPA documented
actual or potential damage cases resulting from the management of E&P wastes, many of which
were in violation of existing State and Federal requirements. These cases included degradation of
soil and groundwater from runoff and leachate from treatment and disposal facilities, reserve
pits, and unlined disposal pits (EPA, 1987). Groundwater impacts have also been documented in
groundwater and water supply wells in Kern County, California due to leaching from unlined
waste pits (Center for Biological Diversity, 2019).
3.2 Leachate Water Analytical Results
Leachate water analytical results were compared to several sets of regulatory screening levels
depending on the types of analyses performed. For metals, VOCs, and SVOCs, results were
compared to the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for drinking water (for those
constituents with established MCLs). Results for TRPH, TPH-DRO, TPH-GRO, and selected VOCs
were also compared to the UDEQ’s ISLs and Tier 1 Screening Levels for petroleum storage tank
releases. Results were also compared to treated groundwater discharge permit standards
typically used by the UDEQ, Division of Water Quality (DWQ), which for some constituents are
presumed to be equivalent to the EPA MCLs depending on groundwater classifications.
Concentrations of three dissolved metals (arsenic, chromium, and copper) exceeded the DWQ
discharge standards. The inorganic parameters TSS, TDS were an order of magnitude higher than
the DWQ discharge standards, and the laboratory pH value of 12.54 was well above the pH
maximum threshold value of 9.0. The leachate water sample results for petroleum hydrocarbons
and VOCs indicated exceedances of DWQ discharge standards, ISLs, and Tier 1 Screening Levels
for TRPH, TPH-DRO, TPH-GRO, benzene, and toluene. The reported concentrations of TRPH, TPH-
DRO, TPH-GRO, and benzene were 1 to 2 orders of magnitude higher than the DWQ discharge
standards, while benzene and toluene concentrations also exceeded the EPA MCLs. The leachate
water benzene concentration of 0.83 mg/L exceeds the RCRA limits for characteristic hazardous
waste for liquid wastes (wastes containing less than 0.5% dry solid material) of 0.5 mg/L.
Although RCRA hazardous waste criteria do not apply to E&P waste, this is further evidence of the
potential for E&P waste to leach and negatively impact the environment if it were applied to the
ground surface without an appropriate liner.
Concentrations of SVOCs were below available screening levels, and the majority of SVOC
constituent concentrations were below the laboratory reporting limits.
Limited Site Investigation Report
Integrated Water Management | Duchesne, Utah
Revised May 20, 2024 | Terracon Project No. 61237383

4.0 Conclusion
The results of this LSI indicate elevated levels of petroleum-related constituents and elevated
salinity parameters, consistent with the types of oilfield wastes that the facility receives from oil
and gas producers in the region. Based on the contaminant concentrations identified, the waste
streams do not appear to meet the DOGM or EPA criteria for direct land application or discharge to
surface water. Concentrations of constituents also the potential to negatively impact the
environment and leach to groundwater, if applied to the ground surface without an appropriate
liner.
Terracon appreciates being of service to you on this project. If you have any questions, require
additional information, or need additional assistance, please contact us.
5.0 References
Center for Biological Diversity, 2019. Federal Studies: Oil Waste Fluid Contaminated California
Groundwater, October 3.
Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining, 2020. Cleanup Level Selection Guidance Document (re:
Utah Oil & Gas Conservation General Rules R649-3 Drilling and Operating Practices R649-9 Waste
Management and Disposal), January.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2023. Regional Screening Levels (RSLs)—Generic Tables
(Tables as of: November 2023), https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls-generic-
tables.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 1987.
Report to Congress: Management of Wastes From the Exploration, Development, and Production
of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Geothermal Energy, EPA/530- SW-88-003 (Washington, DC:
December 1987).
Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 2023 Technical Guide for Risk Assessments: Utah
Administrative Code R315-101, Default County Specific BTVs, November.

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
APPENDIX A
Exhibits
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
APPENDIX B
Tables
Table 1 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge Inorganics
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Soil and Sludge Total Metals +
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
ARSENIC 7440-38-2 6010B mg/kg 0.7 3 0.0015 0.0300 5.33 1.13 4.41 11.4 2.03 7.93 8.65 1.07 4.17 14.2 2.51 9.81
BARIUM 7440-39-3 6010B mg/kg 15,000 220,000 160 3,200 1070 0.054 0.441 3,460 0.097 0.793 1,180 0.051 0.417 4,800 0.120 0.981
CADMIUM 7440-43-9 6010B mg/kg 7.1 100 NE NE <0.441 0.112 0.441 <0.793 0.201 0.793 <0.417 0.106 0.417 <0.981 0.249 0.981
CHROMIUM 7440-47-3 6010B mg/kg NE NE NE NE 6.68 0.065 0.441 9.13 0.118 0.793 9.60 0.062 0.417 10.1 0.145 0.981
LEAD 7439-92-1 6010B mg/kg 400 800 NE NE 5.48 0.982 4.41 6.15 J 1.77 7.93 7.08 0.930 4.17 6.24 J 2.19 9.81
MERCURY 7439-97-6 7471A mg/kg 11 46 0.033 0.660 0.078 5E-05 0.017 0.027 0.00003 0.010 0.030 0.00005 0.019 0.080 0.00005 0.019
SELENIUM 7782-49-2 6010B mg/kg 390 5,800 0.52 10.4 <1.76 0.938 1.46 <3.17 1.69 3.17 <1.67 0.888 1.67 <3.92 2.09 3.92
SILVER 7440-22-4 6010B mg/kg 390 5,800 0.8 16.0 0.361 J 0.066 0.441 0.602 J 0.119 0.793 0.300 J 0.062 0.417 0.785 J 0.147 0.981
CALCIUM, SOLUBLE 7440-70-2 6010B mg/kg NE NE NE NE 1,120 0.08 2.4 428 0.08 2.3 245 0.09 2.4 428 0.09 2.5
MAGNESIUM, SOLUBLE 7439-95-4 6010B mg/kg NE NE NE NE 10.5 0.2 2.4 1.1 J 0.2 2.3 19.6 0.2 2.4 17.2 0.2 2.5
SODIUM, SOLUBLE 7440-23-5 6010B mg/kg NE NE NE NE 786 1.2 5.9
862 1.2 5.8 5,040 1.2 6.1 5,490 1.2 6.2
Soil and Sludge Salinity Parameters
ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY NA SSSA 10-3.3 mmhos/cm 17 14.4 29.5 29.5
EXCHANGEABLE SODIUM PERCENTAGE N/A CTF10080 percent 8.6 0 0.1 13.7 0 0.1 87.6 0 0.1 74.7 0 0.1
SODIUM ADSORPTION RATIO N/A CTF10210 None 6.4 0.1 0.1 11.4 0.1 0.1 83.2 0.1 0.1 70.6 0.1 0.1
*dS/M is numerically equivalent to mmhos/cm
Soil and Sludge TCLP Metals
Analyte CAS Method Units Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
ARSENIC - TCLP 7440-38-2 6010B mg/l <0.50 0.13 0.50 <0.50 0.13 0.50 0.21 J 0.13 0.50 0.37 J 0.13 0.50
BARIUM - TCLP 7440-39-3 6010B mg/l 1.75 0.006 0.20 1.75 0.006 0.20 1.63 0.006 0.20 2.47 0.006 0.20
CADMIUM - TCLP 7440-43-9 6010B mg/l <0.050 0.013 0.050 <0.50 0.013 0.050
<0.50 0.013 0.050
<0.50 0.013 0.050
CHROMIUM - TCLP 7440-47-3 6010B mg/l 0.011 J 0.007 0.050 0.011 J 0.007 0.050 0.011 J 0.007 0.050 0.010 J 0.007 0.050
LEAD - TCLP 7439-92-1 6010B mg/l <0.20 0.11 0.20 <0.20 0.11 0.20 <0.20 0.11 0.20 <0.20 0.11 0.20
MERCURY - TCLP 7439-97-6 7471A mg/l <0.0020 0.00008 0.0020 <0.0020 0.00008 0.0020
<0.0020 0.00008 0.0020
<0.0020 0.00008 0.0020
SELENIUM - TCLP 7782-49-2 6010B mg/l <0.20 0.11 0.20 <0.20 0.11 0.20
<0.20 0.11 0.20
<0.20 0.11 0.20
SILVER - TCLP 7440-22-4 6010B mg/l 0.04 J 0.007 0.05 0.04 J 0.007 0.05 0.04 J 0.007 0.05 0.03 J 0.007 0.05
Qualifiers (Q)/Abbreviations:
DAF: Dilution Attenuation Factor
J: The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
mg/kg: Milligrams per kilogram
mmhos/cm: millimhos per centimeter
NE: Not Established
TCLP: Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
<: Less than Reported Detection Limit (RDL)
Bold value exceeds Method Detection Limit (MDL).
Color shaded value exceeds screening level.
RSL: Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels for soil at residential (Res.) and industrial (Ind.) properties (November
2023; TR=1E-06; THQ=1.0).
SSL: Environmental Protection Agency Risk-based Soil Screening Levels for Protection of Groundwater (November 2023; DAF=1 and
DAF=20).
TCLP Hazardous Waste Threshold
5
100
Client Sample ID
DOGM: Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil, Gas and Mining cleanup levels for oil and gas exploration
and production (E&P) related sites
Soil-1 NW Soil-2NE
Date Collected
1
5
5
0.2
1
5
Soil-3 SE
12/20/2023 12/20/2023
Client Sample ID
23L1850-03
Lab Sample ID
Date Collected 12/20/2023 12/20/2023
Lab Sample ID 23L1850-01
DOGM Criteria
< 4 mmhos/cm
< 15%
< 12
Soil-4 SW
12/20/2023 12/20/2023 12/20/2023 12/20/2023
23L1850-01 23L1850-02 23L1850-03 23L1850-04
23L1850-02
Soil-1 NW Soil-2 NE
23L1850-04
Soil-3 SE Soil-4 SW
Page 1 of 3
Table 1 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge Inorganics
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
ARSENIC 7440-38-2 6010B mg/kg 0.7 3 0.0015 0.0300
BARIUM 7440-39-3 6010B mg/kg 15,000 220,000 160 3,200
CADMIUM 7440-43-9 6010B mg/kg 7.1 100 NE NE
CHROMIUM 7440-47-3 6010B mg/kg NE NE NE NE
LEAD 7439-92-1 6010B mg/kg 400 800 NE NE
MERCURY 7439-97-6 7471A mg/kg 11 46 0.033 0.660
SELENIUM 7782-49-2 6010B mg/kg 390 5,800 0.52 10.4
SILVER 7440-22-4 6010B mg/kg 390 5,800 0.8 16.0
CALCIUM, SOLUBLE 7440-70-2 6010B mg/kg NE NE NE NE
MAGNESIUM, SOLUBLE 7439-95-4 6010B mg/kg NE NE NE NE
SODIUM, SOLUBLE 7440-23-5 6010B mg/kg NE NE NE NE
ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY NA SSSA 10-3.3 mmhos/cm
EXCHANGEABLE SODIUM PERCENTAGE N/A CTF10080 percent
SODIUM ADSORPTION RATIO N/A CTF10210 None
*dS/M is numerically equivalent to mmhos/cm
Analyte CAS Method Units
ARSENIC - TCLP 7440-38-2 6010B mg/l
BARIUM - TCLP 7440-39-3 6010B mg/l
CADMIUM - TCLP 7440-43-9 6010B mg/l
CHROMIUM - TCLP 7440-47-3 6010B mg/l
LEAD - TCLP 7439-92-1 6010B mg/l
MERCURY - TCLP 7439-97-6 7471A mg/l
SELENIUM - TCLP 7782-49-2 6010B mg/l
SILVER - TCLP 7440-22-4 6010B mg/l
Qualifiers (Q)/Abbreviations:
DAF: Dilution Attenuation Factor
J: The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
mg/kg: Milligrams per kilogram
mmhos/cm: millimhos per centimeter
NE: Not Established
TCLP: Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
<: Less than Reported Detection Limit (RDL)
Bold value exceeds Method Detection Limit (MDL).
Color shaded value exceeds screening level.
RSL: Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels for soil at residential (Res.) and industrial (Ind.) properties (November
2023; TR=1E-06; THQ=1.0).
SSL: Environmental Protection Agency Risk-based Soil Screening Levels for Protection of Groundwater (November 2023; DAF=1 and
DAF=20).
TCLP Hazardous Waste Threshold
5
100
Client Sample ID
DOGM: Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil, Gas and Mining cleanup levels for oil and gas exploration
and production (E&P) related sites
Date Collected
1
5
5
0.2
1
5
Client Sample ID
Lab Sample ID
Date Collected
Lab Sample ID
DOGM Criteria
< 4 mmhos/cm
< 15%
< 12
Soil and Sludge Total Metals +
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
41.8 3.06 11.9 6.19 1.15 4.50 10.8 1.12 4.39 3.01 0.337 1.32
1,440 0.146 1.19 1,450 0.055 0.450 1,340 0.054 0.439 187 0.016 0.132
<1.19 0.303 1.19 <0.450 0.114 0.450 <0.439 0.111 0.439 0.055 J 0.033 0.132
18.9 0.177 1.19 12.0 0.067 0.450 10.3 0.065 0.439 7.17 0.020 0.132
8.50 J 2.66 11.9 4.29 J 1.00 4.50 5.63 0.978 4.39 1.74 0.293 1.32
0.328 0.0001 0.045 0.032 0.00004 0.014 0.026 0.00004 0.014 0.013 0.00002 0.008
<4.78 2.54 4.78 <1.80 0.957 1.80 <1.76 0.934 1.76 <0.526 0.280 0.526
0.812 J 0.179 1.19 0.396 J 0.067 0.450 0.342 J 0.066 0.439 0.134 0.020 0.132
38.3 0.1 3.7 1250 0.1 3.0 1,100 0.09 2.5 807 0.08 2.3
5.1 0.3 3.7 1.1 J 0.3 3.0 6.9 0.2 2.5 0.2 J 0.2 2.3
191 1.9 9.3 1,690 1.5 7.4 2,080 1.3 6.4
310 1.2 5.8
Soil and Sludge Salinity Parameters
0.565 24.3 15.6 1.26
9.9 0 0.1 15.5 0 0.1 19.6 0 0.1 5 0 0.1
7.7 0.1 0.1 13.1 0.1 0.1 17.2 0.1 0.1 3 0.1 0.1
Soil and Sludge TCLP Metals
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
0.29 J 0.13 0.50 0.15 J 0.13 0.50 0.23 J 0.13 0.50
<0.50 0.13 0.50
3.84 0.006 0.20 1.12 0.006 0.20 2.14 0.006 0.20 1.51 0.006 0.20
<0.50 0.013 0.050
<0.50 0.013 0.050
<0.50 0.013 0.050
<0.50 0.013 0.050
0.012 J 0.007 0.050 0.049 J 0.007 0.050 0.025 J 0.007 0.050 0.034 J 0.007 0.050
<0.20 0.11 0.20 <0.20 0.11 0.20 <0.20 0.11 0.20 <0.20 0.11 0.20
<0.0020 0.00008 0.0020 <0.0020 0.00008 0.0020
<0.0020 0.00008 0.0020
<0.0020 0.00008 0.0020
<0.20 0.11 0.20
<0.20 0.11 0.20
<0.20 0.11 0.20
<0.20 0.11 0.20
0.04 J 0.007 0.05 0.04 J 0.007 0.05 0.04 J 0.007 0.05 0.04 J 0.007 0.05
12/20/202312/20/202312/20/2023
Sludge-4 SW
12/20/2023 12/20/2023 12/20/2023 12/20/2023
23L1850-05 23L1850-06 23L1850-07 23L1850-08
Sludge-1 NW Sludge-2 NE Sludge-3 SE Sludge-4 SW
12/20/2023
Sludge-1 NW Sludge-2 NE Sludge-3 SE
23L1850-0723L1850-05 23L1850-06 23L1850-08
Page 2 of 3
Table 1 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge Inorganics
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
ARSENIC 7440-38-2 6010B mg/kg 0.7 3 0.0015 0.0300
BARIUM 7440-39-3 6010B mg/kg 15,000 220,000 160 3,200
CADMIUM 7440-43-9 6010B mg/kg 7.1 100 NE NE
CHROMIUM 7440-47-3 6010B mg/kg NE NE NE NE
LEAD 7439-92-1 6010B mg/kg 400 800 NE NE
MERCURY 7439-97-6 7471A mg/kg 11 46 0.033 0.660
SELENIUM 7782-49-2 6010B mg/kg 390 5,800 0.52 10.4
SILVER 7440-22-4 6010B mg/kg 390 5,800 0.8 16.0
CALCIUM, SOLUBLE 7440-70-2 6010B mg/kg NE NE NE NE
MAGNESIUM, SOLUBLE 7439-95-4 6010B mg/kg NE NE NE NE
SODIUM, SOLUBLE 7440-23-5 6010B mg/kg NE NE NE NE
ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY NA SSSA 10-3.3 mmhos/cm
EXCHANGEABLE SODIUM PERCENTAGE N/A CTF10080 percent
SODIUM ADSORPTION RATIO N/A CTF10210 None
*dS/M is numerically equivalent to mmhos/cm
Analyte CAS Method Units
ARSENIC - TCLP 7440-38-2 6010B mg/l
BARIUM - TCLP 7440-39-3 6010B mg/l
CADMIUM - TCLP 7440-43-9 6010B mg/l
CHROMIUM - TCLP 7440-47-3 6010B mg/l
LEAD - TCLP 7439-92-1 6010B mg/l
MERCURY - TCLP 7439-97-6 7471A mg/l
SELENIUM - TCLP 7782-49-2 6010B mg/l
SILVER - TCLP 7440-22-4 6010B mg/l
Qualifiers (Q)/Abbreviations:
DAF: Dilution Attenuation Factor
J: The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
mg/kg: Milligrams per kilogram
mmhos/cm: millimhos per centimeter
NE: Not Established
TCLP: Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
<: Less than Reported Detection Limit (RDL)
Bold value exceeds Method Detection Limit (MDL).
Color shaded value exceeds screening level.
RSL: Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels for soil at residential (Res.) and industrial (Ind.) properties (November
2023; TR=1E-06; THQ=1.0).
SSL: Environmental Protection Agency Risk-based Soil Screening Levels for Protection of Groundwater (November 2023; DAF=1 and
DAF=20).
