DSHW-2025-002103

Brad R. Cahoon
Shareholder
[e-mail]
O 1+ [phone]

Dentons Durham Jones Pinegar P.C.
111 South Main Street, Suite 2400
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
United States

dentons.com

April 17, 2025
Via Email [e-mail]
Douglas J. Hansen, Director
Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Attn: Bryan Watt; Nathan Nicolodemos
PO Box 144880
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880

Re: EEI’s Application for E&P Waste Facility Temporary Permit
Dear Director Hansen:
This firm represents Environmental Energy Innovations, LLC (“EEI”) in responding to the public comments
of Integrated Water Management, LLC (“IWM”) on EEI’s Exploration and Production (“E&P”) Waste
Facility Temporary Permit (“Application”), which Application is pending before the Director. As set forth
below, the Director should (i) approve and issue to EEI a temporary permit because the Application
satisfies all applicable laws, and (ii) disregard IWM’s comments because they have no basis in law or fact.
EEI’s General Response to IWM’s Comments: IWM’s comments fail from the start. Although IWM’s
comments are directed to EEI’s Application, the substance of IWM’s comments are grounded in Senate
Bill 159 (“SB 159”) that does not apply to the Application. SB 159 applies only to operations and permits
for Class VII facilities, not temporary permits issued under Utah Admin. Code R315-321-4(8), like the
Application that is currently pending before the Director.
UAC R315-321-4(8) states, “If the director determines that a temporary permit is protective of human
health and the environment a temporary permit may be issued to facilitate the owner’s or operator’s good
faith transition from regulation under Rule R649-9 to regulation under Rule R315-321 or R315-322.”. In
accordance with this rule, the Application demonstrates that a temporary permit for EEI is protective of
human health and the environment and will allow EEI’s good faith transition to be regulated by the
Director. IWM, however, does not confront the Application under this standard.
On this basis alone, the Director should disregard IWM’s comments and approve the Application. IWM’s
comments also fail for other reasons. EEI responds to each of IWM’s seven comments in sequence, with
IWM’s seven comment headers restated in italics below, followed by EEI’s responses.
IWM Comment No. 1: The Director is Prohibited Under S.B. 159 from Approving EEI’s Operation
Plan or Temporary Permit.
EEI Response: IWM argues that the Director cannot approve EEI’s operation plan or permit under
Subsection 12(a) of SB 159 because EEI did not have an approved operation plan or permit in
accordance with Subsection 12(b). But IWM misconstrues and misapplies SB 159.
Section 12 of SB 159 states:
(a) The director may not approve an operation plan or permit for a nonhazardous solid waste
class VII landfill facility unless, based on the application, the operation plan and permit contain
engineering plans and specifications for cell design that includes: (i) an impervious synthetic liner
Douglas J. Hansen, Director
April 17, 2025
Page 2

dentons.com

SL_7778878.2
system that has hydraulic conductivity no greater than 1E-7 centimeters per second; or (ii) a clay
liner system equivalent to a liner system described in Subsection (12)(a)(i).
(b) A nonhazardous solid waste class VII landfill facility is considered to have an approved
operation plan or permit for purposes of Subsection (12)(a) if the nonhazardous solid waste class
VII landfill facility:
(i) on January 1, 2025, was permitted by the Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining; and
(ii) on or before May 7, 2025, obtains a temporary permit, as defined by rule made in
accordance with Title 63G, Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act, for the
nonhazardous solid waste class VII landfill facility. (Emphasis added.)
Under a plain reading of SB 159, Subsections 12(a) and (b) offer an applicant two different avenues for
obtaining a class VII operation plan or permit. To obtain approval under subsection (a), the applicant must
demonstrate “an impervious synthetic liner system that has hydraulic conductivity no greater than 1E-7
centimeters per second; or (ii) a clay liner system equivalent to a liner system described in Subsection
(12)(a)(i).” Conversely, under Subsection (b), which operates as a grandfathering clause, by law the
applicant already has an approved operation plan or permit if the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining
(“DOGM”) permitted the facility before January 1, 2025, and the applicant obtained a temporary permit
before May 7, 2025.
EEI satisfies Subsection 12(a). EEI’s civil engineer has determined that the natural clay liner beneath
EEI’s facility is equivalent to a synthetic liner described in Subsection (12)(a)(i):

