DWQ-2006-004002

GROUND WATER QUALITY PROTECTION

PERMITTING INFORMATION DOCUMENT

Typical Routes of Ground Water Contamination

Figure adapted from US EPA Office of Water Supply and Solid Waste Management Programs, Waste
Disposal Practices and Their Effects on Groundwater (Washington, D.C., 1977).

UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY

GROUND WATER PROTECTION SECTION

December 2006

UTAH GROUND WATER QUALITY PROTECTION

PERMITTING INFORMATION DOCUMENT

This information document is designed to give interested parties an overview of the Ground
Water Quality Protection Permitting Program in the Division of Water Quality (DWQ), Utah
Department of Environmental Quality. Potential applicants for a ground water discharge permit
will find assistance in understanding the permitting process as well as site-specific help for
formulating applications. Readers are encouraged to consult the Table of Contents to locate
areas of interest.

Part I of this document provides an overview of the primary elements of a ground water
discharge permit. Specific permit requirements will depend on the type of facility and its
location. Part II provides an overview of the permit application process, which should begin
with pre-design discussions. Part III provides an overview of the administrative procedures for
obtaining a permit including permit application review, draft permit preparation, public notice
and comment, and final permit issuance. Part IV describes common hydrogeologic settings in
Utah and how these may affect permit requirements. Part V lists possible designs for appropriate
containment control technology for various types of discharging facilities. The designs
described in this section will fulfill the requirements for use of best available technology for the
types of facilities and different settings, but permit applicants may propose alternative designs
which meet the requirements for ground water protection.

A permit application form is provided in Appendix A to assist applicants in submitting a Ground
Water Discharge Permit Application. This format is not mandatory and applicants are free to use
the format they deem appropriate as long as the requirements of R317-6-6.3 of the Ground Water
Quality Protection Rules are met.

The information in this document is only guidance to assist interested parties in understanding
the Ground Water Discharge Permit Program. This document should not be considered to have
any force of law or regulation. Please consult the Utah Administrative Rules for Ground Water
Quality Protection (UAC R317-6) for specific regulatory requirements. For a copy of the rule,
please go to the following internet address, visit the Ground Water website, or contact the
Division of Water Quality at the address below.

Link to Ground Water Quality Protection Rules:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r317/r317-006.htm

Link to Ground Water Protection Home Page:
http://www.deq.utah.gov/ProgramsServices/programs/water/groundwater/index.htm

Utah Division of Water Quality
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Phone: [phone]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Overview of Ground Water Permits ………………………………………………… 1
Who needs a permit ……………………………………………………………. 1
What are the Working Elements of a Ground Water Discharge Permit ……..… 1
Protection Levels ………………………………………………………. 1
Control Technology ...…………………………………………………. 2
Compliance Monitoring …...…………………………………………… 3
Permit Fees …………………………………………………………….. 3

II. Overview of Ground Water Permit Application Requirements .………………….. 4
Pre-Design Discussions ………………………………………………………... 4
Application Requirements ……………………………………………………... 4
Applicant and Site Location Information ……………………………… 4
Site Characterization and Description …………………………………. 4
Waste Stream Characterization ………………………………………… 4
Control Technology to be Utilized …………………………………….. 5
Compliance Monitoring ………………………………………………... 5
Inspection, Contingency, and Closure Plans …………………………… 5

III. Ground Water Permit Application Review Process ……………………………… 5
Review for Completeness and Technical Adequacy ………………………..… 5
Draft Permit …………………………………………………………………… 7
Public Notice and 30-day Comment Period …………………………………… 7
Final Permit Issuance …...….…………………………………………………… 7

IV. Common Hydrogeologic Settings in Utah …………………………………………... 8
Great Basin Alluvial Valleys …………………………………………………... 8
Mountains …………………………………………………………………… 12
Colorado Plateau ………………………………………………………………. 13
Alluvial Stream Valleys ……………………………………………………….. 15