TCLP Hazardous Waste Threshold
5
100
Client Sample ID
DOGM: Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil, Gas and Mining cleanup levels for oil and gas exploration
and production (E&P) related sites
Date Collected
1
5
5
0.2
1
5
Client Sample ID
Lab Sample ID
Date Collected
Lab Sample ID
DOGM Criteria
< 4 mmhos/cm
< 15%
< 12
Soil and Sludge Total Metals +
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
116 0.337 1.32 5.79 0.337 1.32
1470 0.016 0.132 2110 0.016 0.132
0.214 J 0.033 0.132 <0.220 0.033 0.132
73.3 0.020 0.132 12.9 0.020 0.132
151 0.293 1.32 6.94 0.293 1.32
2.50 0.00002 0.008 0.012 J 0.00002 0.008
<3.29 0.280 0.526 <0.881 0.280 0.526
1.61 0.020 0.132 0.048 J 0.020 0.132
111 0.08 2.3 53.9 0.08 2.3
11.5 0.2 2.3 50.7 0.2 2.3
1620 1.2 5.8 17400 1.2 5.8
Soil and Sludge Salinity Parameters
3800 2 10 60100 2 10
32.8 0 0.1 349 0 0.1
30.0 0.1 0.1 337 0.1 0.1
Soil and Sludge TCLP Metals
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
0.24 J 0.13 0.50
<0.50 0.13 0.50
10.5 0.006 0.20
2.74 0.006 0.20
<0.050 0.013 0.050
<0.050 0.013 0.050
0.011 J 0.007 0.050
0.009 J 0.007 0.050
<0.20 0.11 0.20 <0.20 0.11 0.20
<0.0020 0.00008 0.0020
<0.0020 0.00008 0.0020
<0.20 0.11 0.20
<0.20 0.11 0.20
<0.05 0.007 0.05 <0.05 0.007 0.05
3/5/2024
24C0256-02
Sludge-2 E
3/5/2024
24C0256-02
Sludge-2 E
3/5/2024
24C0256-01
Sludge-1 W
3/5/2024
24C0256-01
Sludge-1 W
Page 3 of 3
Table 2 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge Petroleum Hydrocarbons and VOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial ISL Tier 1
DOGM
Criteria
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Special
Waste
Requirements
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
TRPH NE 9071B mg/kg NE NE 1000 10000 10000 NE NE NE 9740 117 294 6280 116 290
TPH-DRO 68334-30-5 8015 mg/kg NE NE 500 5000 2000 NE NE NE 61800 589 589 29100 581 581
TPH-GRO 8006-61-9 8015D/GRO mg/kg NE NE 150 1500 1000 NE NE NE 642 2.9 2.9 68.2 0.5 0.5
OIL & GREASE NE 1664BMod mg/kg NE NE 1000 10000 NE NE NE NE 39400 77 294 16700 76 290
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 630-20-6 8260B mg/kg 2 8.8 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.06 0.29 <0.05 0.01 0.05
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 71-55-6 8260B mg/kg 8100 36000 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.07 0.29 <0.05 0.01 0.05
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 79-34-5 8260B mg/kg 0.6 2.7 NE NE NE NE <0.29 MS-Low 0.08 0.29 <0.05 0.01 0.05
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE 79-00-5 8260B mg/kg 1.1 5 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.09 0.29 <0.05 0.02 0.05
1,1,2-TRICHLOROTRIFLUOROETHANE 76-13-1 8260B mg/kg 6700 28000 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.16 0.29 <0.05 0.03 0.05
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 75-34-3 8260B mg/kg 3.6 16 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.19 0.29 <0.05 0.03 0.05
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 75-35-4 8260B mg/kg 230 1000 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.05 0.29 <0.05 0.01 0.05
1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE 563-58-6 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.06 0.29 <0.05 0.01 0.05
1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE 87-61-6 8260B mg/kg 63 930 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.09 0.29 <0.05 0.02 0.05
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE 96-18-4 8260B mg/kg 0.0051 0.11 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.09 0.29 <0.05 0.02 0.05
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 120-82-1 8260B mg/kg 24 110 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.17 0.29 <0.05 0.03 0.05
1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 95-63-6 8260B mg/kg 300 1800 NE NE NE 0.081 1.62 NE 38.5 0.85 2.94 4.01 0.02 0.05
1,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE 96-12-8 8260B mg/kg 0.0053 0.064 NE NE NE NE <0.29 J-LOW-C 0.21 0.29 <0.05 0.04 0.05
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE 106-93-4 8260B mg/kg 0.036 0.16 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.07 0.29 <0.05 0.01 0.05
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE 95-50-1 8260B mg/kg 1800 9300 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.07 0.29 <0.05 0.01 0.05
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 107-06-2 8260B mg/kg 0.46 2 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.09 0.29 <0.05 0.02 0.05
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE 78-87-5 8260B mg/kg 2.5 11 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.07 0.29 <0.05 0.01 0.05
1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 108-67-8 8260B mg/kg 270 1500 NE NE NE 0.087 1.74 NE 16.0 MS-Low 0.07 0.29 1.19 0.01 0.05
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE 541-73-1 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.11 0.29 <0.05 0.02 0.05
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE 142-28-9 8260B mg/kg 1600 23000 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.06 0.29 <0.05 0.01 0.05
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 106-46-7 8260B mg/kg 2.6 11 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.12 0.29 <0.05 0.02 0.05
2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE 594-20-7 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.17 0.29 <0.05 0.03 0.05
2-CHLOROTOLUENE 95-49-8 8260B mg/kg 1600 23000 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.09 0.29 <0.05 0.02 0.05
2-NITROPROPANE 79-46-9 8260B mg/kg 0.0636 0.28 NE NE NE NE <2.94 0.44 2.94 <0.55 J-LOW-L 0.08 0.55
4-CHLOROTOLUENE 106-43-4 8260B mg/kg 1600 23000 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.07 0.29 <0.05 0.01 0.05
P-ISOPROPYLTOLUENE 99-87-6 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE 2.22 0.11 0.29 0.33 0.02 0.05
ACETONE 67-64-1 8260B mg/kg 61000 670000 NE NE NE NE <2.94 2.25 2.94 <0.55 0.42 0.55
BENZENE 71-43-2 8260B mg/kg 1.2 5.1 0.2 0.9 0.9 0.00023 0.0046 0.03 0.55 0.07 0.12 0.21 0.01 0.02
BROMOBENZENE 108-86-1 8260B mg/kg 290 1800 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.09 0.29 <0.05 0.02 0.05
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE 74-97-5 8260B mg/kg 150 630 NE NE NE NE
<0.29 0.1 0.29 <0.05 0.02 0.05
12/20/2023
Lab Sample ID
Client Sample ID
23L1850-01 23L1850-02
Soil-1 NW Soil-2 NE
Date Collected 12/20/2023
Page 1 of 15
Table 2 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge Petroleum Hydrocarbons and VOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial ISL Tier 1
DOGM
Criteria
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Special
Waste
Requirements
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
12/20/2023
Lab Sample ID
Client Sample ID
23L1850-01 23L1850-02
Soil-1 NW Soil-2 NE
Date Collected 12/20/2023
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 75-27-4 8260B mg/kg 0.29 1.3 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.08 0.29 <0.05 0.02 0.05
BROMOFORM 75-25-2 8260B mg/kg 19 86 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.08 0.29 <0.05 0.02 0.05
BROMOMETHANE 74-83-9 8260B mg/kg 6.8 30 NE NE NE NE <0.29 J-LOW-C 0.19 0.29 <0.05 0.04 0.05
CARBON DISULFIDE 75-15-0 8260B mg/kg 770 3500 NE NE NE NE <0.59 0.37 0.59 <0.11 0.07 0.11
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 56-23-5 8260B mg/kg 0.65 2.9 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.05 0.29 <0.05 0.009 0.05
CHLOROBENZENE 108-90-7 8260B mg/kg 280 1300 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.07 0.29 <0.05 0.01 0.05
CHLOROETHANE 75-00-3 8260B mg/kg 14000 57000 NE NE NE NE <0.29 MS-Low 0.19 0.29 <0.05 0.04 0.05
CHLOROFORM 67-66-3 8260B mg/kg 0.32 1.4 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.13 0.29 <0.05 0.02 0.05
CHLOROMETHANE 74-87-3 8260B mg/kg 110 460 NE NE NE NE <0.29 J-LOW-C 0.09 0.29 <0.05 0.02 0.05
CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 156-59-2 8260B mg/kg 160 2300 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.10 0.29 <0.05 0.02 0.05
CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 10061-01-5 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.07 0.29 <0.05 0.01 0.05
CYCLOHEXANONE 108-94-1 8260B mg/kg 28000 130000 NE NE NE 0.34 6.8 NE <2.94 2.78 2.94 <0.55 0.52 0.55
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE 124-48-1 8260B mg/kg 8.3 39 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.08 0.29 <0.05 0.02 0.05
DIBROMOMETHANE 74-95-3 8260B mg/kg 24 99 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.04 0.29 <0.05 0.007 0.05
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE 75-71-8 8260B mg/kg 87 370 NE NE NE NE <0.29 J-LOW-C 0.20 0.29 <0.05 0.04 0.05
ETHYL ACETATE 141-78-6 8260B mg/kg 620 2600 NE NE NE NE <0.59 0.19 0.59 <0.11 0.03 0.11
ETHYL ETHER 60-29-7 8260B mg/kg 16000 230000 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.06 0.29 <0.05 0.01 0.05
ETHYLBENZENE 100-41-4 8260B mg/kg 5.8 25 5 23 23 0.0017 0.034 13 2.71 0.05 0.29 0.36 0.009 0.05
HEXACHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE 87-68-3 8260B mg/kg 1.2 5.3 NE NE NE 0.00027 0.0054 NE 0.94 MS-Low 0.11 0.29 <0.05 0.02 0.05
ISOBUTANOL 78-83-1 8260B mg/kg 7800 43000 NE NE NE NE <5.89 MS-Low 2.22 5.89 <1.10 0.41 1.10
ISOPROPYLBENZENE 98-82-8 8260B mg/kg 1900 9900 NE NE NE 0.74 14.8 NE <0.29 0.05 0.29 0.06 0.01 0.05
2-BUTANONE (MEK) 78-93-3 8260B mg/kg 27000 190000 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.27 0.29 <0.05 0.05 0.05
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE (MIBK) 108-10-1 8260B mg/kg 33000 140000 NE NE NE NE <1.47 1.11 1.47 <0.27 0.21 0.27
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 75-09-2 8260B mg/kg 57 1000 NE NE NE NE <5.89 0.21 5.89 <1.10 0.04 1.10
METHYL TERT-BUTYL ETHER 1634-04-4 8260B mg/kg 47 210 0.3 0.3 NE NE <0.12 0.12 0.12 <0.02 0.02 0.02
NAPHTHALENE 91-20-3 8260B mg/kg 2 8.6 51 51 51 0.00038 0.0076 NE 5.54 0.11 0.29 <0.05 0.02 0.05
N-BUTYL ALCOHOL 71-36-3 8260B mg/kg 7800 120000 NE NE NE NE <14.7 11.9 14.7 <2.74 J-LOW-C 2.22 2.74
N-BUTYLBENZENE 104-51-8 8260B mg/kg 3900 58000 NE NE NE 3.2 64 NE <0.29 J-High 0.13 0.29 <0.05 0.02 0.05
N-PROPYLBENZENE 103-65-1 8260B mg/kg 3800 24000 NE NE NE 1.2 24 NE 4.01 MS-Low 0.08 0.29 0.24 0.01 0.05
PENTACHLOROETHANE 76-01-7 8260B mg/kg 7.7 36 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.25 0.29 <0.05 0.05 0.05
SEC-BUTYLBENZENE 135-98-8 8260B mg/kg 7800 120000 NE NE NE 5.9 118 NE <0.29 J-High 0.07 0.29 <0.05 0.01 0.05
STYRENE 100-42-5 8260B mg/kg 6000 35000 NE NE NE 1.3 26 NE <0.29 0.07 0.29 0.03 J 0.01 0.05
TERT-BUTYLBENZENE 98-06-6 8260B mg/kg 7800 120000 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.11 0.29 <0.05 0.02 0.05
TETRACHLOROETHENE 127-18-4 8260B mg/kg 24 100 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.14 0.29 <0.05 0.03 0.05
TOLUENE 108-88-3 8260B mg/kg 4900 47000 9 25 25 0.76 15.2 12 6.52 0.08 0.29
1.49 0.01 0.05
Page 2 of 15
Table 2 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge Petroleum Hydrocarbons and VOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial ISL Tier 1
DOGM
Criteria
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Special
Waste
Requirements
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
12/20/2023
Lab Sample ID
Client Sample ID
23L1850-01 23L1850-02
Soil-1 NW Soil-2 NE
Date Collected 12/20/2023
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 156-60-5 8260B mg/kg 70 300 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.08 0.29 <0.05 0.01 0.05
TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 10061-02-6 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.05 0.29 <0.05 0.009 0.05
TRICHLOROETHENE 79-01-6 8260B mg/kg 0.94 6 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.11 0.29 <0.05 0.02 0.05
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE 75-69-4 8260B mg/kg 23000 350000 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.18 0.29 <0.05 0.03 0.05
VINYL CHLORIDE 75-01-4 8260B mg/kg 0.059 1.7 NE NE NE NE <0.29 0.09 0.29 <0.05 0.02 0.05
XYLENES, TOTAL 1330-20-7 8260B mg/kg 580 2500 142 142 142 0.19 3.8 200 27.7 0.18 0.29
3.30 0.03 0.05
Qualifiers (Q)/Abbreviations:
DAF: Dilution Attenuation Factor
DOGM: Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil, Gas and Mining cleanup levels for oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) related sites
J: The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
J3: The associated batch QC was outside the established quality control range for precision.
J-High: Estimated High due to high recovery of LCS or CCV.
J-LOW-L: Estimated low due to low recovery of LCS.
J-LOW-C: Estimated low due to low recovery of CCV.
mg/kg: Milligrams per kilogram
MS-LOW: Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery.
NA: Not Analyzed
NE: Not Established
RSL: Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels for soil at residential (Res.) and industrial (Ind.) properties (November 2023; TR=1E-06; THQ=1.0).
SSL: Environmental Protection Agency Risk-based Soil Screening Levels for Protection of Groundwater (November 2023; DAF=1 and DAF=20).
Blue italicized RDLs (e.g., <0.0100 ) exceed one or more of the screening levels.
Color shaded value exceeds screening level.
Bold value exceeds Method Detection Limit (MDL).
<: Less than Reported Detection Limit (RDL)
E:The concentration indicated for this analyte is an estimated value above the calibration range of the instrument. This value is considered an estimate (CLP E-flag).EPA RSL: Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels for soil at residential (Res.) and industrial (Ind.) properties (November 2023; TR=1E-06;
THQ=1.0).Utah's Initial Screening Levels (ISLs) and risk-based Tier 1 Screening Levels (Tier 1) for petroleum releases at leaking underground storage tank sites
Page 3 of 15
Table 2 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge Petroleum Hydrocarbons and VOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial ISL Tier 1
DOGM
Criteria
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Special
Waste
Requirements
TRPH NE 9071B mg/kg NE NE 1000 10000 10000 NE NE NE
TPH-DRO 68334-30-5 8015 mg/kg NE NE 500 5000 2000 NE NE NE
TPH-GRO 8006-61-9 8015D/GRO mg/kg NE NE 150 1500 1000 NE NE NE
OIL & GREASE NE 1664BMod mg/kg NE NE 1000 10000 NE NE NE NE
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 630-20-6 8260B mg/kg 2 8.8 NE NE NE NE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 71-55-6 8260B mg/kg 8100 36000 NE NE NE NE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 79-34-5 8260B mg/kg 0.6 2.7 NE NE NE NE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE 79-00-5 8260B mg/kg 1.1 5 NE NE NE NE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROTRIFLUOROETHANE 76-13-1 8260B mg/kg 6700 28000 NE NE NE NE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 75-34-3 8260B mg/kg 3.6 16 NE NE NE NE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 75-35-4 8260B mg/kg 230 1000 NE NE NE NE
1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE 563-58-6 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE 87-61-6 8260B mg/kg 63 930 NE NE NE NE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE 96-18-4 8260B mg/kg 0.0051 0.11 NE NE NE NE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 120-82-1 8260B mg/kg 24 110 NE NE NE NE
1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 95-63-6 8260B mg/kg 300 1800 NE NE NE 0.081 1.62 NE
1,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE 96-12-8 8260B mg/kg 0.0053 0.064 NE NE NE NE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE 106-93-4 8260B mg/kg 0.036 0.16 NE NE NE NE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE 95-50-1 8260B mg/kg 1800 9300 NE NE NE NE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 107-06-2 8260B mg/kg 0.46 2 NE NE NE NE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE 78-87-5 8260B mg/kg 2.5 11 NE NE NE NE
1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 108-67-8 8260B mg/kg 270 1500 NE NE NE 0.087 1.74 NE
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE 541-73-1 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE 142-28-9 8260B mg/kg 1600 23000 NE NE NE NE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 106-46-7 8260B mg/kg 2.6 11 NE NE NE NE
2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE 594-20-7 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE
2-CHLOROTOLUENE 95-49-8 8260B mg/kg 1600 23000 NE NE NE NE
2-NITROPROPANE 79-46-9 8260B mg/kg 0.0636 0.28 NE NE NE NE
4-CHLOROTOLUENE 106-43-4 8260B mg/kg 1600 23000 NE NE NE NE
P-ISOPROPYLTOLUENE 99-87-6 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE
ACETONE 67-64-1 8260B mg/kg 61000 670000 NE NE NE NE
BENZENE 71-43-2 8260B mg/kg 1.2 5.1 0.2 0.9 0.9 0.00023 0.0046 0.03
BROMOBENZENE 108-86-1 8260B mg/kg 290 1800 NE NE NE NE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE 74-97-5 8260B mg/kg 150 630 NE NE NE NE
Lab Sample ID
Client Sample ID
Date Collected
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
5890 122 305 7530 124 310
16800 611 611 27400 622 622
678 3.1 3.1 831 3.1 3.1
12700 305 79 13600 81 310
<0.31 0.06 0.31 <0.31 0.07 0.31
<0.31 0.07 0.31 <0.31 0.07 0.31
<0.31 0.08 0.31 <0.31 0.08 0.31
<0.31 0.09 0.31 <0.31 0.09 0.31
<0.31 0.17 0.31 <0.31 0.17 0.31
<0.31 0.19 0.31 <0.31 0.20 0.31
<0.31 0.06 0.31 <0.31 0.06 0.31
<0.31 0.06 0.31 <0.31 0.07 0.31
<0.31 0.09 0.31 <0.31 0.09 0.31
<0.31 0.09 0.31 <0.31 0.10 0.31
<0.31 0.18 0.31 <0.31 0.18 0.31
45.7 0.89 3.06 47.5 0.90 3.11
<0.31 J-LOW-C 0.21 0.31 <0.31 J-LOW-C 0.22 0.31
<0.31 0.07 0.31 <0.31 0.07 0.31
<0.31 0.08 0.31 <0.31 0.08 0.31
<0.31 0.09 0.31 <0.31 0.09 0.31
<0.31 0.08 0.31 <0.31 0.08 0.31
19.0 0.07 0.31 21.2 0.07 0.31
<0.31 0.11 0.31 <0.31 0.12 0.31
<0.31 0.06 0.31 <0.31 0.06 0.31
<0.31 0.13 0.31 <0.31 0.13 0.31
<0.31 0.18 0.31 <0.31 0.18 0.31
<0.31 0.09 0.31 <0.31 0.09 0.31
<3.06 J-LOW-L 0.46 3.06 <3.11 J-LOW-L 0.46 3.11
<0.31 0.08 0.31 <0.31 0.08 0.31
2.19 0.12 0.31 2.44 0.12 0.31
<3.06 2.34 3.06 <3.11 2.38 3.11
3.86 0.08 0.12 6.10 0.08 0.12
<0.31 0.09 0.31 <0.31 0.09 0.31
<0.31 0.11 0.31 <0.31 0.11 0.31
12/20/2023 12/20/2023
23L1850-03 23L1850-04
Soil-3 SE Soil-4 SW
Page 4 of 15
Table 2 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge Petroleum Hydrocarbons and VOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial ISL Tier 1
DOGM
Criteria
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Special
Waste
Requirements
Lab Sample ID
Client Sample ID
Date Collected
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 75-27-4 8260B mg/kg 0.29 1.3 NE NE NE NE
BROMOFORM 75-25-2 8260B mg/kg 19 86 NE NE NE NE
BROMOMETHANE 74-83-9 8260B mg/kg 6.8 30 NE NE NE NE
CARBON DISULFIDE 75-15-0 8260B mg/kg 770 3500 NE NE NE NE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 56-23-5 8260B mg/kg 0.65 2.9 NE NE NE NE
CHLOROBENZENE 108-90-7 8260B mg/kg 280 1300 NE NE NE NE
CHLOROETHANE 75-00-3 8260B mg/kg 14000 57000 NE NE NE NE
CHLOROFORM 67-66-3 8260B mg/kg 0.32 1.4 NE NE NE NE
CHLOROMETHANE 74-87-3 8260B mg/kg 110 460 NE NE NE NE
CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 156-59-2 8260B mg/kg 160 2300 NE NE NE NE
CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 10061-01-5 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE
CYCLOHEXANONE 108-94-1 8260B mg/kg 28000 130000 NE NE NE 0.34 6.8 NE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE 124-48-1 8260B mg/kg 8.3 39 NE NE NE NE
DIBROMOMETHANE 74-95-3 8260B mg/kg 24 99 NE NE NE NE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE 75-71-8 8260B mg/kg 87 370 NE NE NE NE
ETHYL ACETATE 141-78-6 8260B mg/kg 620 2600 NE NE NE NE
ETHYL ETHER 60-29-7 8260B mg/kg 16000 230000 NE NE NE NE
ETHYLBENZENE 100-41-4 8260B mg/kg 5.8 25 5 23 23 0.0017 0.034 13
HEXACHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE 87-68-3 8260B mg/kg 1.2 5.3 NE NE NE 0.00027 0.0054 NE
ISOBUTANOL 78-83-1 8260B mg/kg 7800 43000 NE NE NE NE
ISOPROPYLBENZENE 98-82-8 8260B mg/kg 1900 9900 NE NE NE 0.74 14.8 NE
2-BUTANONE (MEK) 78-93-3 8260B mg/kg 27000 190000 NE NE NE NE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE (MIBK) 108-10-1 8260B mg/kg 33000 140000 NE NE NE NE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 75-09-2 8260B mg/kg 57 1000 NE NE NE NE
METHYL TERT-BUTYL ETHER 1634-04-4 8260B mg/kg 47 210 0.3 0.3 NE NE
NAPHTHALENE 91-20-3 8260B mg/kg 2 8.6 51 51 51 0.00038 0.0076 NE
N-BUTYL ALCOHOL 71-36-3 8260B mg/kg 7800 120000 NE NE NE NE
N-BUTYLBENZENE 104-51-8 8260B mg/kg 3900 58000 NE NE NE 3.2 64 NE
N-PROPYLBENZENE 103-65-1 8260B mg/kg 3800 24000 NE NE NE 1.2 24 NE
PENTACHLOROETHANE 76-01-7 8260B mg/kg 7.7 36 NE NE NE NE
SEC-BUTYLBENZENE 135-98-8 8260B mg/kg 7800 120000 NE NE NE 5.9 118 NE
STYRENE 100-42-5 8260B mg/kg 6000 35000 NE NE NE 1.3 26 NE
TERT-BUTYLBENZENE 98-06-6 8260B mg/kg 7800 120000 NE NE NE NE
TETRACHLOROETHENE 127-18-4 8260B mg/kg 24 100 NE NE NE NE
TOLUENE 108-88-3 8260B mg/kg 4900 47000 9 25 25 0.76 15.2 12
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
12/20/2023 12/20/2023
23L1850-03 23L1850-04
Soil-3 SE Soil-4 SW
<0.31 0.09 0.31 <0.31 0.09 0.31
<0.31 0.09 0.31 <0.31 0.09 0.31
<0.31 J-LOW-C 0.20 0.31 <0.31 J-LOW-C 0.20 0.31
<0.61 0.38 0.61 <0.62 0.39 0.62
<0.31 0.05 0.31 <0.31 0.05 0.31
<0.31 0.07 0.31 <0.31 0.07 0.31
<0.31 0.20 0.31 <0.31 0.21 0.31
<0.31 0.14 0.31 <0.31 0.14 0.31
<0.31 J-LOW-C 0.09 0.31 <0.31 J-LOW-C 0.09 0.31
<0.31 0.10 0.31 <0.31 0.11 0.31
<0.31 0.07 0.31 <0.31 0.07 0.31
<3.06 J-LOW-C 2.89 3.06 <3.11 J-LOW-C 2.94 3.11
<0.31 0.09 0.31 <0.31 0.09 0.31
<0.31 0.04 0.31 <0.31 0.04 0.31
<0.31 J-LOW-C 0.20 0.31 <0.31 J-LOW-C 0.21 0.31
<0.61 0.19 0.61 <0.62 0.20 0.62
<0.31 0.06 0.31 <0.31 0.06 0.31
7.05 0.05 0.31 9.08 0.05 0.31
<0.31 0.12 0.31 <0.31 0.12 0.31
<6.11 2.30 6.11 <6.22 2.35 6.22
1.96 0.06 0.31 2.31 0.06 0.31
<0.31 0.28 0.31 <0.31 0.29 0.31
<1.53 1.15 1.53 <1.56 1.17 1.56
<6.11 0.22 6.11 <6.22 0.22 6.22
<0.12 0.12 0.12 <0.13 0.12 0.12
4.04 0.11 0.31 4.54 0.11 0.31
<15.3 12.3 15.3 <15.6 12.6 15.6
<0.31 J-High 0.13 0.31 <0.31 J-High 0.13 0.31
4.90 0.08 0.31 5.23 0.08 0.31
<0.31 0.26 0.31 <0.31 0.26 0.31
3.50 J-High 0.08 0.31 3.63 J-High 0.08 0.31
<0.31 0.07 0.31 <0.31 0.07 0.31
<0.31 0.12 0.31 <0.31 0.12 0.31
<0.31 0.14 0.31 <0.31 0.15 0.31
28.3 0.08 0.31 46.0 0.81 3.11
Page 5 of 15
Table 2 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge Petroleum Hydrocarbons and VOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial ISL Tier 1
DOGM
Criteria
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Special
Waste
Requirements
Lab Sample ID
Client Sample ID
Date Collected
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 156-60-5 8260B mg/kg 70 300 NE NE NE NE
TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 10061-02-6 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE
TRICHLOROETHENE 79-01-6 8260B mg/kg 0.94 6 NE NE NE NE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE 75-69-4 8260B mg/kg 23000 350000 NE NE NE NE
VINYL CHLORIDE 75-01-4 8260B mg/kg 0.059 1.7 NE NE NE NE
XYLENES, TOTAL 1330-20-7 8260B mg/kg 580 2500 142 142 142 0.19 3.8 200
Qualifiers (Q)/Abbreviations:
DAF: Dilution Attenuation Factor
DOGM: Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil, Gas and Mining cleanup levels for oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) related sites
J: The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
J3: The associated batch QC was outside the established quality control range for precision.