(Letter, dated April 10, 2025, from CIVCO Engineering, Inc. to EEI attached as Exhibit 1 hereto (“CIVCO
April 2025 Letter”).)
And IWM presents no evidence to the contrary. Even though SB 159 is inapplicable to the Application (as
discussed above), the Director may approve the Application and the forthcoming class VII application
because the natural clay liner beneath EEI’s facility is equivalent to a synthetic liner described in
Subsection (12)(a)(i). Approving a temporary permit for EEI is protective of human health and the
environment.
In addition, SB 159 Subsection (b)(i) is written in error because DOGM does not permit and has never
permitted any class VII landfill, only the Director permits landfills. But this defect in SB 159 is immaterial
because EEI satisfies Subsection (a) as explained above.
Douglas J. Hansen, Director
April 17, 2025
Page 3

dentons.com

SL_7778878.2
IWM Comment No. 2: EEI’s Facility is Not and Will Not Be in Compliance with the Act, or the Terms
of the Temporary Permit.
EEI Response: Without offering any evidence, IWM asserts that a temporary permit cannot comply with
SB 159 because the facility has no synthetic liner or natural equivalent liner as required by Subsection
12(a). EEI incorporates its response to IWM Comment No. 1. To repeat, SB 159 does not apply to the
Application and the EEI’s pending class VII application satisfies Subsection 12(a) because its natural clay
liner is equivalent to the synthetic liner described in Subsection (12)(a)(i). Approving a temporary permit
for EEI is protective of human health and the environment.
IWM Comment No. 3: EEI’s Facility is Not and Will Not Be in Compliance with the Applicable Rules
(“Standards for Design”), or the Terms of the Temporary Permit.
EEI Response: IWM asserts that “[t]he owner or operator of a Class VII landfill shall comply with the
requirements relating to the management of high liquid wastes set forth in Subsection R315-303-3(2).”
R315-321-4(2)(c)…[t]he direct disposal of high liquid wastes in landfill cells is prohibited unless the owner
or operator implements appropriate measures described in a high liquid waste management plan
approved by the director and included in the plan of operation….”
The Director’s proposed temporary permit for EEI on page 15 incorporates EEI’s “South Myton Bench
Landfarm Plan of Operation.” EEI’s operations plan includes a detailed high liquid waste (“HLW”)
management plan and procedures. (See EEI Cell #7 Landfill Application, at 12-13, 78-80.) There is no
basis for the Director to reject EEI’s HLW management plan. IWM supplies no data or evidence that EEI
has mismanaged HLW because none exists. There is no basis for the Director to deny EEI’s Application
based on EEI’s HLW management plan or on grounds that EEI might commit a future violation. Approving
a temporary permit for EEI is protective of human health and the environment.
IWM Comment No. 4: EEI’s Operation is Not and Will Not Be in Compliance with the Applicable
Rules (“Groundwater Monitoring Requirements” & “General Facility Requirements”), or the Terms
of the Temporary Permit.
EEI Response: IWM claims that EEI would be subject to “R315-308, the “’Groundwater Monitoring
Requirements,’ and R315-302-2, the ‘General Facility Requirements’ for solid waste facilities. More
specifically, R315-308-1 and R315-321-4(3) require EEI’s facility to have a groundwater monitoring
system. In addition, R315-302-2(2), captioned ‘Plan of Operation,’ provides that each owner or operator
shall develop and abide by a plan of operation approved by the director, and that the plan of operation
include, among other things, ‘a description of maintenance of . . . groundwater monitoring systems.’
R315-302-2(2)(i).”
But the law is not as stark as IWM suggests. R315-302-1(b)(vi)(A) allows the Director to waive
groundwater monitoring “if a solid waste disposal facility is to be located over an area where the
groundwater has a TDS 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, an alternative groundwater monitoring
system at the facility or may wa[i]ve the groundwater monitoring requirement. If groundwater
monitoring is wa[i]ved the owner or operator shall make the demonstration stated in Subsection R315-
308-1(3).” (Emphasis added.)
R315-308-1(3) states:
Groundwater monitoring requirements may be waived by the director if the owner or operator of a
solid waste disposal facility can demonstrate that there is no potential for migration of hazardous
constituents from the facility to the groundwater during the active life of the facility and the post-
closure care period. This demonstration shall be certified by a qualified groundwater scientist and
approved by the director, and [shall] be based upon:
Douglas J. Hansen, Director
April 17, 2025
Page 4