V. Possible Control Technologies for Permitted Facilities ...…………………………. 16
Industrial Wastewater and Process Water Ponds ……………………………… 16
Sewage Lagoons ………………………………………………………………. 17
Animal Feeding Operations…….. …………………………………………….. 17
Leach Pads …………………………………………………………………….. 18
Tailings Impoundments ……………………………………………………….. 19
Land Application ………………………………………………………………. 20
Landfills ……………………………………………………………………….. 20
Waste Piles, Storage Piles and Mine Waste Rock …………………………….. 21

Appendix A Permit Application Form
- 1 -
I. Overview of Ground Water
Permits

The Utah Administrative Rules for Ground
Water Quality Protection (UAC R317-6)
were promulgated in August 1989 to protect
existing and probable future beneficial uses
of ground water quality in the State of Utah.
These regulations establish a framework for
requiring ground water quality discharge
permits for facilities that would potentially
discharge pollutants to ground water. The
ground water quality discharge permit is the
state’s mechanism to assure that ground
water quality is protected.

Who needs a permit?

Any facility or activity which causes or has
the potential to cause a discharge of
pollutants to ground water may be required
to obtain a ground water discharge permit.
This includes land application of wastes;
waste storage pits, piles, landfills, and
dumps; liquid waste storage facilities at
large animal feeding operations; mining,
milling, metallurgical and mineral extraction
operations including heap leach facilities;
wastewater pits, ponds, and lagoons; and
process water ponds and impoundments.
Some facilities and activities may qualify for
“permit by rule” status and would not have
to go through the formal individual
permitting process. Examples of “permit by
rule” sites include facilities or activities that
are regulated by other agencies (such as coal
mines regulated by the Division of Oil, Gas
& Mining) or where the activity has a de
minimis (negligible) impact on ground water
quality. A list of facilities that qualify for
permit by rule status is provided in UAC
R317-6-6.2. Permit by rule facilities are still
responsible for any ground water
contamination they cause. The Executive
Secretary of the Water Quality Board may
require a permit application for a “permit by
rule” facility after a review shows that any
discharge may be causing or is likely to
cause the ground water quality standards to
be exceeded.

Additionally, in instances where a waste
water treatment structure such as a pond or
lagoon is being considered, a construction
permit is required. A construction permit
addresses the engineering aspects of the
containment technology to control wastes
and wastewater, and ensures that the facility
is properly designed and constructed.

What are the Working Elements of a Ground
Water Discharge Permit?

Ground Water Protection Levels
Each permit establishes ground water
protection levels that are site-specific to that
facility. Protection levels are concentration
limits for chemical parameters that may be
associated with that particular facility.
Protection levels are based on background
ground water quality and ground water
quality standards. Utah Ground Water
Quality Standards are based on EPA
drinking water maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) and health advisories, or risk-based
contaminant levels or other standards
established by other regulatory agencies.

The UAC R317-6 rules recognize four
classes of ground water quality based on
total dissolved solids content and presence
of any contaminants which could impair
beneficial uses of ground water. Depending
on site-specific background ground water
quality and ground water class, protection
levels are set at a fraction of the ground
water quality standard or background
concentrations of constituents in the site’s
ground water. For example, in the case of
high quality Class IA Pristine or Class II
Drinking Water Quality ground water,
protection levels are set at the greater of
- 2 -
0.25 times the standard, or 1.25 times the
background concentration, or the
background plus two standard deviations.
The intent of the permit is to insure that
concentrations of constituents in the ground
water do not exceed the protection levels.
An exceedance of protection levels is an
early warning that the facility may cause
more serious problems unless actions are
taken to correct the source of the problem.

Containment Control Technology
To assure that the facility does not
contaminate the ground water, appropriate
control measures are required that will
reduce or eliminate any process water,
wastewater, or leachate from leaving the
facility and discharging to ground water.
The UAC R317-6 rules require that all
facilities use the best available technology
(BAT) to minimize any discharge of
pollutants. BAT is defined as “the
application of design, equipment, work
practice, operation standard or combination
thereof to effect the maximum reduction of a
pollutant achievable by available processes
and methods taking into account energy,
public health, environmental and economic
impacts and other costs”. Examples of such
control technology would include:

 Low permeability clay liners

 Geomembranes such as high density
and low density polyethylene (HDPE
and LDPE) liners, some with leak
detection and removal systems

 Capping solid waste to minimize
leachate formation

 Waste pre-treatment (e.g. tailings
neutralization)

 Best management practices to
prevent ground water contamination
The permit applicant must propose
appropriate control technology which will
prevent protection levels from being
exceeded. The control technology selected
for any given setting should be based on
several factors including:

 Hydrogeologic Setting – depth to
ground water, vadose zone lithology,
background ground water quality,
aquifer type (unconfined water table,
confined, bedrock fracture flow,
karstic limestone, volcanic lava
flows)

 Nature of Potential Discharge –
contaminant mobility and toxicity or
concentration of contaminants in the
discharge to ground water as
compared to protection levels that
will be contained in the ground water
discharge permit.

 Methods for monitoring performance
of the control technology.

More stringent control technology would be
required for a facility that handles highly
mobile contaminants or toxic wastes, or is
located at a hydrogeologically sensitive site,
or where complete containment is necessary
because ground water monitoring is not
feasible.

If a permit applicant proposes that dilution
and attenuation of contaminants in a
subsurface discharge will prevent protection
levels from being exceeded, the proposal
should be supported by a thorough study of
ground water conditions at the site.
Subsurface conditions must be well known
to allow meaningful contaminant fate and
transport modeling and prediction of
contaminant concentrations for a period at
least as long as the expected life of the
facility.
- 3 -
Compliance Monitoring
The performance of each control technology
must be evaluated with a compliance
monitoring system. This system must
demonstrate on a continuing basis that
protection levels are being met at the facility
and/or BAT is being maintained.

Two basic types of compliance monitoring
are used to satisfy permit requirements. A
permit applicant may directly monitor the
ground water quality under the site by
installing monitor wells and analyzing
ground water samples on a regular
frequency for compliance with ground water
protection levels. Alternatively, or in
addition to monitoring wells, a leak
detection system built into the facility’s
containment control technology may be used
to demonstrate that contaminants are not
being released, or are being released in small
quantities which would have de minimis
impact on ground water quality.

The type of compliance monitoring system
chosen for a facility depends on the site’s
hydrogeologic setting, the nature of the
discharge or potential discharge, and the
type of containment control technology
employed. For example, a facility that is
located in an area with very deep ground
water should probably not propose a well
monitoring system due to costs associated
with deep wells. Such a facility may find
that containment control technology which
incorporates an engineered compliance
monitoring system, such as a leak detection
system, is an economical alternative to
ground water monitoring. Careful thought
and planning should go into the type of
containment control technology and
monitoring mechanism that is chosen for a
facility that will need a ground water
discharge permit. In general, costs for
appropriate containment control technology
are significantly less than expenditures for
remediation of ground water contamination
resulting from inadequate containment.

Permit applicants who choose monitoring
wells will typically need data from at least
eight ground water monitoring events
spaced over a year to establish background
water quality and seasonal variability. In a
typical case this accelerated sampling
program is done on a monthly basis.
Consideration may be given to issue the
permit before all the background monitoring
data are collected. Depending on ground
water flow and travel time, compliance
monitoring frequency is usually reduced to
quarterly or semi-annually after one year of
accelerated monitoring.

Permit Fees

The Utah Legislature has required the
Division of Water Quality to collect a fee for
permits issued to offset the cost of review.
The schedule of fees is set annually and is
available from the Division of Water
Quality.

The remainder of this document will provide
more specific information and guidance to
help explain the ground water discharge
permit process including:

 An overview of the Ground Water
Permit Application Review Process.

 A synopsis of what information is
required for a ground water
discharge permit.

 An overview of the typical
hydrogeologic settings in Utah.

 An overview of the types of control
technologies that can be used for
various types of facilities and
hydrogeologic setting found in Utah.
- 4 -
Permit applicants should be familiar with the
hydrogeologic characteristics of their site
which may influence permit conditions such
as containment control technology and/or
ground water monitoring. Requirements for
appropriate containment control technology
may differ depending on the hydrogeologic
setting. Any costs that would be associated
with meeting permit requirements should be
considered at the earliest possible stage of
facility planning. A complete application
which fulfills the requirements of the
regulations will greatly expedite the permit
approval process.