J-High: Estimated High due to high recovery of LCS or CCV.
J-LOW-L: Estimated low due to low recovery of LCS.
J-LOW-C: Estimated low due to low recovery of CCV.
mg/kg: Milligrams per kilogram
MS-LOW: Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery.
NA: Not Analyzed
NE: Not Established
RSL: Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels for soil at residential (Res.) and industrial (Ind.) properties (November 2023; TR=1E-06; THQ=1.0).
SSL: Environmental Protection Agency Risk-based Soil Screening Levels for Protection of Groundwater (November 2023; DAF=1 and DAF=20).
Blue italicized RDLs (e.g., <0.0100 ) exceed one or more of the screening levels.
Color shaded value exceeds screening level.
Bold value exceeds Method Detection Limit (MDL).
<: Less than Reported Detection Limit (RDL)
E:The concentration indicated for this analyte is an estimated value above the calibration range of the instrument. This value is considered an estimate (CLP E-flag).EPA RSL: Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels for soil at residential (Res.) and industrial (Ind.) properties (November 2023; TR=1E-06;
THQ=1.0).Utah's Initial Screening Levels (ISLs) and risk-based Tier 1 Screening Levels (Tier 1) for petroleum releases at leaking underground storage tank sites
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
12/20/2023 12/20/2023
23L1850-03 23L1850-04
Soil-3 SE Soil-4 SW
<0.31 0.08 0.31 <0.31 0.08 0.31
<0.31 0.05 0.31 <0.31 0.05 0.31
<0.31 0.11 0.31 <0.31 0.12 0.31
<0.31 0.19 0.31 <0.31 0.19 0.31
<0.31 0.10 0.31 <0.31 0.10 0.31
75.5 0.19 0.31 10.3 0.19 0.31
Page 6 of 15
Table 2 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge Petroleum Hydrocarbons and VOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial ISL Tier 1
DOGM
Criteria
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Special
Waste
Requirements
TRPH NE 9071B mg/kg NE NE 1000 10000 10000 NE NE NE
TPH-DRO 68334-30-5 8015 mg/kg NE NE 500 5000 2000 NE NE NE
TPH-GRO 8006-61-9 8015D/GRO mg/kg NE NE 150 1500 1000 NE NE NE
OIL & GREASE NE 1664BMod mg/kg NE NE 1000 10000 NE NE NE NE
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 630-20-6 8260B mg/kg 2 8.8 NE NE NE NE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 71-55-6 8260B mg/kg 8100 36000 NE NE NE NE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 79-34-5 8260B mg/kg 0.6 2.7 NE NE NE NE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE 79-00-5 8260B mg/kg 1.1 5 NE NE NE NE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROTRIFLUOROETHANE 76-13-1 8260B mg/kg 6700 28000 NE NE NE NE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 75-34-3 8260B mg/kg 3.6 16 NE NE NE NE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 75-35-4 8260B mg/kg 230 1000 NE NE NE NE
1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE 563-58-6 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE 87-61-6 8260B mg/kg 63 930 NE NE NE NE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE 96-18-4 8260B mg/kg 0.0051 0.11 NE NE NE NE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 120-82-1 8260B mg/kg 24 110 NE NE NE NE
1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 95-63-6 8260B mg/kg 300 1800 NE NE NE 0.081 1.62 NE
1,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE 96-12-8 8260B mg/kg 0.0053 0.064 NE NE NE NE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE 106-93-4 8260B mg/kg 0.036 0.16 NE NE NE NE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE 95-50-1 8260B mg/kg 1800 9300 NE NE NE NE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 107-06-2 8260B mg/kg 0.46 2 NE NE NE NE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE 78-87-5 8260B mg/kg 2.5 11 NE NE NE NE
1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 108-67-8 8260B mg/kg 270 1500 NE NE NE 0.087 1.74 NE
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE 541-73-1 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE 142-28-9 8260B mg/kg 1600 23000 NE NE NE NE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 106-46-7 8260B mg/kg 2.6 11 NE NE NE NE
2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE 594-20-7 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE
2-CHLOROTOLUENE 95-49-8 8260B mg/kg 1600 23000 NE NE NE NE
2-NITROPROPANE 79-46-9 8260B mg/kg 0.0636 0.28 NE NE NE NE
4-CHLOROTOLUENE 106-43-4 8260B mg/kg 1600 23000 NE NE NE NE
P-ISOPROPYLTOLUENE 99-87-6 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE
ACETONE 67-64-1 8260B mg/kg 61000 670000 NE NE NE NE
BENZENE 71-43-2 8260B mg/kg 1.2 5.1 0.2 0.9 0.9 0.00023 0.0046 0.03
BROMOBENZENE 108-86-1 8260B mg/kg 290 1800 NE NE NE NE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE 74-97-5 8260B mg/kg 150 630 NE NE NE NE
Lab Sample ID
Client Sample ID
Date Collected
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
570000 3460 8660 81000 1430 3570
543000 85000 85000 172000 5860 5860
108000 467 467 6890 37.1 37.1
806000 2260 8660 134000 931 3570
<46.7 9.82 46.7 <3.71 0.78 3.71
<46.7 11.2 46.7 <3.71 0.89 3.71
<46.7 12.6 46.7 <3.71 1.00 3.71
<46.7 13.6 46.7 <3.71 1.08 3.71
<46.7 25.7 46.7 <3.71 2.04 3.71
<46.7 29.5 46.7 <3.71 2.34 3.71
<46.7 8.41 46.7 <3.71 0.67 3.71
<46.7 9.82 46.7 <3.71 0.78 3.71
<46.7 14.0 46.7 <3.71 1.11 3.71
<46.7 14.5 46.7 <3.71 1.15 3.71
<46.7 27.1 46.7 <3.71 2.15 3.71
1960 13.6 46.7 343 1.08 3.71
<46.7 32.7 46.7 <3.71 2.60 3.71
<46.7 11.2 46.7 <3.71 0.89 3.71
<46.7 11.7 46.7 <3.71 0.93 3.71
<46.7 14.0 46.7 <3.71 1.11 3.71
<46.7 11.7 46.7 <3.71 0.93 3.71
1220 10.8 46.7 119 0.85 3.71
<46.7 17.3 46.7 <3.71 1.37 3.71
<46.7 9.35 46.7 <3.71 0.74 3.71
<46.7 19.2 46.7 <3.71 1.52 3.71
<46.7 27.1 46.7 <3.71 2.15 3.71
<46.7 13.6 46.7 <3.71 1.08 3.71
<467 J-LOW-C 69.7 467 <37.1 J-LOW-C 5.53 37.1
<46.7 11.7 46.7 <3.71 0.93 3.71
52.4 18.2 46.7 <3.71 1.45 3.71
2210 357 467 <37.1 28.3 37.1
1800 11.7 18.7 <1.48 0.93 1.48
<46.7 13.6 46.7 <3.71 1.08 3.71
<46.7 16.4 46.7 <3.71 1.30 3.71
23L1850-05 23L1850-06
12/20/2023 12/20/2023
Sludge-1 NW Sludge-2NE
Page 7 of 15
Table 2 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge Petroleum Hydrocarbons and VOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial ISL Tier 1
DOGM
Criteria
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Special
Waste
Requirements
Lab Sample ID
Client Sample ID
Date Collected
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 75-27-4 8260B mg/kg 0.29 1.3 NE NE NE NE
BROMOFORM 75-25-2 8260B mg/kg 19 86 NE NE NE NE
BROMOMETHANE 74-83-9 8260B mg/kg 6.8 30 NE NE NE NE
CARBON DISULFIDE 75-15-0 8260B mg/kg 770 3500 NE NE NE NE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 56-23-5 8260B mg/kg 0.65 2.9 NE NE NE NE
CHLOROBENZENE 108-90-7 8260B mg/kg 280 1300 NE NE NE NE
CHLOROETHANE 75-00-3 8260B mg/kg 14000 57000 NE NE NE NE
CHLOROFORM 67-66-3 8260B mg/kg 0.32 1.4 NE NE NE NE
CHLOROMETHANE 74-87-3 8260B mg/kg 110 460 NE NE NE NE
CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 156-59-2 8260B mg/kg 160 2300 NE NE NE NE
CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 10061-01-5 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE
CYCLOHEXANONE 108-94-1 8260B mg/kg 28000 130000 NE NE NE 0.34 6.8 NE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE 124-48-1 8260B mg/kg 8.3 39 NE NE NE NE
DIBROMOMETHANE 74-95-3 8260B mg/kg 24 99 NE NE NE NE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE 75-71-8 8260B mg/kg 87 370 NE NE NE NE
ETHYL ACETATE 141-78-6 8260B mg/kg 620 2600 NE NE NE NE
ETHYL ETHER 60-29-7 8260B mg/kg 16000 230000 NE NE NE NE
ETHYLBENZENE 100-41-4 8260B mg/kg 5.8 25 5 23 23 0.0017 0.034 13
HEXACHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE 87-68-3 8260B mg/kg 1.2 5.3 NE NE NE 0.00027 0.0054 NE
ISOBUTANOL 78-83-1 8260B mg/kg 7800 43000 NE NE NE NE
ISOPROPYLBENZENE 98-82-8 8260B mg/kg 1900 9900 NE NE NE 0.74 14.8 NE
2-BUTANONE (MEK) 78-93-3 8260B mg/kg 27000 190000 NE NE NE NE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE (MIBK) 108-10-1 8260B mg/kg 33000 140000 NE NE NE NE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 75-09-2 8260B mg/kg 57 1000 NE NE NE NE
METHYL TERT-BUTYL ETHER 1634-04-4 8260B mg/kg 47 210 0.3 0.3 NE NE
NAPHTHALENE 91-20-3 8260B mg/kg 2 8.6 51 51 51 0.00038 0.0076 NE
N-BUTYL ALCOHOL 71-36-3 8260B mg/kg 7800 120000 NE NE NE NE
N-BUTYLBENZENE 104-51-8 8260B mg/kg 3900 58000 NE NE NE 3.2 64 NE
N-PROPYLBENZENE 103-65-1 8260B mg/kg 3800 24000 NE NE NE 1.2 24 NE
PENTACHLOROETHANE 76-01-7 8260B mg/kg 7.7 36 NE NE NE NE
SEC-BUTYLBENZENE 135-98-8 8260B mg/kg 7800 120000 NE NE NE 5.9 118 NE
STYRENE 100-42-5 8260B mg/kg 6000 35000 NE NE NE 1.3 26 NE
TERT-BUTYLBENZENE 98-06-6 8260B mg/kg 7800 120000 NE NE NE NE
TETRACHLOROETHENE 127-18-4 8260B mg/kg 24 100 NE NE NE NE
TOLUENE 108-88-3 8260B mg/kg 4900 47000 9 25 25 0.76 15.2 12
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
23L1850-05 23L1850-06
12/20/2023 12/20/2023
Sludge-1 NW Sludge-2NE
<46.7 13.1 46.7 <3.71 1.04 3.71
<46.7 13.1 46.7 <3.71 1.04 3.71
<46.7 J-LOW-C 30.4 46.7 <3.71 J-LOW-C 2.41 3.71
<93.5 58.0 93.5 <7.42 4.60 7.42
<46.7 7.95 46.7 <3.71 0.63 3.71
<46.7 10.8 46.7 <3.71 0.85 3.71
<46.7 30.9 46.7 <3.71 2.45 3.71
<46.7 21.0 46.7 <3.71 1.67 3.71
<46.7 J-LOW-C 13.6 46.7 <3.71 J-LOW-C 1.08 3.71
<46.7 15.9 46.7 <3.71 1.26 3.71
<46.7 11.2 46.7 <3.71 0.89 3.71
16100 442 467 <37.1 35.1 37.1
<46.7 13.1 46.7 <3.71 1.04 3.71
<46.7 5.61 46.7 <3.71 0.45 3.71
<46.7 J-LOW-C 31.3 46.7 <3.71 J-LOW-C 2.49 3.71
<93.5 29.5 93.5 <7.42 2.34 7.42
<46.7 J-LOW-C 9.35 46.7 <3.71 J-LOW-C 0.74 3.71
554 7.95 46.7 30.8 0.63 3.71
<46.7 18.2 46.7 <3.71 1.45 3.71
<935 352 935 <74.2 28.0 74.2
92.1 8.41 46.7 11.1 0.67 3.71
<46.7 43.0 46.7 <3.71 3.41 3.71
<234 176 234 <18.5 13.9 18.5
<935 33.2 935 <74.2 2.63 74.2
<18.7 18.7 18.7 <1.48 1.48 1.48
75.7 16.8 46.7 31.4 1.34 3.71
<2340 J-LOW-C 1890 2340 <2.74 J-LOW-C 150 185
510 20.1 46.7 <185 1.60 3.71
147 12.2 46.7 47.3 0.96 3.71
<46.7 39.3 46.7 <3.71 3.12 3.71
91.6 11.7 46.7 35.0 0.93 3.71
<46.7 10.8 46.7 2.49 J 0.85 3.71
<46.7 17.8 46.7 <3.71 1.41 3.71
<46.7 22.0 46.7 <3.71 1.74 3.71
7180 E 12.2 46.7 23.8 0.96 3.71
Page 8 of 15
Table 2 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge Petroleum Hydrocarbons and VOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial ISL Tier 1
DOGM
Criteria
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Special
Waste
Requirements
Lab Sample ID
Client Sample ID
Date Collected
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 156-60-5 8260B mg/kg 70 300 NE NE NE NE
TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 10061-02-6 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE
TRICHLOROETHENE 79-01-6 8260B mg/kg 0.94 6 NE NE NE NE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE 75-69-4 8260B mg/kg 23000 350000 NE NE NE NE
VINYL CHLORIDE 75-01-4 8260B mg/kg 0.059 1.7 NE NE NE NE
XYLENES, TOTAL 1330-20-7 8260B mg/kg 580 2500 142 142 142 0.19 3.8 200
Qualifiers (Q)/Abbreviations:
DAF: Dilution Attenuation Factor
DOGM: Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil, Gas and Mining cleanup levels for oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) related sites
J: The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
J3: The associated batch QC was outside the established quality control range for precision.
J-High: Estimated High due to high recovery of LCS or CCV.
J-LOW-L: Estimated low due to low recovery of LCS.
J-LOW-C: Estimated low due to low recovery of CCV.
mg/kg: Milligrams per kilogram
MS-LOW: Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery.
NA: Not Analyzed
NE: Not Established
RSL: Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels for soil at residential (Res.) and industrial (Ind.) properties (November 2023; TR=1E-06; THQ=1.0).
SSL: Environmental Protection Agency Risk-based Soil Screening Levels for Protection of Groundwater (November 2023; DAF=1 and DAF=20).
Blue italicized RDLs (e.g., <0.0100 ) exceed one or more of the screening levels.
Color shaded value exceeds screening level.
Bold value exceeds Method Detection Limit (MDL).