dentons.com

SL_7778878.2
(a) site-specific field collected measurements, sampling, and analysis of physical, chemical, and
biological processes affecting contaminant fate and transport; and
(b) contaminant fate and transport predictions that maximize contaminant migration and consider
impacts on human health and the environment.
The Director may waive groundwater monitoring for EEI based on the data and analyses contained in
EEI’s Class VII Application, Tab 11, Ground Water Analysis, and Tab 13 Snowshoe Permeability Report
and the CIVCO April 2025 Letter. The data confirm that there is no groundwater, a natural impermeable
clay barrier, and no basis to require fate and transport analysis.
EEI has operated its landfarms with multiple approvals and renewals and oversight by the Utah Division
of Oil, Gas and Mining (“DOGM”) beginning in 2011. DOGM approved the closure of EEI’s landfarm cells
1-5 and 9-12 on January 9, 2025. DOGM has never required any groundwater monitoring or synthetic
liners because the EEI property has a natural clay barrier and no groundwater.
The Director first permitted EEI’s cell #6 in 2012 and in 2023 issued a waste pile permit for EEI’s cell #7
for which EEI is now seeking from the Director a temporary permit and a class VII landfill permit. Like
DOGM, the Director never required groundwater monitoring because there is a natural clay barrier and no
groundwater.
Based on the data, the Director should waive groundwater monitoring in approving EEI’s Application and
Class VII Application. Approving a temporary permit for EEI is protective of human health and the
environment.
IWM Comment No. 5: EEI’s Recordkeeping is Not in Compliance with the Applicable Rules
(“General Facility Requirements” & “Recordkeeping Requirements,”), or the Terms of the
Temporary Permit.
EEI Response: IWM again emphasizes, “[e]ach owner or operator shall maintain and keep, on-site or at
a location approved by the director, the following permanent records: (a) a daily operating record, to be
completed at the end of each day of operation, that shall contain: … (iv) results of groundwater and gas
monitoring .… R315-302-2(3)(a)(iv).”
EEI incorporates its response to IWM Comment No. 5. Because there is no basis to require groundwater
monitoring, there is no basis to require corresponding recordkeeping. The Director should waive
monitoring recordkeeping requirements in approving EEI’s Application and its Class VII Application.
Approving a temporary permit for EEI is protective of human health and the environment.
IWM Comment No. 6: The Cost to Close EEI’s Clay-lined Facility Will Exceed EEI’s Reclamation
Bond.
EEI Response: Without offering any evidence, IWM asserts that the costs to close EEI’s facility will
exceed its reclamation bond. This is not true.
UAC R315-321-4(8)(c) states that the “owner or operator of an existing exploration and production facility
applying for a temporary permit under Subsection R315-321-4(8) shall provide financial assurance in an
amount determined appropriate by the director. In calculating the appropriate financial assurance amount,
the director may, but is not required to, rely on bond calculations performed by the Division of Oil, Gas,
and Mining.”
DOGM approved a $25,000 letter of credit for EEI, but EEI has updated its financial assurance for its
cover and post-closure plan as part of the Application process. And importantly, the landfill material will
not need to be removed upon closure because of the natural clay liner beneath EEI’s facility is equivalent
Douglas J. Hansen, Director
April 17, 2025
Page 5

dentons.com

SL_7778878.2
to a synthetic liner described in Subsection (12)(a)(i). All that will be required to close the facility is a cover
over the material , and the estimated financial assurance amount is adequate to cover this work.
Approving a temporary permit for EEI is protective of human health and the environment.
IWM Comment No. 7: Because EEI Has Ignored and Continues to Ignore the Various Rules for
Handling High Liquid Waste, EEI’s Application for Temporary Permit Should be Denied..
EEI Response: Without any evidence, IWM claims that EEI ignores rules and permit requirements. EEI
incorporates its response to IWM Comment No. 3. EEI has and will continue to follow all applicable rules
and requirements. EEI has an excellent record of years of compliance. Approving a temporary permit for
EEI is protective of human health and the environment.
EEI respectfully requests that the Director issue the temporary permit.
Very truly yours,
Dentons

Bradley R. Cahoon
cc: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Douglas J. Hansen, Director
April 17, 2025
Page 6

dentons.com

SL_7778878.2
Exhibit 1

CIVCO April 2025 Letter

CIVCO Engineering, Inc.
Civil Engineering Consultants
PO Box 1758 * 1256 W 400 S, Suite 1
Vernal, Utah 84078
Phone [phone] * Fax [phone] Email: [e-mail]
April 10, 2025
ENVIRONMENT ENERGY INNOVATIONS
PLEASANT VALLEY, UTAH
Clay Liner Analysis
The recent requirements are that either a synthetic liner with a permeability of 1.0E-7 cm/ sec
is to be provided or an equivalent clay liner.
Based on test holes for the area there is 50 feet of clay underlaying the area. The Snowshoe
Report stated that the permeability of the underlaying clay layers equals 1.3E-6 cm/sec.
As shown in Table 1 the following calculations were done to determine the extent of the
thickness of clay needed to match the synthetic liner equivalence.
•The first row shows a synthetic liner of 1 inch thickness. The 1-inch thickness was assumed as
no mention to the thickness was noted in the new requirements. Typical pond liners are less
than 0.1 inches thick, therefore the 1 inch thickness is conservative by a factor of 10..
•The second row shows that a clay liner 13 inches thick with a permeability of 1.3E-06 would
provide equal protection as the 1-inch synthetic liner.
•The third row shows that a 50 ft layer of clay (600 inches) would only need to have a
permeability of 6.0E-6 to satisfy the requirements of the synthetic liner.
Table 1
Mathematical Model For Alternative Clay Liner
Synthetic Liner 1.00E-7 @ 1 inches 25,400,051 sec to permeate
Clay Liner 1.30E-6 @ 13 inches 25,400,051 sec to permeate
Clay Layers 6.00E-6 @ 600 inches 25,400,051 sec to permeate
Therefore, it is my professional opinion that, the existing
underlying clay satisfies the new requirements of providing
either a synthetic liner with a permeability of 1.0E-7 cm/
sec is to be provided or an equivalent clay liner.
Bret Reynolds, SE 4/10/2025