II. Overview of Ground Water Permit
Application Requirements

Pre-Design Discussions

Because of the variety of types of facilities
which are permitted and their hydrogeologic
settings, the permit requirements and level
of detail needed for the permit application
are tailored to each individual case.
Potential permit applicants are strongly
urged to request a pre-design meeting with
the Ground Water Protection staff of the
Division of Water Quality at the earliest
possible stages of planning, to determine
permitting requirements and possible design
options. Questions are encouraged from
potential applicants prior to preparing a
ground water discharge permit application to
clarify and hopefully improve the design of
background ground water quality
characterization, containment control
technologies and compliance monitoring
systems.

Application Requirements

The attached application form (Appendix A)
for a ground water discharge permit is
provided to assist those who desire to use it.
This format is not mandatory but it is
provided for assistance only. Applications
will normally include written descriptions,
plans, drawings, maps and cross sections to
meet the requirements spelled out in the
ground water regulations.

Application requirements for a ground water
discharge permit are listed in 317-6-6.3 of
the Administrative Rules for Ground Water
Quality Protection (UAC R317-6). The
following discussion refers to requirements
listed in subsections A through O of the
regulations.

Applicant and Site Location Information
(R317-6-6.3 A, B, C)
This portion of the application provides
basic information about the permit applicant
and facility, including the facility type and
location.

Site Characterization and Description
(R317-6-6.3 D, E, H, K, M)
This section of the application includes a
characterization of the site geology,
hydrogeology, soils, surface hydrology
including flooding potential, background
ground water quality, agricultural
description, and a plat map showing wells,
water bodies, and water usage within a one
mile radius of the proposed site.

Waste Characterization (R317-6-6.3 F)
The chemical, physical, radiological, and
toxicological characteristics of any potential
effluent or leachate that has the potential to
discharge to ground water must be identified
for this portion of the application. This will
include the average and maximum expected
concentrations of any contaminants as well
as the volume of leachate or effluent
expected. If the waste stream will be from a
process which has not started yet, the permit
applicant should supply the best estimate of
the waste stream characteristics using
process knowledge and analog facilities.
- 5 -
Control Technology (R317-6-6.3 G, J)
The method that will be used to control
discharges to ground water to assure that
contaminants will not migrate into or
adversely affect ground water quality must
be described in this section. Typically this
will include engineering plans and
specifications of the liner or cover system
technology or appropriate best management
practices for the particular permit.

Compliance Monitoring (R317-6-6.3 I, L)
The application must include the
mechanisms that will be used to show that
the control technology used is functioning
properly to protect ground water quality.
This typically will include either a
compliance ground water monitoring well
network or a compliance monitoring system
built into the control technology, or
occasionally elements of both. The
characteristics of the facility waste stream
and site hydrogeology will dictate which
approach is most appropriate and
technologically feasible. A ground water
compliance monitoring program will include
specifics for well location, depth to ground
water, well construction specifications,
screen interval, compliance parameters to be
sampled, monitoring frequency (e.g.
monthly, quarterly, semi-annually), quality
assurance and quality control program, and
statistical methods to evaluate data for
compliance. For source containment control
monitoring, construction plans for the
monitoring technology must be included in
the application. The monitoring system
must enable an ongoing performance
evaluation of the control technology, such as
a regular monitoring and reporting schedule
for a leak detection system sump.

Inspection, Contingency, Corrective Action,
and Closure Plans (R317-6-6.3 N, O, P, S)
This section of the application describes
how the facility will be inspected to
determine that the control technology is not
damaged or malfunctioning. Should
problems arise, a contingency plan to correct
malfunctions (already compiled in the
application) can be implemented. A
corrective action plan may be necessary to
remedy problems that occurred at existing
facilities prior to permit issuance. Lastly,
the plans for final closure for the facility to
assure that any long term potential for
ground water contamination from the closed
facility must be included. Typically this
involves a decommissioning plan or a
permanent capping plan along with a post
closure monitoring commitment. Permit
applicants should consider ways of closing a
facility which will eliminate any possibility
of future ground water contamination and
thereby eliminate the need for long-term
monitoring.