<: Less than Reported Detection Limit (RDL)
E:The concentration indicated for this analyte is an estimated value above the calibration range of the instrument. This value is considered an estimate (CLP E-flag).EPA RSL: Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels for soil at residential (Res.) and industrial (Ind.) properties (November 2023; TR=1E-06;
THQ=1.0).Utah's Initial Screening Levels (ISLs) and risk-based Tier 1 Screening Levels (Tier 1) for petroleum releases at leaking underground storage tank sites
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
23L1850-05 23L1850-06
12/20/2023 12/20/2023
Sludge-1 NW Sludge-2NE
<46.7 12.2 46.7 <3.71 0.96 3.71
<46.7 7.48 46.7 <3.71 0.59 3.71
<46.7 17.3 46.7 <3.71 1.37 3.71
<46.7 28.5 46.7 <3.71 2.26 3.71
<46.7 J-LOW-C 15.0 46.7 <3.71 J-LOW-C 1.19 3.71
8440 29.0 46.7 220 2.30 3.71
Page 9 of 15
Table 2 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge Petroleum Hydrocarbons and VOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial ISL Tier 1
DOGM
Criteria
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Special
Waste
Requirements
TRPH NE 9071B mg/kg NE NE 1000 10000 10000 NE NE NE
TPH-DRO 68334-30-5 8015 mg/kg NE NE 500 5000 2000 NE NE NE
TPH-GRO 8006-61-9 8015D/GRO mg/kg NE NE 150 1500 1000 NE NE NE
OIL & GREASE NE 1664BMod mg/kg NE NE 1000 10000 NE NE NE NE
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 630-20-6 8260B mg/kg 2 8.8 NE NE NE NE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 71-55-6 8260B mg/kg 8100 36000 NE NE NE NE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 79-34-5 8260B mg/kg 0.6 2.7 NE NE NE NE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE 79-00-5 8260B mg/kg 1.1 5 NE NE NE NE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROTRIFLUOROETHANE 76-13-1 8260B mg/kg 6700 28000 NE NE NE NE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 75-34-3 8260B mg/kg 3.6 16 NE NE NE NE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 75-35-4 8260B mg/kg 230 1000 NE NE NE NE
1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE 563-58-6 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE 87-61-6 8260B mg/kg 63 930 NE NE NE NE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE 96-18-4 8260B mg/kg 0.0051 0.11 NE NE NE NE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 120-82-1 8260B mg/kg 24 110 NE NE NE NE
1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 95-63-6 8260B mg/kg 300 1800 NE NE NE 0.081 1.62 NE
1,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE 96-12-8 8260B mg/kg 0.0053 0.064 NE NE NE NE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE 106-93-4 8260B mg/kg 0.036 0.16 NE NE NE NE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE 95-50-1 8260B mg/kg 1800 9300 NE NE NE NE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 107-06-2 8260B mg/kg 0.46 2 NE NE NE NE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE 78-87-5 8260B mg/kg 2.5 11 NE NE NE NE
1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 108-67-8 8260B mg/kg 270 1500 NE NE NE 0.087 1.74 NE
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE 541-73-1 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE 142-28-9 8260B mg/kg 1600 23000 NE NE NE NE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 106-46-7 8260B mg/kg 2.6 11 NE NE NE NE
2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE 594-20-7 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE
2-CHLOROTOLUENE 95-49-8 8260B mg/kg 1600 23000 NE NE NE NE
2-NITROPROPANE 79-46-9 8260B mg/kg 0.0636 0.28 NE NE NE NE
4-CHLOROTOLUENE 106-43-4 8260B mg/kg 1600 23000 NE NE NE NE
P-ISOPROPYLTOLUENE 99-87-6 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE
ACETONE 67-64-1 8260B mg/kg 61000 670000 NE NE NE NE
BENZENE 71-43-2 8260B mg/kg 1.2 5.1 0.2 0.9 0.9 0.00023 0.0046 0.03
BROMOBENZENE 108-86-1 8260B mg/kg 290 1800 NE NE NE NE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE 74-97-5 8260B mg/kg 150 630 NE NE NE NE
Lab Sample ID
Client Sample ID
Date Collected
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
41300 1060 2640 91200 1500 3750
134000 2770 2770 274000 32800 32800
5390 31.8 31.8 5220 29.2 29.2
63900 690 2640 156000 978 3750
<3.18 0.67 3.18 <2.92 0.61 2.92
<3.18 0.76 3.18 <2.92 0.70 2.92
<3.18 0.86 3.18 <2.92 0.79 2.92
<3.18 0.92 3.18 <2.92 0.85 2.92
<3.18 1.75 3.18 <2.92 1.61 2.92
<3.18 2.01 3.18 <2.92 1.84 2.92
<3.18 0.57 3.18 <2.92 0.53 2.92
<3.18 0.67 3.18 <2.92 0.61 2.92
<3.18 0.96 3.18 <2.92 0.88 2.92
<3.18 0.99 3.18 <2.92 0.91 2.92
<3.18 1.85 3.18 <2.92 1.70 2.92
<3.18 0.92 3.18 279 0.85 2.92
<3.18 J-LOW-C 2.23 3.18 <2.92 J-LOW-C 2.05 2.92
<3.18 0.76 3.18 <2.92 0.70 2.92
<3.18 0.80 3.18 <2.92 0.73 2.92
<3.18 0.96 3.18 <2.92 0.88 2.92
<3.18 0.80 3.18 <2.92 0.73 2.92
<3.18 0.73 3.18 95.2 0.67 2.92
<3.18 1.18 3.18 <2.92 1.08 2.92
<3.18 0.64 3.18 <2.92 0.58 2.92
<3.18 1.31 3.18 <2.92 1.20 2.92
<3.18 1.85 3.18 <2.92 1.70 2.92
<3.18 0.92 3.18 <2.92 0.85 2.92
<3.18 J-LOW-L 4.75 31.8 <29.2 J-LOW-L 4.36 29.2
<3.18 0.80 3.18 <2.92 0.73 2.92
11.6 1.24 3.18 14.9 1.14 2.92
<31.8 24.3 31.8 <29.2 22.3 29.2
23.7 0.80 1.27 <1.17 0.73 1.17
<3.18 0.92 3.18 <2.92 0.85 2.92
<3.18 1.11 3.18 <2.92 1.02 2.92
23L1850-07 23L1850-08
Sludge-3 SE Sludge-4 SW
12/20/2023 12/20/2023
Page 10 of 15
Table 2 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge Petroleum Hydrocarbons and VOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial ISL Tier 1
DOGM
Criteria
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Special
Waste
Requirements
Lab Sample ID
Client Sample ID
Date Collected
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 75-27-4 8260B mg/kg 0.29 1.3 NE NE NE NE
BROMOFORM 75-25-2 8260B mg/kg 19 86 NE NE NE NE
BROMOMETHANE 74-83-9 8260B mg/kg 6.8 30 NE NE NE NE
CARBON DISULFIDE 75-15-0 8260B mg/kg 770 3500 NE NE NE NE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 56-23-5 8260B mg/kg 0.65 2.9 NE NE NE NE
CHLOROBENZENE 108-90-7 8260B mg/kg 280 1300 NE NE NE NE
CHLOROETHANE 75-00-3 8260B mg/kg 14000 57000 NE NE NE NE
CHLOROFORM 67-66-3 8260B mg/kg 0.32 1.4 NE NE NE NE
CHLOROMETHANE 74-87-3 8260B mg/kg 110 460 NE NE NE NE
CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 156-59-2 8260B mg/kg 160 2300 NE NE NE NE
CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 10061-01-5 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE
CYCLOHEXANONE 108-94-1 8260B mg/kg 28000 130000 NE NE NE 0.34 6.8 NE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE 124-48-1 8260B mg/kg 8.3 39 NE NE NE NE
DIBROMOMETHANE 74-95-3 8260B mg/kg 24 99 NE NE NE NE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE 75-71-8 8260B mg/kg 87 370 NE NE NE NE
ETHYL ACETATE 141-78-6 8260B mg/kg 620 2600 NE NE NE NE
ETHYL ETHER 60-29-7 8260B mg/kg 16000 230000 NE NE NE NE
ETHYLBENZENE 100-41-4 8260B mg/kg 5.8 25 5 23 23 0.0017 0.034 13
HEXACHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE 87-68-3 8260B mg/kg 1.2 5.3 NE NE NE 0.00027 0.0054 NE
ISOBUTANOL 78-83-1 8260B mg/kg 7800 43000 NE NE NE NE
ISOPROPYLBENZENE 98-82-8 8260B mg/kg 1900 9900 NE NE NE 0.74 14.8 NE
2-BUTANONE (MEK) 78-93-3 8260B mg/kg 27000 190000 NE NE NE NE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE (MIBK) 108-10-1 8260B mg/kg 33000 140000 NE NE NE NE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 75-09-2 8260B mg/kg 57 1000 NE NE NE NE
METHYL TERT-BUTYL ETHER 1634-04-4 8260B mg/kg 47 210 0.3 0.3 NE NE
NAPHTHALENE 91-20-3 8260B mg/kg 2 8.6 51 51 51 0.00038 0.0076 NE
N-BUTYL ALCOHOL 71-36-3 8260B mg/kg 7800 120000 NE NE NE NE
N-BUTYLBENZENE 104-51-8 8260B mg/kg 3900 58000 NE NE NE 3.2 64 NE
N-PROPYLBENZENE 103-65-1 8260B mg/kg 3800 24000 NE NE NE 1.2 24 NE
PENTACHLOROETHANE 76-01-7 8260B mg/kg 7.7 36 NE NE NE NE
SEC-BUTYLBENZENE 135-98-8 8260B mg/kg 7800 120000 NE NE NE 5.9 118 NE
STYRENE 100-42-5 8260B mg/kg 6000 35000 NE NE NE 1.3 26 NE
TERT-BUTYLBENZENE 98-06-6 8260B mg/kg 7800 120000 NE NE NE NE
TETRACHLOROETHENE 127-18-4 8260B mg/kg 24 100 NE NE NE NE
TOLUENE 108-88-3 8260B mg/kg 4900 47000 9 25 25 0.76 15.2 12
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
23L1850-07 23L1850-08
Sludge-3 SE Sludge-4 SW
12/20/2023 12/20/2023
<3.18 0.89 3.18 <2.92 0.82 2.92
<3.18 0.89 3.18 <2.92 0.82 2.92
<3.18 J-LOW-C 2.07 3.18 <2.92 J-LOW-C 1.90 2.92
<6.37 3.95 6.37 <5.85 3.63 5.85
<3.18 0.54 3.18 <2.92 0.50 2.92
<3.18 0.73 3.18 <2.92 0.67 2.92
<3.18 2.10 3.18 <2.92 1.93 2.92
<3.18 1.43 3.18 <2.92 1.32 2.92
<3.18 J-LOW-C 0.92 3.18 <2.92 J-LOW-C 0.85 2.92
<3.18 1.08 3.18 <2.92 0.99 2.92
<3.18 0.76 3.18 <2.92 0.70 2.92
<31.8 J-LOW-C 30.1 31.8 <29.2 J-LOW-C 27.6 29.2
<3.18 0.89 3.18 <2.92 0.82 2.92
<3.18 0.38 3.18 <2.92 0.35 2.92
<3.18 J-LOW-C 2.13 3.18 <2.92 J-LOW-C 1.96 2.92
<6.37 2.01 6.37 <5.85 1.84 5.85
<3.18 0.64 3.18 <2.92 0.58 2.92
35.1 0.54 3.18 20.8 0.50 2.92
<3.18 1.24 3.18 <2.92 1.14 2.92
<6.11 24.0 63.7 <6.22 22.0 58.5
9.68 0.57 3.18 8.36 0.53 2.92
<3.18 2.93 3.18 <2.92 2.69 2.92
<15.9 12.0 15.9 <14.6 11.0 14.6
<63.7 2.26 63.7 <58.5 2.08 58.5
<1.27 1.27 1.27 <1.17 1.17 1.17
21.8 1.15 3.18 28.2 1.05 2.92
<159 129 159 <146 118 146
199 J-High 1.37 3.18 289 J-High 1.26 2.92
30.6 0.83 3.18 36.0 0.76 2.92
<3.18 2.68 3.18 <2.92 2.46 2.92
21.1 J-High 0.80 3.18 26.9 J-High 0.73 2.92
<3.18 0.73 3.18 <2.92 0.67 2.92
<3.18 1.21 3.18 <2.92 1.11 2.92
<3.18 1.50 3.18 <2.92 1.37 2.92
145 0.83 3.18 13.7 0.76 2.92
Page 11 of 15
Table 2 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge Petroleum Hydrocarbons and VOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial ISL Tier 1
DOGM
Criteria
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Special
Waste
Requirements
Lab Sample ID
Client Sample ID
Date Collected
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 156-60-5 8260B mg/kg 70 300 NE NE NE NE
TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 10061-02-6 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE
TRICHLOROETHENE 79-01-6 8260B mg/kg 0.94 6 NE NE NE NE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE 75-69-4 8260B mg/kg 23000 350000 NE NE NE NE
VINYL CHLORIDE 75-01-4 8260B mg/kg 0.059 1.7 NE NE NE NE
XYLENES, TOTAL 1330-20-7 8260B mg/kg 580 2500 142 142 142 0.19 3.8 200
Qualifiers (Q)/Abbreviations:
DAF: Dilution Attenuation Factor
DOGM: Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil, Gas and Mining cleanup levels for oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) related sites
J: The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
J3: The associated batch QC was outside the established quality control range for precision.
J-High: Estimated High due to high recovery of LCS or CCV.
J-LOW-L: Estimated low due to low recovery of LCS.
J-LOW-C: Estimated low due to low recovery of CCV.
mg/kg: Milligrams per kilogram
MS-LOW: Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery.
NA: Not Analyzed
NE: Not Established
RSL: Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels for soil at residential (Res.) and industrial (Ind.) properties (November 2023; TR=1E-06; THQ=1.0).
SSL: Environmental Protection Agency Risk-based Soil Screening Levels for Protection of Groundwater (November 2023; DAF=1 and DAF=20).
Blue italicized RDLs (e.g., <0.0100 ) exceed one or more of the screening levels.
Color shaded value exceeds screening level.
Bold value exceeds Method Detection Limit (MDL).
<: Less than Reported Detection Limit (RDL)
E:The concentration indicated for this analyte is an estimated value above the calibration range of the instrument. This value is considered an estimate (CLP E-flag).EPA RSL: Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels for soil at residential (Res.) and industrial (Ind.) properties (November 2023; TR=1E-06;
THQ=1.0).Utah's Initial Screening Levels (ISLs) and risk-based Tier 1 Screening Levels (Tier 1) for petroleum releases at leaking underground storage tank sites
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
23L1850-07 23L1850-08
Sludge-3 SE Sludge-4 SW
12/20/2023 12/20/2023
<3.18 0.83 3.18 <2.92 0.76 2.92
<3.18 0.51 3.18 <2.92 0.47 2.92
<3.18 1.18 3.18 <2.92 1.08 2.92
<3.18 1.94 3.18 <2.92 1.78 2.92
<3.18 1.02 3.18 <2.92 0.94 2.92
399 1.97 3.18 156 1.81 2.92
Page 12 of 15
Table 2 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge Petroleum Hydrocarbons and VOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial ISL Tier 1
DOGM
Criteria
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Special
Waste
Requirements
TRPH NE 9071B mg/kg NE NE 1000 10000 10000 NE NE NE
TPH-DRO 68334-30-5 8015 mg/kg NE NE 500 5000 2000 NE NE NE
TPH-GRO 8006-61-9 8015D/GRO mg/kg NE NE 150 1500 1000 NE NE NE
OIL & GREASE NE 1664BMod mg/kg NE NE 1000 10000 NE NE NE NE
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 630-20-6 8260B mg/kg 2 8.8 NE NE NE NE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 71-55-6 8260B mg/kg 8100 36000 NE NE NE NE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 79-34-5 8260B mg/kg 0.6 2.7 NE NE NE NE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE 79-00-5 8260B mg/kg 1.1 5 NE NE NE NE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROTRIFLUOROETHANE 76-13-1 8260B mg/kg 6700 28000 NE NE NE NE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 75-34-3 8260B mg/kg 3.6 16 NE NE NE NE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 75-35-4 8260B mg/kg 230 1000 NE NE NE NE
1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE 563-58-6 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE 87-61-6 8260B mg/kg 63 930 NE NE NE NE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE 96-18-4 8260B mg/kg 0.0051 0.11 NE NE NE NE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 120-82-1 8260B mg/kg 24 110 NE NE NE NE
1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 95-63-6 8260B mg/kg 300 1800 NE NE NE 0.081 1.62 NE
1,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE 96-12-8 8260B mg/kg 0.0053 0.064 NE NE NE NE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE 106-93-4 8260B mg/kg 0.036 0.16 NE NE NE NE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE 95-50-1 8260B mg/kg 1800 9300 NE NE NE NE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 107-06-2 8260B mg/kg 0.46 2 NE NE NE NE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE 78-87-5 8260B mg/kg 2.5 11 NE NE NE NE
1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 108-67-8 8260B mg/kg 270 1500 NE NE NE 0.087 1.74 NE
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE 541-73-1 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE 142-28-9 8260B mg/kg 1600 23000 NE NE NE NE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 106-46-7 8260B mg/kg 2.6 11 NE NE NE NE
2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE 594-20-7 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE
2-CHLOROTOLUENE 95-49-8 8260B mg/kg 1600 23000 NE NE NE NE
2-NITROPROPANE 79-46-9 8260B mg/kg 0.0636 0.28 NE NE NE NE
4-CHLOROTOLUENE 106-43-4 8260B mg/kg 1600 23000 NE NE NE NE
P-ISOPROPYLTOLUENE 99-87-6 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE
ACETONE 67-64-1 8260B mg/kg 61000 670000 NE NE NE NE
BENZENE 71-43-2 8260B mg/kg 1.2 5.1 0.2 0.9 0.9 0.00023 0.0046 0.03
BROMOBENZENE 108-86-1 8260B mg/kg 290 1800 NE NE NE NE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE 74-97-5 8260B mg/kg 150 630 NE NE NE NE
Lab Sample ID
Client Sample ID
Date Collected
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
365000 1500 3750 1070 1500 3750
141000 32800 32800 2820 32800 32800
590 4.23 4.23 104 0.71 0.71
424000 18400 70500 1720 95 364
<0.42 0.09 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
<0.42 0.10 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
<0.42 0.11 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
<0.42 0.12 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
<0.42 0.23 0.42 <0.07 0.04 0.07
<0.42 0.27 0.42 <0.07 0.05 0.07
<0.42 0.08 0.42 <0.07 0.01 0.07
<0.42 0.09 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
<0.42 0.13 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
<0.42 0.13 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
<0.42 0.25 0.42 <0.07 0.04 0.07
17.1 0.12 0.42 1.70 0.02 0.07
<0.42 0.30 0.42 <0.07 0.05 0.07
<0.42 0.10 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
<0.42 0.11 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
<0.42 0.13 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
<0.42 0.11 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
7.11 0.10 0.42 0.37 0.02 0.07
<0.42 0.16 0.42 <0.07 0.03 0.07
<0.42 0.08 0.42 <0.07 0.01 0.07
<0.42 0.17 0.42 <0.07 0.03 0.07
<0.42 J-LOW-C 0.25 0.42 <0.07 J-LOW-C 0.04 0.07
<0.42 0.12 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
<4.23 J-LOW-C 0.63 4.23 <0.71 J-LOW-C 0.11 0.71
<0.42 0.11 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
1.64 0.16 0.42 1.01 0.03 0.07
20.1 3.23 4.23 7.67 0.55 0.71
10.5 0.11 0.17 0.11 0.02 0.03
<0.42 0.12 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
<0.42 0.15 0.42 <0.07 0.03 0.07
24C0256-01
Sludge-1 W
3/5/2024
24C0256-01
Sludge-2 E
3/5/2024
Page 13 of 15
Table 2 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge Petroleum Hydrocarbons and VOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial ISL Tier 1
DOGM
Criteria
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Special
Waste
Requirements
Lab Sample ID
Client Sample ID
Date Collected
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 75-27-4 8260B mg/kg 0.29 1.3 NE NE NE NE
BROMOFORM 75-25-2 8260B mg/kg 19 86 NE NE NE NE
BROMOMETHANE 74-83-9 8260B mg/kg 6.8 30 NE NE NE NE
CARBON DISULFIDE 75-15-0 8260B mg/kg 770 3500 NE NE NE NE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 56-23-5 8260B mg/kg 0.65 2.9 NE NE NE NE
CHLOROBENZENE 108-90-7 8260B mg/kg 280 1300 NE NE NE NE
CHLOROETHANE 75-00-3 8260B mg/kg 14000 57000 NE NE NE NE
CHLOROFORM 67-66-3 8260B mg/kg 0.32 1.4 NE NE NE NE
CHLOROMETHANE 74-87-3 8260B mg/kg 110 460 NE NE NE NE
CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 156-59-2 8260B mg/kg 160 2300 NE NE NE NE
CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 10061-01-5 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE
CYCLOHEXANONE 108-94-1 8260B mg/kg 28000 130000 NE NE NE 0.34 6.8 NE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE 124-48-1 8260B mg/kg 8.3 39 NE NE NE NE
DIBROMOMETHANE 74-95-3 8260B mg/kg 24 99 NE NE NE NE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE 75-71-8 8260B mg/kg 87 370 NE NE NE NE
ETHYL ACETATE 141-78-6 8260B mg/kg 620 2600 NE NE NE NE
ETHYL ETHER 60-29-7 8260B mg/kg 16000 230000 NE NE NE NE
ETHYLBENZENE 100-41-4 8260B mg/kg 5.8 25 5 23 23 0.0017 0.034 13
HEXACHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE 87-68-3 8260B mg/kg 1.2 5.3 NE NE NE 0.00027 0.0054 NE
ISOBUTANOL 78-83-1 8260B mg/kg 7800 43000 NE NE NE NE
ISOPROPYLBENZENE 98-82-8 8260B mg/kg 1900 9900 NE NE NE 0.74 14.8 NE
2-BUTANONE (MEK) 78-93-3 8260B mg/kg 27000 190000 NE NE NE NE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE (MIBK) 108-10-1 8260B mg/kg 33000 140000 NE NE NE NE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 75-09-2 8260B mg/kg 57 1000 NE NE NE NE
METHYL TERT-BUTYL ETHER 1634-04-4 8260B mg/kg 47 210 0.3 0.3 NE NE
NAPHTHALENE 91-20-3 8260B mg/kg 2 8.6 51 51 51 0.00038 0.0076 NE
N-BUTYL ALCOHOL 71-36-3 8260B mg/kg 7800 120000 NE NE NE NE
N-BUTYLBENZENE 104-51-8 8260B mg/kg 3900 58000 NE NE NE 3.2 64 NE
N-PROPYLBENZENE 103-65-1 8260B mg/kg 3800 24000 NE NE NE 1.2 24 NE
PENTACHLOROETHANE 76-01-7 8260B mg/kg 7.7 36 NE NE NE NE
SEC-BUTYLBENZENE 135-98-8 8260B mg/kg 7800 120000 NE NE NE 5.9 118 NE
STYRENE 100-42-5 8260B mg/kg 6000 35000 NE NE NE 1.3 26 NE
TERT-BUTYLBENZENE 98-06-6 8260B mg/kg 7800 120000 NE NE NE NE
TETRACHLOROETHENE 127-18-4 8260B mg/kg 24 100 NE NE NE NE
TOLUENE 108-88-3 8260B mg/kg 4900 47000 9 25 25 0.76 15.2 12
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
24C0256-01
Sludge-1 W
3/5/2024
24C0256-01
Sludge-2 E
3/5/2024
<0.42 0.12 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
<0.42 0.12 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
<0.42 0.27 0.42 <0.07 0.05 0.07
<0.85 0.52 0.85 <0.14 0.09 0.14
<0.42 0.07 0.42 <0.07 0.01 0.07
<0.42 0.10 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
<0.42 0.28 0.42 <0.07 0.05 0.07
<0.42 0.19 0.42 <0.07 0.03 0.07
<0.42 0.12 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
<0.42 0.14 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
<0.42 0.10 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
<4.23 J-LOW-C 4.00 4.23 <0.71 J-LOW-C 0.68 0.71
<0.42 0.12 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
<0.42 0.05 0.42 <0.07 0.009 0.07
<0.42 0.28 0.42 <0.07 0.05 0.07
<0.85 0.27 0.85 <0.14 0.05 0.14
<0.42 0.08 0.42 <0.07 0.01 0.07
6.97 0.07 0.42 0.57 0.01 0.07
<0.42 0.16 0.42 <0.07 0.03 0.07
<8.46 3.19 8.46 <1.43 0.54 1.43
0.99 0.08 0.42 0.08 0.01 0.07
<0.42 0.39 0.42 <0.07 0.07 0.07
<2.11 1.59 2.11 <0.36 0.27 0.36
<8.46 0.30 8.46 <1.43 0.05 1.43
<0.17 J-LOW-C 0.17 0.17 <0.03 J-LOW-C 0.03 0.03
2.77 0.15 0.42 <0.07 0.03 0.07
<21.1 J-LOW-C 17.1 21.1 <3.57 J-LOW-C 2.89 3.57
6.19 0.18 0.42 <0.07 0.03 0.07
1.59 0.11 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
<0.42 0.36 0.42 <0.07 0.06 0.07
0.75 0.11 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
<0.42 0.10 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
<0.42 0.16 0.42 <0.07 0.03 0.07
<0.42 0.20 0.42 <0.07 0.03 0.07
31.5 1.10 4.23 1.36 0.02 0.07
Page 14 of 15
Table 2 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge Petroleum Hydrocarbons and VOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial ISL Tier 1
DOGM
Criteria
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Special
Waste
Requirements
Lab Sample ID
Client Sample ID
Date Collected
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 156-60-5 8260B mg/kg 70 300 NE NE NE NE
TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 10061-02-6 8260B mg/kg NE NE NE NE NE NE
TRICHLOROETHENE 79-01-6 8260B mg/kg 0.94 6 NE NE NE NE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE 75-69-4 8260B mg/kg 23000 350000 NE NE NE NE
VINYL CHLORIDE 75-01-4 8260B mg/kg 0.059 1.7 NE NE NE NE
XYLENES, TOTAL 1330-20-7 8260B mg/kg 580 2500 142 142 142 0.19 3.8 200
Qualifiers (Q)/Abbreviations:
DAF: Dilution Attenuation Factor
DOGM: Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil, Gas and Mining cleanup levels for oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) related sites
J: The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
J3: The associated batch QC was outside the established quality control range for precision.
J-High: Estimated High due to high recovery of LCS or CCV.
J-LOW-L: Estimated low due to low recovery of LCS.
J-LOW-C: Estimated low due to low recovery of CCV.
mg/kg: Milligrams per kilogram
MS-LOW: Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery.
NA: Not Analyzed
NE: Not Established
RSL: Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels for soil at residential (Res.) and industrial (Ind.) properties (November 2023; TR=1E-06; THQ=1.0).
SSL: Environmental Protection Agency Risk-based Soil Screening Levels for Protection of Groundwater (November 2023; DAF=1 and DAF=20).
Blue italicized RDLs (e.g., <0.0100 ) exceed one or more of the screening levels.
Color shaded value exceeds screening level.
Bold value exceeds Method Detection Limit (MDL).
<: Less than Reported Detection Limit (RDL)
E:The concentration indicated for this analyte is an estimated value above the calibration range of the instrument. This value is considered an estimate (CLP E-flag).EPA RSL: Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels for soil at residential (Res.) and industrial (Ind.) properties (November 2023; TR=1E-06;
THQ=1.0).Utah's Initial Screening Levels (ISLs) and risk-based Tier 1 Screening Levels (Tier 1) for petroleum releases at leaking underground storage tank sites
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
24C0256-01
Sludge-1 W
3/5/2024
24C0256-01
Sludge-2 E
3/5/2024
<0.42 0.11 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
<0.42 0.07 0.42 <0.07 0.01 0.07
<0.42 0.16 0.42 <0.07 0.03 0.07
<0.42 0.26 0.42 <0.07 0.04 0.07
<0.42 0.14 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
79.1 0.26 0.42 4.30 0.04 0.07
Page 15 of 15
Table 3 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge SVOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 120-82-1 8270E mg/kg 24 110 <9.42 3.06 9.42 <9.30 3.02 9.30
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL 105-67-9 8270E mg/kg 1,300 16,000 <9.42 4.24 9.42 <9.30 4.18 9.30
2,4-DINITROPHENOL 51-28-5 8270E mg/kg 130 1,600 <18.8 J-LOW-C 4.00 18.8 <18.6 J-LOW-C 3.95 18.6
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE 121-14-2 8270E mg/kg 1.7 7.4 <9.42 4.95 9.42 <9.30 4.88 9.30
2,6-DICHLOROPHENOL 87-65-0 8270E mg/kg NE NE <9.42 3.77 9.42 <9.30 3.72 9.30
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE 606-20-2 8270E mg/kg 0.36 1.5 <9.42 4.00 9.42 <9.30 3.95 9.30
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE 91-58-7 8270E mg/kg 4,800 60,000 <9.42 5.89 9.42 <9.30 5.81 9.30
2-CHLOROPHENOL 95-57-8 8270E mg/kg 390 5,800 <9.42 3.77 9.42 <9.30 3.72 9.30
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 91-57-6 8270E mg/kg 240 3,000 0.19 3.80 22.4 3.06 9.42 11.2 3.02 9.30
2-METHYLPHENOL 95-48-7 8270E mg/kg 3200 41000 <9.42 J-LOW-L 2.36 9.42 <9.30 J-LOW-L 2.32 9.30
2-NITROANILINE 88-74-4 8270E mg/kg 63 800 <9.42 3.77 9.42 <9.30 3.72 9.30
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE 95-50-1 8270E mg/kg 1,800 9,300 <9.42 3.53 9.42 <9.30 3.49 9.30
2-NITROPHENOL 88-75-5 8270E mg/kg NE NE <9.42 4.71 9.42 <9.30 4.65 9.30
3 & 4-METHYLPHENOL 106-44-5 8270E mg/kg 3200 41000 <9.42 6.13 9.42 <9.30 6.04 9.30
3,3-DICHLOROBENZIDINE 91-94-1 8270E mg/kg 1.2 5.1 <11.8 11.3 11.8 <11.6 11.2 11.6
3-NITROANILINE 99-09-2 8270E mg/kg NE NE <23.6 2.83 23.6 <23.2 2.79 23.2
4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL 534-52-1 8270E mg/kg 5.1 66 <18.8 4.00 18.8 <18.6 3.95 18.6
4-BROMOPHENYL-PHENYLETHER 101-55-3 8270E mg/kg NE NE <9.42 3.30 9.42 <9.30 3.25 9.30
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL 59-50-7 8270E mg/kg 6,300 82,000 <9.42 2.59 9.42 <9.30 2.56 9.30
4-CHLOROANILINE 106-47-8 8270E mg/kg 2.7 11 <9.42 3.06 9.42 <9.30 3.02 9.30
4-CHLOROPHENYL-PHENYLETHER 7005-72-3 8270E mg/kg NE NE <9.42 4.00 9.42 <9.30 3.95 9.30
4-NITROANILINE 100-01-6 8270E mg/kg 27 110 <23.6 5.65 23.6 <23.2 5.58 23.2
4-NITROPHENOL 100-02-7 8270E mg/kg NE NE <18.8 2.36 18.8 <18.6 2.32 18.6
ACENAPHTHENE 83-32-9 8270E mg/kg 3,600 45,000 <9.42 3.77 9.42 <9.30 3.72 9.30
ACENAPHTHYLENE 208-96-8 8270E mg/kg NE NE <9.42 3.53 9.42 <9.30 3.49 9.30
ANILINE 62-53-3 8270E mg/kg 95 400 <18.8 6.36 18.8 <18.6 6.28 18.6
ANTHRACENE 120-12-7 8270E mg/kg 18,000 230,000 <9.42 3.06 9.42 <9.30 3.02 9.30
AZOBENZENE 103-33-3 8270E mg/kg 5.6 26 <9.42 3.53 9.42 <9.30 3.49 9.30
BENZIDINE 92-87-5 8270E mg/kg 0.00053 0.01 <35.3 8.72 35.3 <34.9 8.60 34.9
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 56-55-3 8270E mg/kg 1.1 21 <9.42 2.83 9.42 <9.30 2.79 9.30
BENZO(A)PYRENE 50-32-8 8270E mg/kg 0.11 2.1 <9.42 4.00 9.42 <9.30 3.95 9.30
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 205-99-2 8270E mg/kg 1.1 21 <9.42 4.48 9.42 <9.30 4.42 9.30
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 191-24-2 8270E mg/kg NE NE <9.42 3.30 9.42 <9.30 3.25 9.30
23L1850-02
Soil-1 NW Soil-2 NE
12/20/2023
Client Sample ID
Lab Sample ID
Date Collected 12/20/2023
23L1850-01
Page 1 of 15
Table 3 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge SVOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
23L1850-02
Soil-1 NW Soil-2 NE
12/20/2023
Client Sample ID
Lab Sample ID
Date Collected 12/20/2023
23L1850-01
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 207-08-9 8270E mg/kg 11 210 <9.42 4.24 9.42 <9.30 4.18 9.30
BENZOIC ACID 65-85-0 8270E mg/kg 250000 3300000 <23.6 J-LOW-L 2.36 23.6 <23.2 J-LOW-L 2.32 23.2
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE 541-73-1 8270E mg/kg NE NE <9.42 3.53 9.42 <9.30 3.49 9.30
BENZYL ALCOHOL 100-51-6 8270E mg/kg 6300 82000 <9.42 3.06 9.42 <9.30 3.02 9.30
BIPHENYL 92-52-4 8270E mg/kg 47 200 <9.42 4.00 9.42 <9.30 3.95 9.30
BIS(2-CHLORETHOXY)METHANE 111-91-1 8270E mg/kg 190 2,500 <9.42 2.36 9.42 <9.30 2.32 9.30
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER 111-44-4 8270E mg/kg 0.23 1 <9.42 3.53 9.42 <9.30 3.49 9.30
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 117-81-7 8270E mg/kg 39 160 <9.42 5.18 9.42 <9.30 5.11 9.30
BENZYLBUTYL PHTHALATE 85-68-7 8270E mg/kg 290 1,200 <9.42 6.13 9.42 <9.30 6.04 9.30
CARBAZOLE 86-74-8 8270E mg/kg NE NE <9.42 2.83 9.42 <9.30 2.79 9.30
CHRYSENE 218-01-9 8270E mg/kg 110 2,100 <9.42 2.83 9.42 <9.30 2.79 9.30
DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 53-70-3 8270E mg/kg 0.11 2.1 <9.42 3.30 9.42 <9.30 3.25 9.30
DIBENZOFURAN 132-64-9 8270E mg/kg 78 1200 <9.42 4.00 9.42 <9.30 3.95 9.30
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 106-46-7 8270E mg/kg 2.6 11 <9.42 3.06 9.42 <9.30 3.02 9.30
DIETHYL PHTHALATE 84-66-2 8270E mg/kg 51,000 660,000 <11.8 J-LOW-L 10.8 11.8 <11.6 J-LOW-L 10.7 11.6
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE 131-11-3 8270E mg/kg NE NE <9.42 3.77 9.42 <9.30 3.72 9.30
1-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 90-12-0 8270E mg/kg 18 73 0.006 0.120 37.3 2.83 9.42 18.7 2.79 9.30
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 84-74-2 8270E mg/kg 6,300 82,000 <9.42 3.06 9.42 <9.30 3.02 9.30
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE 117-84-0 8270E mg/kg 630 8,200 <9.42 4.71 9.42 <9.30 4.65 9.30
DIPHENYLAMINE 122-39-4
8270E mg/kg 6300 82000 <9.42 3.77 9.42 <9.30 3.72 9.30
2,2-OXYBIS(1-CHLOROPROPANE) 108-60-1 8270E mg/kg 3,100 47,000 <9.42 3.30 9.42 <9.30 3.25 9.30
FLUORANTHENE 206-44-0 8270E mg/kg 2,400 30,000 <9.42 2.36 9.42 <9.30 2.32 9.30
FLUORENE 86-73-7 8270E mg/kg 2,400 30,000 5.4 108 <9.42 4.24 9.42 <9.30 4.18 9.30
HEXACHLOROBENZENE 118-74-1 8270E mg/kg 0.21 0.96 <9.42 2.59 9.42 <9.30 2.56 9.30
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL 58-90-2 8270E mg/kg 1900 25000 <9.42 3.30 9.42 <9.30 3.25 9.30
HEXACHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE 87-68-3 8270E mg/kg 1.2 5.3 <9.42 3.06 9.42 <9.30 3.02 9.30
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE 77-47-4 8270E mg/kg 1.8 7.5 <9.42 2.12 9.42 <9.30 2.09 9.30
HEXACHLOROETHANE 67-72-1 8270E mg/kg 1.8 8 <9.42 3.77 9.42 <9.30 3.72 9.30
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE 193-39-5 8270E mg/kg 1.1 21 <9.42 3.30 9.42 <9.30 3.25 9.30
ISOPHORONE 78-59-1 8270E mg/kg 570 2,400 <9.42 2.83 9.42 <9.30 2.79 9.30
NAPHTHALENE 91-20-3 8270E mg/kg 2 8.6 0.00038 0.0076 8.44 J 2.83 9.42 4.21 J 2.79 9.30
NITROBENZENE 98-95-3 8270E mg/kg 5.1 22 <9.42 3.06 9.42 <9.30 3.02 9.30
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE 62-75-9 8270E mg/kg 0.002 0.034
<18.8 3.06 18.8 <18.6 3.02 18.6
Page 2 of 15
Table 3 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge SVOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
23L1850-02
Soil-1 NW Soil-2 NE
12/20/2023
Client Sample ID
Lab Sample ID
Date Collected 12/20/2023
23L1850-01
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE 621-64-7 8270E mg/kg 0.078 0.33 <9.42 4.24 9.42 <9.30 4.18 9.30
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE 86-30-6 8270E mg/kg 110 470 <9.42 7.07 9.42 <9.30 6.97 9.30
N-OCTADECANE 593-45-3 8270E mg/kg NE NE 464 22.4 47.1 251 22.1 46.5
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL 95-95-4 8270E mg/kg 6300 82000 <9.42 3.06 9.42 <9.30 3.02 9.30
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 87-86-5 8270E mg/kg 1 4 <9.42 J-LOW-C 2.83 9.42 <9.30 J-LOW-C 2.79 9.30
PHENANTHRENE 85-01-8 8270E mg/kg NE NE 5.15 J 3.06 9.42 <9.30 3.02 9.30
PHENOL 108-95-2 8270E mg/kg 19,000 250,000 <9.42 5.18 9.42 <9.30 5.11 9.30
PYRENE 129-00-0 8270E mg/kg 1,800 23,000 <9.42 3.30 9.42 <9.30 3.25 9.30
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL 88-06-2 8270E mg/kg 49 210 <9.42 3.30 9.42 <9.30 3.25 9.30
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL 120-83-2 8270E mg/kg 190 2,500 <9.42 3.77 9.42 <9.30 3.72 9.30
Qualifiers (Q)/Abbreviations:
DAF: Dilution Attenuation Factor
J: The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
J-High: Estimated High due to high recovery of LCS or CCV
J-LOW-L: Estimated low due to low recovery of LCS
J-LOW-C: Estimated low due to low recovery of CCV
mg/kg: Milligrams per kilogram
MS-LOW: Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery
NE: Not Established
<: Less than Reported Detection Limit (RDL)
Blue italicized RDLs (e.g., <0.0100 ) exceed one or more of the screening levels.
Color shaded value exceeds screening level.
RSL: Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels for soil at residential (Res.) and industrial (Ind.) properties
(November 2023; TR=1E-06; THQ=1.0).
SSL: Environmental Protection Agency Risk-based Soil Screening Levels for Protection of Groundwater (November 2023; DAF=1 and
DAF=20).
Bold value exceeds Method Detection Limit (MDL).
E:The concentration indicated for this analyte is an estimated value above the calibration range of the instrument. This value is
considered an estimate (CLP E-flag).
EPA RSL: Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels for soil at residential (Res.) and industrial (Ind.) properties
(November 2023; TR=1E-06; THQ=1.0).