III. Ground Water Permit Application
Review Process

Ground Water Discharge Permit
Applications are reviewed by the Division of
Water Quality staff to determine if the
application meets the requirements of the
Ground Water Quality Protection
Regulations (R317-6-6). The process is
summarized in flowchart form in Figure 1.

Review for Completeness and Technical
Adequacy

The application will be reviewed by the
ground water protection staff to determine if
all applicable application requirements of
R317-6-6.3 have been addressed (see the
overview of ground water permit application
requirements in this package). The
proposed containment technology and
compliance monitoring will be assessed to
determine if they are technically feasible
given the hydrogeologic setting and the
nature of the facility waste stream.
- 6 -
Figure 1. Ground Water Permitting Process.
Ground Water Permitting
Flowchart
Pre-Design Discussions with
Permit Applicant
Application Submitted to DWQ
Completeness Review and
Technical Assessment
Compile Draft Permit from
Negotiated Terms
Additional Information Request
Review and Evaluation of
Public Comment
Public Notice for 30 day comment period
Final Permit Issued
Modify Permit as Required
Application complete and
technically adequate?
Do substantive comments
require permit modification?
No
Yes
No
Yes
- 7 -
Draft Permit

Assuming there are no deficiencies
outstanding after the permit application
review, a draft permit will be prepared by
the ground water protection staff. The draft
permit will include the terms and conditions
under which the facility will be operated.
One of the most significant conditions is the
establishment of ground water protection
levels for the permit. The protection levels
are established based on the background
ground water quality in the vicinity of the
facility. This includes concentrations of
total dissolved solids and any chemical
parameters listed in Table 1 of R317-6-2.1
that are present in the waste stream,
especially mobile leakage indicators. Before
protection levels can be determined, the site-
specific ground water class must be defined
based on background ground water quality
data. Protection levels are then established
in accordance with the requirements of
R317-6-6.4 of the Ground Water Quality
Protection Rules. Although interim
protection levels can be allowed for permit
issuance based on a few samples, at least
eight samples collected over a one-year
period are required to obtain more
statistically valid protection levels. When
this accelerated water quality monitoring
program has been completed, the permit can
be re-opened to revise ground water
protection levels.

A Compliance Schedule can be included in
the permit for items that the applicant must
address within a certain time frame.
Examples of compliance schedule items
include the installation of additional
monitoring wells, the completion of an
accelerated monitoring program to establish
protection levels, or the preparation and
submission of a best available technology
(BAT) performance monitoring plan for
engineered containment controls.
This stage of the permit process will involve
communication between the assigned staff
permit manager and the applicant so that
both parties are amenable to the terms and
conditions of the draft permit. The applicant
is given opportunity to review the draft
permit and provide comment to express any
concerns prior to the draft permit being
public noticed.

Public Notice and 30-day Comment Period

The Ground Water Quality Protection Rules
specifically require that a notice of intent to
approve is published in a newspaper in the
affected area for every proposed permit.
This notice opens a 30-day public comment
period in which interested parties or
individuals are invited to provide comment
to the Executive Secretary of the Water
Quality Board. At the close of the 30-day
period, each comment received is evaluated
and considered. Using the regulations as a
guide, changes to the draft permit can be
made to address substantive comments. If
any substantial changes are made to the draft
permit in response to public comments, the
permit will be subjected to another 30-day
public comment period. If changes made
are not substantive, the permit can be issued
without additional public notice and
comment.