Utah's Initial Screening Levels (ISLs) and risk-based Tier 1 Screening Levels (Tier 1) for petroleum releases at leaking underground
storage tank sites
Page 3 of 15
Table 3 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge SVOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 120-82-1 8270E mg/kg 24 110
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL 105-67-9 8270E mg/kg 1,300 16,000
2,4-DINITROPHENOL 51-28-5 8270E mg/kg 130 1,600
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE 121-14-2 8270E mg/kg 1.7 7.4
2,6-DICHLOROPHENOL 87-65-0 8270E mg/kg NE NE
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE 606-20-2 8270E mg/kg 0.36 1.5
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE 91-58-7 8270E mg/kg 4,800 60,000
2-CHLOROPHENOL 95-57-8 8270E mg/kg 390 5,800
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 91-57-6 8270E mg/kg 240 3,000 0.19 3.80
2-METHYLPHENOL 95-48-7 8270E mg/kg 3200 41000
2-NITROANILINE 88-74-4 8270E mg/kg 63 800
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE 95-50-1 8270E mg/kg 1,800 9,300
2-NITROPHENOL 88-75-5 8270E mg/kg NE NE
3 & 4-METHYLPHENOL 106-44-5 8270E mg/kg 3200 41000
3,3-DICHLOROBENZIDINE 91-94-1 8270E mg/kg 1.2 5.1
3-NITROANILINE 99-09-2 8270E mg/kg NE NE
4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL 534-52-1 8270E mg/kg 5.1 66
4-BROMOPHENYL-PHENYLETHER 101-55-3 8270E mg/kg NE NE
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL 59-50-7 8270E mg/kg 6,300 82,000
4-CHLOROANILINE 106-47-8 8270E mg/kg 2.7 11
4-CHLOROPHENYL-PHENYLETHER 7005-72-3 8270E mg/kg NE NE
4-NITROANILINE 100-01-6 8270E mg/kg 27 110
4-NITROPHENOL 100-02-7 8270E mg/kg NE NE
ACENAPHTHENE 83-32-9 8270E mg/kg 3,600 45,000
ACENAPHTHYLENE 208-96-8 8270E mg/kg NE NE
ANILINE 62-53-3 8270E mg/kg 95 400
ANTHRACENE 120-12-7 8270E mg/kg 18,000 230,000
AZOBENZENE 103-33-3 8270E mg/kg 5.6 26
BENZIDINE 92-87-5 8270E mg/kg 0.00053 0.01
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 56-55-3 8270E mg/kg 1.1 21
BENZO(A)PYRENE 50-32-8 8270E mg/kg 0.11 2.1
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 205-99-2 8270E mg/kg 1.1 21
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 191-24-2 8270E mg/kg NE NE
Client Sample ID
Lab Sample ID
Date Collected
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
<9.78 3.18 9.78 <9.96 3.24 9.96
<9.78 4.40 9.78 <9.96 4.48 9.96
<19.6 J-LOW-C 4.16 19.6 <19.9 J-LOW-C 4.23 19.9
<9.78 5.14 9.78 <9.96 5.23 9.96
<9.78 3.91 9.78 <9.96 3.98 9.96
<9.78 4.16 9.78 <9.96 4.23 9.96
<9.78 6.11 9.78 <9.96 6.22 9.96
<9.78 3.91 9.78 <9.96 3.98 9.96
5.05 J 3.18 9.78 13.6 3.24 9.96
<9.78 J-LOW-L 2.45 9.78 <9.96 J-LOW-L 2.49 9.96
<9.78 3.91 9.78 <9.96 3.98 9.96
<9.78 3.67 9.78 <9.96 3.73 9.96
<9.78 4.89 9.78 <9.96 4.98 9.96
<9.78 6.36 9.78 <9.96 6.47 9.96
<12.2 11.7 12.2 <12.4 11.9 12.4
<24.5 2.93 24.5 <24.9 2.99 24.9
<19.6 4.16 19.6 <19.9 4.23 19.9
<9.78 3.42 9.78 <9.96 3.49 9.96
<9.78 2.69 9.78 <9.96 2.74 9.96
<9.78 3.18 9.78 <9.96 3.24 9.96
<9.78 4.16 9.78 <9.96 4.23 9.96
<24.5 5.87 24.5 <24.9 5.97 24.9
<19.6 2.45 19.6 <19.9 2.49 19.9
<9.78 3.91 9.78 <9.96 3.98 9.96
<9.78 3.67 9.78 <9.96 3.73 9.96
<19.6 6.60 19.6 <19.9 6.72 19.9
<9.78 3.18 9.78 <9.96 3.24 9.96
<9.78 3.67 9.78 <9.96 3.73 9.96
<36.7 9.05 36.7 <37.3 9.21 37.3
<9.78 2.93 9.78 <9.96 2.99 9.96
<9.78 4.16 9.78 <9.96 4.23 9.96
<9.78 4.65 9.78 <9.96 4.73 9.96
<9.78 3.42 9.78 <9.96 3.49 9.96
23L1850-03 23L1850-04
Soil-3 SE Soil-4 SW
12/20/2023 12/20/2023
Page 4 of 15
Table 3 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge SVOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Client Sample ID
Lab Sample ID
Date Collected
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 207-08-9 8270E mg/kg 11 210
BENZOIC ACID 65-85-0 8270E mg/kg 250000 3300000
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE 541-73-1 8270E mg/kg NE NE
BENZYL ALCOHOL 100-51-6 8270E mg/kg 6300 82000
BIPHENYL 92-52-4 8270E mg/kg 47 200
BIS(2-CHLORETHOXY)METHANE 111-91-1 8270E mg/kg 190 2,500
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER 111-44-4 8270E mg/kg 0.23 1
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 117-81-7 8270E mg/kg 39 160
BENZYLBUTYL PHTHALATE 85-68-7 8270E mg/kg 290 1,200
CARBAZOLE 86-74-8 8270E mg/kg NE NE
CHRYSENE 218-01-9 8270E mg/kg 110 2,100
DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 53-70-3 8270E mg/kg 0.11 2.1
DIBENZOFURAN 132-64-9 8270E mg/kg 78 1200
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 106-46-7 8270E mg/kg 2.6 11
DIETHYL PHTHALATE 84-66-2 8270E mg/kg 51,000 660,000
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE 131-11-3 8270E mg/kg NE NE
1-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 90-12-0 8270E mg/kg 18 73 0.006 0.120
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 84-74-2 8270E mg/kg 6,300 82,000
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE 117-84-0 8270E mg/kg 630 8,200
DIPHENYLAMINE 122-39-4
8270E mg/kg 6300 82000
2,2-OXYBIS(1-CHLOROPROPANE) 108-60-1 8270E mg/kg 3,100 47,000
FLUORANTHENE 206-44-0 8270E mg/kg 2,400 30,000
FLUORENE 86-73-7 8270E mg/kg 2,400 30,000 5.4 108
HEXACHLOROBENZENE 118-74-1 8270E mg/kg 0.21 0.96
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL 58-90-2 8270E mg/kg 1900 25000
HEXACHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE 87-68-3 8270E mg/kg 1.2 5.3
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE 77-47-4 8270E mg/kg 1.8 7.5
HEXACHLOROETHANE 67-72-1 8270E mg/kg 1.8 8
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE 193-39-5 8270E mg/kg 1.1 21
ISOPHORONE 78-59-1 8270E mg/kg 570 2,400
NAPHTHALENE 91-20-3 8270E mg/kg 2 8.6 0.00038 0.0076
NITROBENZENE 98-95-3 8270E mg/kg 5.1 22
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE 62-75-9 8270E mg/kg 0.002 0.034
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
23L1850-03 23L1850-04
Soil-3 SE Soil-4 SW
12/20/2023 12/20/2023
<9.78 4.40 9.78 <9.96 4.48 9.96
<24.5 J-LOW-L 2.45 24.5 <24.9 J-LOW-L 2.49 24.9
<9.78 3.67 9.78 <9.96 3.73 9.96
<9.78 3.18 9.78 <9.96 3.24 9.96
<9.78 4.16 9.78 <9.96 4.23 9.96
<9.78 2.45 9.78 <9.96 2.49 9.96
<9.78 3.67 9.78 <9.96 3.73 9.96
<9.78 5.38 9.78 <9.96 5.48 9.96
<9.78 6.36 9.78 <9.96 6.47 9.96
<9.78 2.93 9.78 <9.96 2.99 9.96
<9.78 2.93 9.78 <9.96 2.99 9.96
<9.78 3.42 9.78 <9.96 3.49 9.96
<9.78 4.16 9.78 <9.96 4.23 9.96
<9.78 3.18 9.78 <9.96 3.24 9.96
<12.2 J-LOW-L 11.2 12.2 <12.4 J-LOW-L 11.5 12.4
<9.78 3.91 9.78 <9.96 3.98 9.96
8.93 J 2.93 9.78 22.2 2.99 9.96
<9.78 3.18 9.78 <9.96 3.24 9.96
<9.78 4.89 9.78 <9.96 4.98 9.96
<9.78 3.91 9.78 <9.96 3.98 9.96
<9.78 3.42 9.78 <9.96 3.49 9.96
<9.78 2.45 9.78 <9.96 2.49 9.96
<9.78 4.40 9.78 <9.96 4.48 9.96
<9.78 2.69 9.78 <9.96 2.74 9.96
<9.78 3.42 9.78 <9.96 3.49 9.96
<9.78 3.18 9.78 <9.96 3.24 9.96
<9.78 2.20 9.78 <9.96 2.24 9.96
<9.78 3.91 9.78 <9.96 3.98 9.96
<9.78 3.42 9.78 <9.96 3.49 9.96
<9.78 2.93 9.78 <9.96 2.99 9.96
<9.78 2.93 9.78 5.18 J 2.99 9.96
<9.78 3.18 9.78 <9.96 3.24 9.96
<19.6 3.18 19.6 <19.9 3.24 19.9
Page 5 of 15
Table 3 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge SVOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Client Sample ID
Lab Sample ID
Date Collected
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE 621-64-7 8270E mg/kg 0.078 0.33
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE 86-30-6 8270E mg/kg 110 470
N-OCTADECANE 593-45-3 8270E mg/kg NE NE
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL 95-95-4 8270E mg/kg 6300 82000
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 87-86-5 8270E mg/kg 1 4
PHENANTHRENE 85-01-8 8270E mg/kg NE NE
PHENOL 108-95-2 8270E mg/kg 19,000 250,000
PYRENE 129-00-0 8270E mg/kg 1,800 23,000
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL 88-06-2 8270E mg/kg 49 210
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL 120-83-2 8270E mg/kg 190 2,500
Qualifiers (Q)/Abbreviations:
DAF: Dilution Attenuation Factor
J: The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
J-High: Estimated High due to high recovery of LCS or CCV
J-LOW-L: Estimated low due to low recovery of LCS
J-LOW-C: Estimated low due to low recovery of CCV
mg/kg: Milligrams per kilogram
MS-LOW: Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery
NE: Not Established
<: Less than Reported Detection Limit (RDL)
Blue italicized RDLs (e.g., <0.0100 ) exceed one or more of the screening levels.
Color shaded value exceeds screening level.
RSL: Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels for soil at residential (Res.) and industrial (Ind.) properties
(November 2023; TR=1E-06; THQ=1.0).
SSL: Environmental Protection Agency Risk-based Soil Screening Levels for Protection of Groundwater (November 2023; DAF=1 and
DAF=20).
Bold value exceeds Method Detection Limit (MDL).
E:The concentration indicated for this analyte is an estimated value above the calibration range of the instrument. This value is
considered an estimate (CLP E-flag).
EPA RSL: Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels for soil at residential (Res.) and industrial (Ind.) properties
(November 2023; TR=1E-06; THQ=1.0).
Utah's Initial Screening Levels (ISLs) and risk-based Tier 1 Screening Levels (Tier 1) for petroleum releases at leaking underground
storage tank sites
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
23L1850-03 23L1850-04
Soil-3 SE Soil-4 SW
12/20/2023 12/20/2023
<9.78 4.40 9.78 <9.96 4.48 9.96
<9.78 7.34 9.78 <9.96 7.47 9.96
122 23.2 48.9 272 23.6 49.8
<9.78 3.18 9.78 <9.96 3.24 9.96
<9.78 J-LOW-C 2.93 9.78 <9.96 J-LOW-C 2.99 9.96
<9.78 3.18 9.78 3.40 J 3.24 9.96
<9.78 5.38 9.78 <9.96 5.48 9.96
<9.78 3.42 9.78 <9.96 3.49 9.96
<9.78 3.42 9.78 <9.96 3.49 9.96
<9.78 3.91 9.78 <9.96 3.98 9.96
Page 6 of 15
Table 3 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge SVOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 120-82-1 8270E mg/kg 24 110
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL 105-67-9 8270E mg/kg 1,300 16,000
2,4-DINITROPHENOL 51-28-5 8270E mg/kg 130 1,600
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE 121-14-2 8270E mg/kg 1.7 7.4
2,6-DICHLOROPHENOL 87-65-0 8270E mg/kg NE NE
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE 606-20-2 8270E mg/kg 0.36 1.5
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE 91-58-7 8270E mg/kg 4,800 60,000
2-CHLOROPHENOL 95-57-8 8270E mg/kg 390 5,800
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 91-57-6 8270E mg/kg 240 3,000 0.19 3.80
2-METHYLPHENOL 95-48-7 8270E mg/kg 3200 41000
2-NITROANILINE 88-74-4 8270E mg/kg 63 800
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE 95-50-1 8270E mg/kg 1,800 9,300
2-NITROPHENOL 88-75-5 8270E mg/kg NE NE
3 & 4-METHYLPHENOL 106-44-5 8270E mg/kg 3200 41000
3,3-DICHLOROBENZIDINE 91-94-1 8270E mg/kg 1.2 5.1
3-NITROANILINE 99-09-2 8270E mg/kg NE NE
4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL 534-52-1 8270E mg/kg 5.1 66
4-BROMOPHENYL-PHENYLETHER 101-55-3 8270E mg/kg NE NE
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL 59-50-7 8270E mg/kg 6,300 82,000
4-CHLOROANILINE 106-47-8 8270E mg/kg 2.7 11
4-CHLOROPHENYL-PHENYLETHER 7005-72-3 8270E mg/kg NE NE
4-NITROANILINE 100-01-6 8270E mg/kg 27 110
4-NITROPHENOL 100-02-7 8270E mg/kg NE NE
ACENAPHTHENE 83-32-9 8270E mg/kg 3,600 45,000
ACENAPHTHYLENE 208-96-8 8270E mg/kg NE NE
ANILINE 62-53-3 8270E mg/kg 95 400
ANTHRACENE 120-12-7 8270E mg/kg 18,000 230,000
AZOBENZENE 103-33-3 8270E mg/kg 5.6 26
BENZIDINE 92-87-5 8270E mg/kg 0.00053 0.01
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 56-55-3 8270E mg/kg 1.1 21
BENZO(A)PYRENE 50-32-8 8270E mg/kg 0.11 2.1
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 205-99-2 8270E mg/kg 1.1 21
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 191-24-2 8270E mg/kg NE NE
Client Sample ID
Lab Sample ID
Date Collected
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
<74.8 24.3 74.8 <11.9 3.86 11.9
<74.8 33.7 74.8 <11.9 5.34 11.9
<150 J-LOW-C 31.8 150 <23.7 J-LOW-C 5.05 23.7
<74.8 39.3 74.8 <11.9 6.23 11.9
<74.8 29.9 74.8 <11.9 4.75 11.9
<74.8 31.8 74.8 <11.9 5.05 11.9
<74.8 46.7 74.8 <11.9 7.42 11.9
<74.8 29.9 74.8 <11.9 4.75 11.9
43.1 J 24.3 74.8 64.5 3.86 11.9
<74.8 J-LOW-L 18.7 74.8 <11.9 J-LOW-L 2.97 11.9
<74.8 29.9 74.8 <11.9 4.75 11.9
<74.8 28.0 74.8 <11.9 4.45 11.9
<74.8 37.4 74.8 <11.9 5.94 11.9
<74.8 48.6 74.8 <11.9 7.72 11.9
<93.5 89.8 93.5 <14.8 14.2 14.8
<187 22.4 187 <29.7 3.56 29.7
<150 31.8 150 <23.7 5.05 23.7
<74.8 26.2 74.8 <11.9 4.15 11.9
<74.8 20.6 74.8 <11.9 3.26 11.9
<74.8 24.3 74.8 <11.9 3.86 11.9
<74.8 31.8 74.8 <11.9 5.05 11.9
<187 44.9 187 <29.7 7.12 29.7
<150 18.7 150 <23.7 2.97 23.7
<74.8 29.9 74.8 <11.9 4.75 11.9
<74.8 28.0 74.8 <11.9 4.45 11.9
<74.8 50.5 150 <23.7 8.01 23.7
<74.8 24.3 74.8 <11.9 3.86 11.9
<74.8 28.0 74.8 <11.9 4.45 11.9
<280 69.2 280 <44.5 11.0 44.5
<74.8 22.4 74.8 <11.9 3.56 11.9
<74.8 31.8 74.8 <11.9 5.05 11.9
<74.8 35.5 74.8 <11.9 5.64 11.9
<74.8 26.2 74.8 <11.9 4.15 11.9
23L1850-05 23L1850-06
Sludge-1 NW Sludge-2NE
12/20/2023 12/20/2023
Page 7 of 15
Table 3 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge SVOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Client Sample ID
Lab Sample ID
Date Collected
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 207-08-9 8270E mg/kg 11 210
BENZOIC ACID 65-85-0 8270E mg/kg 250000 3300000
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE 541-73-1 8270E mg/kg NE NE
BENZYL ALCOHOL 100-51-6 8270E mg/kg 6300 82000
BIPHENYL 92-52-4 8270E mg/kg 47 200
BIS(2-CHLORETHOXY)METHANE 111-91-1 8270E mg/kg 190 2,500
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER 111-44-4 8270E mg/kg 0.23 1
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 117-81-7 8270E mg/kg 39 160
BENZYLBUTYL PHTHALATE 85-68-7 8270E mg/kg 290 1,200
CARBAZOLE 86-74-8 8270E mg/kg NE NE
CHRYSENE 218-01-9 8270E mg/kg 110 2,100
DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 53-70-3 8270E mg/kg 0.11 2.1
DIBENZOFURAN 132-64-9 8270E mg/kg 78 1200
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 106-46-7 8270E mg/kg 2.6 11
DIETHYL PHTHALATE 84-66-2 8270E mg/kg 51,000 660,000
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE 131-11-3 8270E mg/kg NE NE
1-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 90-12-0 8270E mg/kg 18 73 0.006 0.120
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 84-74-2 8270E mg/kg 6,300 82,000
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE 117-84-0 8270E mg/kg 630 8,200
DIPHENYLAMINE 122-39-4
8270E mg/kg 6300 82000
2,2-OXYBIS(1-CHLOROPROPANE) 108-60-1 8270E mg/kg 3,100 47,000
FLUORANTHENE 206-44-0 8270E mg/kg 2,400 30,000
FLUORENE 86-73-7 8270E mg/kg 2,400 30,000 5.4 108
HEXACHLOROBENZENE 118-74-1 8270E mg/kg 0.21 0.96
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL 58-90-2 8270E mg/kg 1900 25000
HEXACHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE 87-68-3 8270E mg/kg 1.2 5.3
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE 77-47-4 8270E mg/kg 1.8 7.5
HEXACHLOROETHANE 67-72-1 8270E mg/kg 1.8 8
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE 193-39-5 8270E mg/kg 1.1 21
ISOPHORONE 78-59-1 8270E mg/kg 570 2,400
NAPHTHALENE 91-20-3 8270E mg/kg 2 8.6 0.00038 0.0076
NITROBENZENE 98-95-3 8270E mg/kg 5.1 22
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE 62-75-9 8270E mg/kg 0.002 0.034
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
23L1850-05 23L1850-06
Sludge-1 NW Sludge-2NE
12/20/2023 12/20/2023
<74.8 33.7 74.8 <11.9 5.34 11.9
<187 J-LOW-L 18.7 187 <29.7 J-LOW-L 2.97 29.7
<74.8 28.0 74.8 <11.9 4.45 11.9
<74.8 24.3 74.8 <11.9 3.86 11.9
<74.8 31.8 74.8 <11.9 5.05 11.9
<74.8 18.7 74.8 <11.9 2.97 11.9
<74.8 28.0 74.8 <11.9 4.45 11.9
<74.8 41.1 74.8 <11.9 6.53 11.9
<74.8 48.6 74.8 <11.9 7.72 11.9
<74.8 22.4 74.8 <11.9 3.56 11.9
<74.8 22.4 74.8 <11.9 3.56 11.9
<74.8 26.2 74.8 <11.9 4.15 11.9
<74.8 31.8 74.8 <11.9 5.05 11.9
<74.8 24.3 74.8 <11.9 3.86 11.9
<93.5 J-LOW-L 86.0 93.5 <14.8 J-LOW-L 13.7 14.8
<74.8 29.9 74.8 <11.9 4.75 11.9
91.3 22.4 74.8 109 3.56 11.9
<74.8 24.3 74.8 <11.9 3.86 11.9
<74.8 37.4 74.8 <11.9 5.94 11.9
<74.8 29.9 74.8 <11.9 4.75 11.9
<74.8 26.2 74.8 <11.9 4.15 11.9
<74.8 18.7 74.8 <11.9 2.97 11.9
<74.8 33.7 74.8 6.85 J 5.34 11.9
<74.8 20.6 74.8 <11.9 3.26 11.9
<74.8 26.2 74.8 <11.9 4.15 11.9
<74.8 24.3 74.8 <11.9 3.86 11.9
<74.8 16.8 74.8 <11.9 2.67 11.9
<74.8 29.9 74.8 <11.9 4.75 11.9
<74.8 26.2 74.8 <11.9 4.15 11.9
<74.8 22.4 74.8 <11.9 3.56 11.9
<74.8 22.4 74.8 32.8 3.56 11.9
<74.8 24.3 74.8 <11.9 3.86 11.9
<150 24.3 150 <23.7 3.86 23.7
Page 8 of 15
Table 3 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge SVOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Client Sample ID
Lab Sample ID
Date Collected
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE 621-64-7 8270E mg/kg 0.078 0.33
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE 86-30-6 8270E mg/kg 110 470
N-OCTADECANE 593-45-3 8270E mg/kg NE NE
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL 95-95-4 8270E mg/kg 6300 82000
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 87-86-5 8270E mg/kg 1 4
PHENANTHRENE 85-01-8 8270E mg/kg NE NE
PHENOL 108-95-2 8270E mg/kg 19,000 250,000
PYRENE 129-00-0 8270E mg/kg 1,800 23,000
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL 88-06-2 8270E mg/kg 49 210
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL 120-83-2 8270E mg/kg 190 2,500
Qualifiers (Q)/Abbreviations:
DAF: Dilution Attenuation Factor
J: The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
J-High: Estimated High due to high recovery of LCS or CCV
J-LOW-L: Estimated low due to low recovery of LCS
J-LOW-C: Estimated low due to low recovery of CCV
mg/kg: Milligrams per kilogram
MS-LOW: Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery
NE: Not Established
<: Less than Reported Detection Limit (RDL)
Blue italicized RDLs (e.g., <0.0100 ) exceed one or more of the screening levels.
Color shaded value exceeds screening level.
RSL: Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels for soil at residential (Res.) and industrial (Ind.) properties
(November 2023; TR=1E-06; THQ=1.0).
SSL: Environmental Protection Agency Risk-based Soil Screening Levels for Protection of Groundwater (November 2023; DAF=1 and
DAF=20).
Bold value exceeds Method Detection Limit (MDL).
E:The concentration indicated for this analyte is an estimated value above the calibration range of the instrument. This value is
considered an estimate (CLP E-flag).
EPA RSL: Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels for soil at residential (Res.) and industrial (Ind.) properties
(November 2023; TR=1E-06; THQ=1.0).
Utah's Initial Screening Levels (ISLs) and risk-based Tier 1 Screening Levels (Tier 1) for petroleum releases at leaking underground
storage tank sites
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
23L1850-05 23L1850-06
Sludge-1 NW Sludge-2NE
12/20/2023 12/20/2023
<74.8 33.7 74.8 <11.9 5.34 11.9
<74.8 56.1 74.8 <11.9 8.90 11.9
1900 E 35.5 74.8 640 E 28.2 59.4
<74.8 24.3 74.8 <11.9 3.86 11.9
<74.8 J-LOW-C 22.4 74.8 <11.9 J-LOW-C 3.56 11.9
<74.8 24.3 74.8 7.84 J 3.86 11.9
<74.8 41.1 74.8 <11.9 6.53 11.9
<74.8 26.2 74.8 <11.9 4.15 11.9
<74.8 26.2 74.8 <11.9 4.15 11.9
<74.8 29.9 74.8 <11.9 4.75 11.9
Page 9 of 15
Table 3 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge SVOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 120-82-1 8270E mg/kg 24 110
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL 105-67-9 8270E mg/kg 1,300 16,000
2,4-DINITROPHENOL 51-28-5 8270E mg/kg 130 1,600
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE 121-14-2 8270E mg/kg 1.7 7.4
2,6-DICHLOROPHENOL 87-65-0 8270E mg/kg NE NE
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE 606-20-2 8270E mg/kg 0.36 1.5
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE 91-58-7 8270E mg/kg 4,800 60,000
2-CHLOROPHENOL 95-57-8 8270E mg/kg 390 5,800
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 91-57-6 8270E mg/kg 240 3,000 0.19 3.80
2-METHYLPHENOL 95-48-7 8270E mg/kg 3200 41000
2-NITROANILINE 88-74-4 8270E mg/kg 63 800
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE 95-50-1 8270E mg/kg 1,800 9,300
2-NITROPHENOL 88-75-5 8270E mg/kg NE NE
3 & 4-METHYLPHENOL 106-44-5 8270E mg/kg 3200 41000
3,3-DICHLOROBENZIDINE 91-94-1 8270E mg/kg 1.2 5.1
3-NITROANILINE 99-09-2 8270E mg/kg NE NE
4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL 534-52-1 8270E mg/kg 5.1 66
4-BROMOPHENYL-PHENYLETHER 101-55-3 8270E mg/kg NE NE
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL 59-50-7 8270E mg/kg 6,300 82,000
4-CHLOROANILINE 106-47-8 8270E mg/kg 2.7 11
4-CHLOROPHENYL-PHENYLETHER 7005-72-3 8270E mg/kg NE NE
4-NITROANILINE 100-01-6 8270E mg/kg 27 110
4-NITROPHENOL 100-02-7 8270E mg/kg NE NE
ACENAPHTHENE 83-32-9 8270E mg/kg 3,600 45,000
ACENAPHTHYLENE 208-96-8 8270E mg/kg NE NE
ANILINE 62-53-3 8270E mg/kg 95 400
ANTHRACENE 120-12-7 8270E mg/kg 18,000 230,000
AZOBENZENE 103-33-3 8270E mg/kg 5.6 26
BENZIDINE 92-87-5 8270E mg/kg 0.00053 0.01
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 56-55-3 8270E mg/kg 1.1 21
BENZO(A)PYRENE 50-32-8 8270E mg/kg 0.11 2.1
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 205-99-2 8270E mg/kg 1.1 21
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 191-24-2 8270E mg/kg NE NE
Client Sample ID
Lab Sample ID
Date Collected
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
<51 16.6 51.0 <46.8 15.2 46.8
<51 22.9 51.0 <46.8 21.0 46.8
<102 J-LOW-C 21.7 102 <93.6 J-LOW-C 19.9 93.6
<51 26.8 51.0 <46.8 24.6 46.8
<51 20.4 51.0 <46.8 18.7 46.8
<51 21.7 51.0 <46.8 19.9 46.8
<51 31.8 51.0 <46.8 29.2 46.8
<51 20.4 51.0 <46.8 18.7 46.8
33.8 J 16.6 51.0 41.0 J 15.2 46.8
<51 J-LOW-L 12.7 51.0 <46.8 J-LOW-L 11.7 46.8
<51 20.4 51.0 <46.8 18.7 46.8
<51 19.1 51.0 <46.8 17.5 46.8
<51 25.5 51.0 <46.8 23.4 46.8
<51 33.1 51.0 <46.8 30.4 46.8
<63.7 61.1 63.7 <58.5 56.1 58.5
<127 15.3 127 <117 14.0 117
<102 21.7 102 <93.6 19.9 93.6
<51 17.8 51.0 <46.8 16.4 46.8
<51 14.0 51.0 <46.8 12.9 46.8
<51 16.6 51.0 <46.8 15.2 46.8
<51 21.7 51.0 <46.8 19.9 46.8
<127 30.6 127 <117 28.1 117
<102 12.7 102 <93.6 11.7 93.6
<51 20.4 51.0 <46.8 18.7 46.8
<51 19.1 51.0 <46.8 17.5 46.8
<102 34.4 102 <93.6 31.6 93.6
<51 16.6 51.0 <46.8 15.2 46.8
<51 19.1 51.0 <46.8 17.5 46.8
<191 47.1 191 <175 43.3 175
<51 15.3 51.0 <46.8 14.0 46.8
<51 21.7 51.0 <46.8 19.9 46.8
<51 24.2 51.0 <46.8 22.2 46.8
<51 17.8 51.0 <46.8 16.4 46.8
23L1850-07 23L1850-08
Sludge-3 SE Sludge-4 SW
12/20/2023 12/20/2023
Page 10 of 15
Table 3 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge SVOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Client Sample ID
Lab Sample ID
Date Collected
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 207-08-9 8270E mg/kg 11 210
BENZOIC ACID 65-85-0 8270E mg/kg 250000 3300000
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE 541-73-1 8270E mg/kg NE NE
BENZYL ALCOHOL 100-51-6 8270E mg/kg 6300 82000
BIPHENYL 92-52-4 8270E mg/kg 47 200
BIS(2-CHLORETHOXY)METHANE 111-91-1 8270E mg/kg 190 2,500
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER 111-44-4 8270E mg/kg 0.23 1
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 117-81-7 8270E mg/kg 39 160
BENZYLBUTYL PHTHALATE 85-68-7 8270E mg/kg 290 1,200
CARBAZOLE 86-74-8 8270E mg/kg NE NE
CHRYSENE 218-01-9 8270E mg/kg 110 2,100
DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 53-70-3 8270E mg/kg 0.11 2.1
DIBENZOFURAN 132-64-9 8270E mg/kg 78 1200
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 106-46-7 8270E mg/kg 2.6 11
DIETHYL PHTHALATE 84-66-2 8270E mg/kg 51,000 660,000
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE 131-11-3 8270E mg/kg NE NE
1-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 90-12-0 8270E mg/kg 18 73 0.006 0.120
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 84-74-2 8270E mg/kg 6,300 82,000
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE 117-84-0 8270E mg/kg 630 8,200
DIPHENYLAMINE 122-39-4
8270E mg/kg 6300 82000
2,2-OXYBIS(1-CHLOROPROPANE) 108-60-1 8270E mg/kg 3,100 47,000
FLUORANTHENE 206-44-0 8270E mg/kg 2,400 30,000
FLUORENE 86-73-7 8270E mg/kg 2,400 30,000 5.4 108
HEXACHLOROBENZENE 118-74-1 8270E mg/kg 0.21 0.96
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL 58-90-2 8270E mg/kg 1900 25000
HEXACHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE 87-68-3 8270E mg/kg 1.2 5.3
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE 77-47-4 8270E mg/kg 1.8 7.5
HEXACHLOROETHANE 67-72-1 8270E mg/kg 1.8 8
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE 193-39-5 8270E mg/kg 1.1 21
ISOPHORONE 78-59-1 8270E mg/kg 570 2,400
NAPHTHALENE 91-20-3 8270E mg/kg 2 8.6 0.00038 0.0076
NITROBENZENE 98-95-3 8270E mg/kg 5.1 22
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE 62-75-9 8270E mg/kg 0.002 0.034
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
23L1850-07 23L1850-08
Sludge-3 SE Sludge-4 SW
12/20/2023 12/20/2023
<51 22.9 51.0 <46.8 21.0 46.8
<127 J-LOW-L 12.7 127 <117 J-LOW-L 11.7 117
<51 19.1 51.0 <46.8 17.5 46.8
<51 16.6 51.0 <46.8 15.2 46.8
<51 21.7 51.0 <46.8 19.9 46.8
<51 12.7 51.0 <46.8 11.7 46.8
<51 19.1 51.0 <46.8 17.5 46.8
<51 28.0 51.0 <46.8 25.7 46.8
<51 33.1 51.0 <46.8 30.4 46.8
<51 15.3 51.0 <46.8 14.0 46.8
<51 15.3 51.0 <46.8 14.0 46.8
<51 17.8 51.0 <46.8 16.4 46.8
<51 21.7 51.0 <46.8 19.9 46.8
<51 16.6 51.0 <46.8 15.2 46.8
<63.7 J-LOW-L 58.6 63.7 <58.5 J-LOW-L 53.8 58.5
<51 20.4 51.0 <46.8 18.7 46.8
57.5 15.3 51.0 65.9 14.0 46.8
<51 16.6 51.0 <46.8 15.2 46.8
<51 25.5 51.0 <46.8 23.4 46.8
<51 20.4 51.0 <46.8 18.7 46.8
<51 17.8 51.0 <46.8 16.4 46.8
<51 12.7 51.0 <46.8 11.7 46.8
<51 22.9 51.0 <46.8 21.0 46.8
<51 14.0 51.0 <46.8 12.9 46.8
<51 17.8 51.0 <46.8 16.4 46.8
<51 16.6 51.0 <46.8 15.2 46.8
<51 11.5 51.0 <46.8 10.5 46.8
<51 20.4 51.0 <46.8 18.7 46.8
<51 17.8 51.0 <46.8 16.4 46.8
27.5 J 15.3 51.0 <46.8 14.0 46.8
<51 15.3 51.0 18.5 J 14.0 46.8
<51 16.6 51.0 <46.8 15.2 46.8
<102 16.6 102 <93.6 15.2 93.6
Page 11 of 15
Table 3 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge SVOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Client Sample ID
Lab Sample ID
Date Collected
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE 621-64-7 8270E mg/kg 0.078 0.33
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE 86-30-6 8270E mg/kg 110 470
N-OCTADECANE 593-45-3 8270E mg/kg NE NE
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL 95-95-4 8270E mg/kg 6300 82000
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 87-86-5 8270E mg/kg 1 4
PHENANTHRENE 85-01-8 8270E mg/kg NE NE
PHENOL 108-95-2 8270E mg/kg 19,000 250,000
PYRENE 129-00-0 8270E mg/kg 1,800 23,000
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL 88-06-2 8270E mg/kg 49 210
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL 120-83-2 8270E mg/kg 190 2,500
Qualifiers (Q)/Abbreviations:
DAF: Dilution Attenuation Factor
J: The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
J-High: Estimated High due to high recovery of LCS or CCV
J-LOW-L: Estimated low due to low recovery of LCS
J-LOW-C: Estimated low due to low recovery of CCV
mg/kg: Milligrams per kilogram
MS-LOW: Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery
NE: Not Established
<: Less than Reported Detection Limit (RDL)
Blue italicized RDLs (e.g., <0.0100 ) exceed one or more of the screening levels.
Color shaded value exceeds screening level.
RSL: Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels for soil at residential (Res.) and industrial (Ind.) properties
(November 2023; TR=1E-06; THQ=1.0).
SSL: Environmental Protection Agency Risk-based Soil Screening Levels for Protection of Groundwater (November 2023; DAF=1 and
DAF=20).
Bold value exceeds Method Detection Limit (MDL).
E:The concentration indicated for this analyte is an estimated value above the calibration range of the instrument. This value is
considered an estimate (CLP E-flag).
EPA RSL: Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels for soil at residential (Res.) and industrial (Ind.) properties
(November 2023; TR=1E-06; THQ=1.0).
Utah's Initial Screening Levels (ISLs) and risk-based Tier 1 Screening Levels (Tier 1) for petroleum releases at leaking underground
storage tank sites
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
23L1850-07 23L1850-08
Sludge-3 SE Sludge-4 SW
12/20/2023 12/20/2023
<51 22.9 51.0 <46.8 21.0 46.8
<51 38.2 51.0 <46.8 35.1 46.8
755 E 24.2 51.0 654 E 22.2 46.8
<51 16.6 51.0 <46.8 15.2 46.8
<51 J-LOW-C 15.3 51.0 <46.8 J-LOW-C 14.0 46.8
<51 16.6 51.0 <46.8 15.2 46.8
<51 28.0 51.0 <46.8 25.7 46.8
<51 17.8 51.0 <46.8 16.4 46.8
<51 17.8 51.0 <46.8 16.4 46.8
<51 20.4 51.0 <46.8 18.7 46.8
Page 12 of 15
Table 3 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge SVOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 120-82-1 8270E mg/kg 24 110
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL 105-67-9 8270E mg/kg 1,300 16,000
2,4-DINITROPHENOL 51-28-5 8270E mg/kg 130 1,600
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE 121-14-2 8270E mg/kg 1.7 7.4
2,6-DICHLOROPHENOL 87-65-0 8270E mg/kg NE NE
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE 606-20-2 8270E mg/kg 0.36 1.5
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE 91-58-7 8270E mg/kg 4,800 60,000
2-CHLOROPHENOL 95-57-8 8270E mg/kg 390 5,800
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 91-57-6 8270E mg/kg 240 3,000 0.19 3.80
2-METHYLPHENOL 95-48-7 8270E mg/kg 3200 41000
2-NITROANILINE 88-74-4 8270E mg/kg 63 800
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE 95-50-1 8270E mg/kg 1,800 9,300
2-NITROPHENOL 88-75-5 8270E mg/kg NE NE
3 & 4-METHYLPHENOL 106-44-5 8270E mg/kg 3200 41000
3,3-DICHLOROBENZIDINE 91-94-1 8270E mg/kg 1.2 5.1
3-NITROANILINE 99-09-2 8270E mg/kg NE NE
4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL 534-52-1 8270E mg/kg 5.1 66
4-BROMOPHENYL-PHENYLETHER 101-55-3 8270E mg/kg NE NE
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL 59-50-7 8270E mg/kg 6,300 82,000
4-CHLOROANILINE 106-47-8 8270E mg/kg 2.7 11
4-CHLOROPHENYL-PHENYLETHER 7005-72-3 8270E mg/kg NE NE
4-NITROANILINE 100-01-6 8270E mg/kg 27 110
4-NITROPHENOL 100-02-7 8270E mg/kg NE NE
ACENAPHTHENE 83-32-9 8270E mg/kg 3,600 45,000
ACENAPHTHYLENE 208-96-8 8270E mg/kg NE NE
ANILINE 62-53-3 8270E mg/kg 95 400
ANTHRACENE 120-12-7 8270E mg/kg 18,000 230,000
AZOBENZENE 103-33-3 8270E mg/kg 5.6 26
BENZIDINE 92-87-5 8270E mg/kg 0.00053 0.01
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 56-55-3 8270E mg/kg 1.1 21
BENZO(A)PYRENE 50-32-8 8270E mg/kg 0.11 2.1
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 205-99-2 8270E mg/kg 1.1 21
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 191-24-2 8270E mg/kg NE NE
Client Sample ID
Lab Sample ID
Date Collected
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
<0.42 0.25 0.42 <0.07 0.04 0.07
<33.8 15.2 33.8 <0.58 0.26 0.58
<67.7 J-LOW-L 14.4 67.7 <1.17 J-LOW-L 0.25 1.17
<33.8 17.8 33.8 <0.58 0.31 0.58
<33.8 13.5 33.8 <0.58 0.23 0.58
<33.8 14.4 33.8 <0.58 0.25 0.58
<33.8 21.1 33.8 <0.58 0.36 0.58
<33.8 13.5 33.8 <0.58 0.23 0.58
28.9 11.0 33.8 0.94 0.19 0.58
<33.8 8.46 33.8 <0.58 0.15 0.58
<33.8 13.5 33.8 <0.58 0.23 0.58
<0.42 0.11 0.42 <0.07 0.02 0.07
<33.8 16.9 33.8 <0.58 0.29 0.58
<33.8 J-High-L 22.0 33.8 <0.58 J-High-L 0.38 0.58
<42.3 40.6 42.3 <0.73 0.70 0.73
<84.6 10.1 84.6 <1.46 0.17 1.46
<67.7 J-LOW-L 14.4 67.7 <1.17 J-LOW-L 0.25 1.17
<33.8 11.8 33.8 <0.58 0.20 0.58
<33.8 9.30 33.8 <0.58 0.16 0.58
<33.8 11.0 33.8 <0.58 0.19 0.58
<33.8 14.4 33.8 <0.58 0.25 0.58
<84.6 20.3 84.6 <1.46 0.35 1.46
<67.7 J-LOW-L 8.46 67.7 <1.17 J-LOW-L 0.15 1.17
<33.8 13.5 33.8 <0.58 0.23 0.58
<33.8 12.7 33.8 <0.58 0.22 0.58
<67.7 22.8 67.7 <1.17 0.39 1.17
<33.8 11.0 33.8 <0.58 0.19 0.58
<33.8 12.7 33.8 <0.58 0.22 0.58
<127 31.3 127 <2.19 0.54 2.19
<33.8 10.1 33.8 <0.58 0.17 0.58
<33.8 14.4 33.8 <0.58 0.25 0.58
<33.8 16.1 33.8 <0.58 0.28 0.58
<33.8 11.8 33.8 <0.58 0.20 0.58
24C0256-01 24C0256-01
Sludge-1 W Sludge-2 E
3/5/2024 3/5/2024
Page 13 of 15
Table 3 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge SVOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Client Sample ID
Lab Sample ID
Date Collected
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 207-08-9 8270E mg/kg 11 210
BENZOIC ACID 65-85-0 8270E mg/kg 250000 3300000
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE 541-73-1 8270E mg/kg NE NE
BENZYL ALCOHOL 100-51-6 8270E mg/kg 6300 82000
BIPHENYL 92-52-4 8270E mg/kg 47 200
BIS(2-CHLORETHOXY)METHANE 111-91-1 8270E mg/kg 190 2,500
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER 111-44-4 8270E mg/kg 0.23 1
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 117-81-7 8270E mg/kg 39 160
BENZYLBUTYL PHTHALATE 85-68-7 8270E mg/kg 290 1,200
CARBAZOLE 86-74-8 8270E mg/kg NE NE
CHRYSENE 218-01-9 8270E mg/kg 110 2,100
DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 53-70-3 8270E mg/kg 0.11 2.1
DIBENZOFURAN 132-64-9 8270E mg/kg 78 1200
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 106-46-7 8270E mg/kg 2.6 11
DIETHYL PHTHALATE 84-66-2 8270E mg/kg 51,000 660,000
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE 131-11-3 8270E mg/kg NE NE
1-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 90-12-0 8270E mg/kg 18 73 0.006 0.120
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 84-74-2 8270E mg/kg 6,300 82,000
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE 117-84-0 8270E mg/kg 630 8,200
DIPHENYLAMINE 122-39-4
8270E mg/kg 6300 82000
2,2-OXYBIS(1-CHLOROPROPANE) 108-60-1 8270E mg/kg 3,100 47,000
FLUORANTHENE 206-44-0 8270E mg/kg 2,400 30,000
FLUORENE 86-73-7 8270E mg/kg 2,400 30,000 5.4 108
HEXACHLOROBENZENE 118-74-1 8270E mg/kg 0.21 0.96
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL 58-90-2 8270E mg/kg 1900 25000
HEXACHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE 87-68-3 8270E mg/kg 1.2 5.3
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE 77-47-4 8270E mg/kg 1.8 7.5
HEXACHLOROETHANE 67-72-1 8270E mg/kg 1.8 8
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE 193-39-5 8270E mg/kg 1.1 21
ISOPHORONE 78-59-1 8270E mg/kg 570 2,400
NAPHTHALENE 91-20-3 8270E mg/kg 2 8.6 0.00038 0.0076
NITROBENZENE 98-95-3 8270E mg/kg 5.1 22
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE 62-75-9 8270E mg/kg 0.002 0.034
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
24C0256-01 24C0256-01
Sludge-1 W Sludge-2 E
3/5/2024 3/5/2024
<33.8 15.2 33.8 <0.58 0.26 0.58
<84.6 J-LOW-C 8.46 84.6 <1.46 J-LOW-C 0.15 1.46
<0.42 0.16 0.42 <0.07 0.03 0.07
<33.8 11.0 33.8 <0.58 0.19 0.58
<33.8 14.4 33.8 <0.58 0.25 0.58
<33.8 8.46 33.8 <0.58 0.15 0.58
<33.8 12.7 33.8 <0.58 0.22 0.58
<33.8 18.6 33.8 <0.58 0.32 0.58
<33.8 22.0 33.8 <0.58 0.38 0.58
<33.8 10.1 33.8 <0.58 0.17 0.58
<33.8 10.1 33.8 <0.58 0.17 0.58
<33.8 11.8 33.8 <0.58 0.20 0.58
<33.8 14.4 33.8 <0.58 0.25 0.58
<0.42 0.17 0.42 <0.07 0.03 0.07
<42.3 J-LOW-L 38.9 42.3 <0.73 J-LOW-L 0.67 0.73
<33.8 13.5 33.8 <0.58 0.23 0.58
53.5 10.1 33.8 1.78 0.17 0.58
<33.8 11.0 33.8 <0.58 0.19 0.58
<33.8 16.9 33.8 <0.58 0.29 0.58
<33.8 13.5 33.8 <0.58 0.23 0.58
<33.8 11.8 33.8 <0.58 0.20 0.58
<33.8 8.46 33.8 <0.58 0.15 0.58
<33.8 15.2 33.8 <0.58 0.26 0.58
<33.8 9.30 33.8 <0.58 0.16 0.58
<33.8 11.8 33.8 <0.58 0.20 0.58
<0.42 0.16 0.42 <0.07 0.03 0.07
<33.8 J-LOW-L 7.61 33.8 <0.58 J-LOW-L 0.13 0.58
<33.8 13.5 33.8 <0.58 0.23 0.58
<33.8 11.8 33.8 <0.58 0.20 0.58
<33.8 10.1 33.8 <0.58 0.17 0.58
2.77 0.15 0.42 <0.07 0.03 0.07
<33.8 11.0 33.8 <0.58 0.19 0.58
<67.7 11.0 67.7 <1.17 0.19 1.17
Page 14 of 15
Table 3 - Summary of Analytical Results
Soil and Sludge SVOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units
RSL
Residential
RSL
Industrial
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=1)
GW
Protection
SSLs
(DAF=20)
Client Sample ID
Lab Sample ID
Date Collected
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE 621-64-7 8270E mg/kg 0.078 0.33
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE 86-30-6 8270E mg/kg 110 470
N-OCTADECANE 593-45-3 8270E mg/kg NE NE
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL 95-95-4 8270E mg/kg 6300 82000
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 87-86-5 8270E mg/kg 1 4
PHENANTHRENE 85-01-8 8270E mg/kg NE NE
PHENOL 108-95-2 8270E mg/kg 19,000 250,000
PYRENE 129-00-0 8270E mg/kg 1,800 23,000
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL 88-06-2 8270E mg/kg 49 210
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL 120-83-2 8270E mg/kg 190 2,500
Qualifiers (Q)/Abbreviations:
DAF: Dilution Attenuation Factor
J: The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
J-High: Estimated High due to high recovery of LCS or CCV
J-LOW-L: Estimated low due to low recovery of LCS
J-LOW-C: Estimated low due to low recovery of CCV
mg/kg: Milligrams per kilogram
MS-LOW: Estimated low due to Matrix Spike recovery
NE: Not Established
<: Less than Reported Detection Limit (RDL)
Blue italicized RDLs (e.g., <0.0100 ) exceed one or more of the screening levels.
Color shaded value exceeds screening level.
RSL: Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels for soil at residential (Res.) and industrial (Ind.) properties
(November 2023; TR=1E-06; THQ=1.0).
SSL: Environmental Protection Agency Risk-based Soil Screening Levels for Protection of Groundwater (November 2023; DAF=1 and
DAF=20).
Bold value exceeds Method Detection Limit (MDL).
E:The concentration indicated for this analyte is an estimated value above the calibration range of the instrument. This value is
considered an estimate (CLP E-flag).
EPA RSL: Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels for soil at residential (Res.) and industrial (Ind.) properties
(November 2023; TR=1E-06; THQ=1.0).
Utah's Initial Screening Levels (ISLs) and risk-based Tier 1 Screening Levels (Tier 1) for petroleum releases at leaking underground
storage tank sites
Result Q MDL RDL Result Q MDL RDL
24C0256-01 24C0256-01
Sludge-1 W Sludge-2 E
3/5/2024 3/5/2024
<33.8 15.2 33.8 <0.58 0.26 0.58
<33.8 25.4 33.8 <0.58 0.44 0.58
1920 161 338 19.3 1.38 2.91
<33.8 11.0 33.8 <0.58 0.19 0.58
<33.8 J-LOW-L 10.1 33.8 <0.58 J-LOW-L 0.17 0.58
17.0 J 11.0 33.8 0.49 J 0.19 0.58
<33.8 18.6 33.8 <0.58 0.32 0.58
<33.8 11.8 33.8 <0.58 0.20 0.58
<33.8 11.8 33.8 <0.58 0.20 0.58
<33.8 13.5 33.8 <0.58 0.23 0.58
Page 15 of 15
Table 4 - Summary of Analytical Results
Leachate Water Inorganics
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units EPA MCL
UDWQ
Discharge Result Q MDL RDL
ARSENIC,DISSOLVED 7440-38-2 200.8 mg/l 0.01 0.01
0.0528 0.00009 0.0005
BARIUM,DISSOLVED 7440-39-3 200.8 mg/l 2 1.0 0.742 0.00007 0.0005
BERYLLIUM,DISSOLVED 7440-41-7 200.8 mg/l 0.004 0.0004
<0.0005 0.00007 0.0005
CADMIUM,DISSOLVED 7440-43-9 200.8 mg/l 0.005 0.026 0.0003 0.00003 0.0002
CHROMIUM,DISSOLVED 7440-47-3 200.8 mg/l 0.1 0.05 0.0662 0.0001 0.0005
COPPER,DISSOLVED 7440-50-8 200.8 mg/l NE 0.003 0.0157 0.0002 0.001
LEAD,DISSOLVED 7439-92-1 200.8 mg/l 0.015 0.005 0.0011 0.0002 0.0010
SELENIUM,DISSOLVED 7782-49-2 200.8 mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.0289 0.0001 0.0005
SILVER,DISSOLVED 7440-22-4 200.8 mg/l NE 0.05 <0.0005 0.0001 0.0005
ZINC,DISSOLVED 7440-66-6 200.8 mg/l NE 0.04 <0.0005 0.00005 0.0005
MERCURY,DISSOLVED 7439-97-6 200.8 mg/l 0.002 0.002
0.00122 0.0008 0.0100
TSS NE 2540D mg/l NE 70
308 16 20
TDS NE 2540C mg/l NE 1200
23200 1000 1000
pH NE 4500 H-B pH Units NE 9
12.54 NE NE
EPA MCL: Environmental Protection Agency Maximum Contaminant Level for drinking water (November 2023).
mg/l: Milligrams per liter
NE: Not Established
TDS: Total Dissolved Solids
TSS: Total Suspended Solids
<: Less than Reported Detection Limit (RDL)
Blue italicized RDLs (e.g., <0.0100 ) exceed one or more of the screening levels.
12/20/2023
Leachate Water-1
UDWQ Discharge: Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Quality discharge standards, treated groundwater to
surface water (value may vary by site).
23L1850-09Lab Sample ID
Client Sample ID
Date Collected
Bold value exceeds Method Detection Limit (MDL).
Qualifiers (Q)/Abbreviations:
Page 1 of 1
Table 5 - Summary of Analytical Results
Leachate Water Petroleum Hydrocarbons and VOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units MCL ISL Tier 1
UDWQ
Discharge Result Q MDL RDL
TRPH NE 1664A mg/l NE 10 10 10 130 4 5
TPH-DRO 68334-30-5 8015D mg/l NE 1 10 1 535 20.0 20.0
TPH-GRO 8006-61-9 3511/8015 mg/l NE 1 10 1 10.4 0.01 0.01
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 630-20-6 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 0.2 1.0
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 71-55-6 8260B µg/l 20 NE NE 20 <1.0 0.2 1.0
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 79-34-5 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 0.3 1.0
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE 79-00-5 8260B µg/l 5 NE NE 5 <1.0 0.3 1.0
1,1,2-TRICHLOROTRIFLUOROETHANE 76-13-1 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 0.6 1.0
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 75-34-3 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 0.6 1.0
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 75-35-4 8260B µg/l 7 NE NE 7 <1.0 0.2 1.0
1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE 563-58-6 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 0.2 1.0
2-HEXANONE 591-78-6 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <10.0 4.8 10.0
1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE 87-61-6 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 J-LOW-C 0.3 1.0
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE 96-18-4 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 0.3 1.0
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 120-82-1 8260B µg/l 70 NE NE 70 <1.0 J-LOW-C 0.6 1.0
1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 95-63-6 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE 978 29.0 100
1,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE 96-12-8 8260B µg/l 200 NE NE 200 <1.0 J-LOW-C 0.7 1.0
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE 106-93-4 8260B µg/l 0.05 NE NE 0.05
<1.0 0.2 1.0
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE 95-50-1 8260B µg/l 600 NE NE 600 <1.0 0.2 1.0
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 107-06-2 8260B µg/l 5 NE NE 5 <1.0 0.3 1.0
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE 78-87-5 8260B µg/l 5 NE NE 5 <1.0 0.2 1.0
1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 108-67-8 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE 534 23.0 100
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE 541-73-1 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 0.4 1.0
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE 142-28-9 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 0.2 1.0
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 106-46-7 8260B µg/l 75 NE NE 75 <1.0 0.4 1.0
2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE 594-20-7 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 0.6 1.0
2-CHLOROTOLUENE 95-49-8 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 0.3 1.0
2-NITROPROPANE 79-46-9 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <2.0 J-LOW-C 1.5 2.0
4-CHLOROTOLUENE 106-43-4 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 0.2 1.0
ACETONE 67-64-1 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE 1930 764 1000
ACRYLONITRILE 107-13-1 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <10.0 1.6 10.0
BENZENE 71-43-2 8260B µg/l 5 5 300 5 830 25.0 40.0
BROMOBENZENE 108-86-1 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 0.3 1.0
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE 74-97-5 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 0.4 1.0
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 75-27-4 8260B µg/l 80 NE NE NE <1.0 0.3 1.0
BROMOFORM 75-25-2 8260B µg/l 80 NE NE NE <1.0 0.3 1.0
Client Sample ID
Lab Sample ID
Leachate Water-1
23L1850-09
12/20/2023Date Collected
Page 1 of 3
Table 5 - Summary of Analytical Results
Leachate Water Petroleum Hydrocarbons and VOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units MCL ISL Tier 1
UDWQ
Discharge Result Q MDL RDL
Client Sample ID
Lab Sample ID
Leachate Water-1
23L1850-09
12/20/2023Date Collected
BROMOMETHANE 74-83-9 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 0.6 1.0
CARBON DISULFIDE 75-15-0 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE 47.6 1.2 2.0
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 56-23-5 8260B µg/l 5 NE NE 5 <1.0 0.2 1.0
CHLOROBENZENE 108-90-7 8260B µg/l 100 NE NE 100 <1.0 0.2 1.0
CHLOROETHANE 75-00-3 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 0.7 1.0
CHLOROFORM 67-66-3 8260B µg/l 80 NE NE NE <1.0 0.4 1.0
CHLOROMETHANE 74-87-3 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 0.3 1.0
CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 156-59-2 8260B µg/l 70 NE NE 70 <1.0 0.3 1.0
CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 10061-01-5 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 0.2 1.0
CYCLOHEXANONE 108-94-1 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <10.0 9.4 10.0
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE 124-48-1 8260B µg/l 80 NE NE NE <1.0 0.3 1.0
DIBROMOMETHANE 74-95-3 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 0.1 1.0
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE 75-71-8 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 0.7 1.0
ETHYL ACETATE 141-78-6 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE 4.8 0.6 2.0
ETHYL ETHER 60-29-7 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE 246 17.0 100
ETHYLBENZENE 100-41-4 8260B µg/l 700 700 4000 700 0.4 J 0.2 1.0
HEXACHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE 87-68-3 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 0.4 1.0
ISOBUTANOL 78-83-1 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <20.0 7.5 20.0
ISOPROPYLBENZENE 98-82-8 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE 24.1 0.2 1.0
2-BUTANONE (MEK) 78-93-3 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE 30.8 0.9 1.0
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE (MIBK) 108-10-1 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <5.0 3.8 5.0
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 75-09-2 8260B µg/l 5 NE NE 5 <2.0 0.7 2.0
METHYL TERT-BUTYL ETHER 1634-04-4 8260B µg/l NE 200 200 200 <0.4 0.4 0.4
NAPHTHALENE 91-20-3 8260B µg/l NE 700 700 700 61.6 J-LOW-C 0.4 1.0
N-BUTYL ALCOHOL 71-36-3 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE 2990 E, J-LOW-C 40.4 50.0
N-BUTYLBENZENE 104-51-8 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 0.4 1.0
N-PROPYLBENZENE 103-65-1 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE 49.0 0.3 1.0
PENTACHLOROETHANE 76-01-7 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 0.8 1.0
P-ISOPROPYLTOLUENE 99-87-6 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 0.4 1.0
SEC-BUTYLBENZENE 135-98-8 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE 11.1 0.2 1.0
STYRENE 100-42-5 8260B µg/l 100 NE NE 100 18.5 0.2 1.0
TERT-BUTYLBENZENE 98-06-6 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 0.4 1.0
TETRACHLOROETHENE 127-18-4 8260B µg/l 5 NE NE 5 2.1 0.5 1.0
TOLUENE 108-88-3 8260B µg/l 1000 1000 3000 1000 2380 26.0 100
Page 2 of 3
Table 5 - Summary of Analytical Results
Leachate Water Petroleum Hydrocarbons and VOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units MCL ISL Tier 1
UDWQ
Discharge Result Q MDL RDL
Client Sample ID
Lab Sample ID
Leachate Water-1
23L1850-09
12/20/2023Date Collected
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 156-60-5 8260B µg/l 10 NE NE 10 <1.0 0.3 1.0
TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 10061-02-6 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 0.2 1.0
TRICHLOROETHENE 79-01-6 8260B µg/l 5 NE NE 5 <1.0 0.4 1.0
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE 75-69-4 8260B µg/l NE NE NE NE <1.0 0.6 1.0
VINYL CHLORIDE 75-01-4 8260B µg/l 2 NE NE 2 <1.0 0.3 1.0
XYLENES, TOTAL 1330-20-7 8260B µg/l 10000 10000 10000 10000
3310 62.0 100
J-LOW-C: Estimated low due to low recovery of CCV.
mg/l: Milligrams per liter
MCL - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) November 2023 Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for drinking water
UDWQ Discharge: Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Quality discharge standards, treated groundwater to surface water (value may vary by site).
µg/l: Micrograms per liter
<: Less than Reported Detection Limit (RDL)
Blue italicized RDLs (e.g., <0.0100 ) exceed one or more of the screening levels.
Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Environmental Response and Remediation Initial Screening Levels (ISL) and risk-based Tier 1 Screening Levels (Tier 1)
for releases at leaking underground storage tank sites.
E:The concentration indicated for this analyte is an estimated value above the calibration range of the instrument. This value is considered an estimate (CLP E-flag).
Bold value exceeds Method Detection Limit (MDL).
NE: Not established
Qualifiers (Q)/Abbreviations:
J: The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
J4: The associated batch QC was outside the established quality control range for accuracy.
Page 3 of 3
Table 6 - Summary of Analytical Results
Leachate Water SVOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units MCL UDWQ
Discharge Result Q MDL RDL
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 120-82-1 8270E µg/l 70 70 <200 96.0 200
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL 105-67-9 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 34.0 200
2,4-DINITROPHENOL 51-28-5 8270E µg/l NE NE <500 J-LOW-C 92.0 500
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE 121-14-2 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 114 200
2,6-DICHLOROPHENOL 87-65-0 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 36.0 200
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE 606-20-2 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 110 200
2-CHLOROPHENOL 95-57-8 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 32.0 200
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 91-57-6 8270E µg/l NE NE 168 J 80.0 200
2-METHYLPHENOL 95-48-7 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 38.0 200
2-NITROANILINE 88-74-4 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 124 200
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE 95-50-1 8270E µg/l 600 600 <200 96.0 200
2-NITROPHENOL 88-75-5 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 62.0 200
3 & 4-METHYLPHENOL 106-44-5 8270E µg/l NE NE 208 92.0 200
3,3-DICHLOROBENZIDINE 91-94-1 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 124 200
3-NITROANILINE 99-09-2 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 72.0 200
4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL 534-52-1 8270E µg/l NE NE <500 J-LOW-C 128 500
4-BROMOPHENYL-PHENYLETHER 101-55-3 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 46.0 200
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL 59-50-7 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 30.0 200
4-CHLOROANILINE 106-47-8 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 172 200
4-CHLOROPHENYL-PHENYLETHER 7005-72-3 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 58.0 200
4-NITROANILINE 100-01-6 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 164 200
4-NITROPHENOL 100-02-7 8270E µg/l NE NE <400 58.0 400
ACENAPHTHENE 83-32-9 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 56.0 200
ACENAPHTHYLENE 208-96-8 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 62.0 200
ANILINE 62-53-3 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 108 200
ANTHRACENE 120-12-7 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 82.0 200
ATRAZINE 1912-24-9 8270E µg/l 3 3 <200 102 200
AZOBENZENE 103-33-3 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 114 200
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 56-55-3 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 56.0 200
BENZALDEHYDE 100-52-7 8270E µg/l NE NE <800 58.0 800
BENZO(A)PYRENE 50-32-8 8270E µg/l 0.2 0.2 <200 76.0 200
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 205-99-2 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 52.0 200
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 191-24-2 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 60.0 200
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 207-08-9 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 110 200
BENZOIC ACID 65-85-0 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 J-LOW-L 82.0 200
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE 541-73-1 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 108 200
BENZYL ALCOHOL 100-51-6 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 184 200
BIS(2-CHLORETHOXY)METHANE 111-91-1 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 36.0 200
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER 111-44-4 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 56.0 200
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 117-81-7 8270E µg/l 6 6 <200 116 200
BENZYLBUTYL PHTHALATE 85-68-7 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 110 200
CARBAZOLE 86-74-8 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 84.0 200
CHRYSENE 218-01-9 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 78.0 200
DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 53-70-3 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 60.0 200
DIBENZOFURAN 132-64-9 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 74.0 200
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 106-46-7 8270E µg/l 750 750 <200 142 200
DIETHYL PHTHALATE 84-66-2 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 94.0 200
Lab Sample ID
Client Sample ID
Date Collected
23L1850-09
Leachate Water-1
12/20/2023
Page 1 of 2
Table 6 - Summary of Analytical Results
Leachate Water SVOCs
Integrated Water Management (IWM)
20250 W. 2000 S. Duchesne, Utah
Terracon Project No. 61237383
Analyte CAS Method Units MCL UDWQ
Discharge Result Q MDL RDL
Lab Sample ID
Client Sample ID
Date Collected
23L1850-09
Leachate Water-1
12/20/2023
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE 131-11-3 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 86.0 200
1-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 90-12-0 8270E µg/l NE NE 314 86.0 200
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 84-74-2 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 144 200
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE 117-84-0 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 106 200
DIPHENYLAMINE 122-39-4
8270E µg/l NE NE <200 64.0 200
2,2-OXYBIS(1-CHLOROPROPANE) 108-60-1 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 116 200
FLUORANTHENE 206-44-0 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 74.0 200
FLUORENE 86-73-7 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 66.0 200
HEXACHLOROBENZENE 118-74-1 8270E µg/l 1 1 <200 36.0 200
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL 58-90-2 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 66.0 200
HEXACHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE 87-68-3 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 J-LOW-L 112 200
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE 77-47-4 8270E µg/l 50 50 <200 J-LOW-L 56.0 200
HEXACHLOROETHANE 67-72-1 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 82.0 200
INDENE 95-13-6 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 102 200
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE 193-39-5 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 60.0 200
ISOPHORONE 78-59-1 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 112 200
NAPHTHALENE 91-20-3 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 110 200
NITROBENZENE 98-95-3 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 46.0 200
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE 62-75-9 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 26.0 200
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE 621-64-7 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 136 200
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE 86-30-6 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 132 200
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL 95-95-4 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 42.0 200
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 87-86-5 8270E µg/l 1 1 <200 J-LOW-C 122 200
PHENANTHRENE 85-01-8 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 60.0 200
PHENOL 108-95-2 8270E µg/l NE NE 999 64.0 200
PYRENE 129-00-0 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 106 200
PYRIDINE 110-86-1 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 70.0 200
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL 88-06-2 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 42.0 200
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL 120-83-2 8270E µg/l NE NE <200 46.0 200
J-LOW-C: Estimated low due to low recovery of CCV
MCL - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) November 2023 Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for drinking water
µg/l: Micrograms per liter
Blue italicized RDLs (e.g., <0.0100 ) exceed one or more of the screening levels.
Bold value exceeds Method Detection Limit (MDL)
J4: The associated batch QC was outside the established quality control range for accuracy.
NE: Not established
Qualifiers (Q)/Abbreviations:
J: The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
J-LOW-L: Estimated low due to low recovery of LCS
UDWQ Discharge: Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Quality discharge standards, treated groundwater
to surface water (value may vary by site)
<: Less than Reported Detection Limit (RDL)
Page 2 of 2
Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials
APPENDIX C
Chain of Custody and Laboratory Data Sheets
The analyses presented on this report were performed in accordance with the
National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) unless
noted in the comments, flags, or case narrative. If the report is to be used for
regulatory compliance, it should be presented in its entirety, and not be
altered.
Client Service Contact: 801.262.7299
Terracon IHI
Attn: Daniel Dean
6949 South High Tech Drive
Midvale, UT 84047
Work Order: 23L1850
Project: Integrated Water Management
(IWM), Proj. 61237383
1/19/2024
Amended
Approved By:
Andrew Royer, Project Manager
9632 South 500 West Sandy, Utah 84070
Serving the Intermountain West since 1953
801.262.7299 Main 866.792.0093 Fax www.ChemtechFord.com
Page 1 of 119

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