Final Permit Issuance

Following the public comment period, if all
requirements of the regulations have been
met, the permit is signed by the Executive
Secretary of the Utah Water Quality Board
and issued to the applicant. Permits are
generally issued for a five-year term with
the opportunity to renew assuming no
significant problems have arisen. Typically,
permits contain a “reopener” provision that
allows the permit to be modified if
necessary.
- 8 -
IV. Common Hydrogeologic Settings
in Utah

Ground Water Vulnerability

The following discussions rank the various
hydrogeologic settings for their vulnerability
to ground water contamination in relation to
appropriate best available containment
technology and monitoring. These rankings
are only intended to be a general guide for
applying appropriate control technology for
a particular region. Actual site conditions
may be more or less susceptible to ground
water pollution, and may allow for permit
conditions which are more or less stringent
than those listed for the site’s general
setting. Settings defined as “high”
vulnerability are areas where the geologic
conditions would allow pollutants to move
directly into usable ground water.
“Moderate” vulnerability denotes areas
where the geologic structure would probably
retain a release of contaminants long enough
to allow a cleanup before the contaminants
moved into usable ground water. “Low”
vulnerability applies to areas which
generally have poor quality ground water
and soils with low permeability or near-
surface aquitards which would tend to retain
contaminants, and there is little chance that
contaminants would move into usable
ground water. Figure 2 shows the
distribution of some of the more widespread
hydrogeologic environments.

Great Basin Alluvial Valleys

East-west extension of the earth’s crust
between central Utah and the Sierra Nevada
Mountains of California has formed a region
of alternating steep, narrow mountain ranges
and alluvial basins. The basins are typically
filled with many thousands of feet of
unconsolidated alluvial deposits which hold
the most productive and heavily used
aquifers in Utah. During the Pleistocene
“ice age” period when the climate was
cooler and wetter than the present, lower
areas of western Utah were covered by Lake
Bonneville. This ancient freshwater lake
reached its maximum elevation of about
5100 feet approximately 15,000 years ago.
In many of these valleys, clay and other
fine-grained materials were deposited in
deep lake waters in the lower valley areas,
while coarser sand and gravel were
deposited along the higher valley edges
where they were reworked by waves and
streams flowing into the lake. Pre-
Bonneville deposits now covered by the clay
were composed of coarse-grained sands and
gravels that now are artesian aquifers which
are confined by the clay. The presence of
the clay confining layers produces a distinct
hydrogeologic setting which is typical of the
most heavily populated and developed areas
of Utah. These aquifers are recharged by
precipitation and streamflow on the coarse
deposits along the high valley edges, and by
ground water flow from the surrounding
mountains. Because these recharge zones
consist of coarse deposits which are
continuous with and higher than the pre-
Bonneville sands and gravels, ground water
under the confining clay layers is under
artesian pressure. Figure 3 is a schematic
representation of this hydrogeologic system.

The upward hydraulic gradient of confined
aquifers protects them from contamination
sources located above the confining units,
even though the confining units are not
laterally continuous and have some leakage
through them. Confined aquifers are highly
vulnerable to contamination introduced into
their recharge zones with unconfined water
table conditions. Overproduction of water
from confined aquifers may cause a reversal
of the upward gradient and cause poor-
quality shallow ground water to infiltrate
downward into formerly confined aquifers.
- 9 -
Figure 2: Primary Utah aquifer systems.
- 10 -
Figure 3: Typical alluvial aquifer system.
- 11 -
In northwestern Utah, the aquifers discharge
in the salt flat areas surrounding the Great
Salt Lake, a regional discharge area.

Valleys which stood higher than the level of
Lake Bonneville may lack continuous
confining layers. In a general sense, these
valleys have coarser-grained deposits along
their margins and finer-grained sediments in
their central areas. Coarse deposits may
extend into the central areas along ancient
and modern stream channels. Ground water
in these valleys may be under unconfined
conditions.

Considerations for Ground Water Permitting

1. Recharge Zones (high vulnerability)
Recharge zones are highly vulnerable to
contamination and are generally areas of
deep ground water. Ground water
monitoring would be difficult and costly and
would not provide a warning of a release
until significant contamination had already
occurred. To avoid risks of ground water
contamination and high costs of monitoring,
permitted facilities in recharge zones may
wish to employ designs which prevent any
release of contaminants. An example of
such design would be two synthetic liners
separated by a geogrid, with the geogrid
space between the liners designed to drain to
a collection sump which can be monitored
for head, volume, and water quality analysis.
Vadose zone monitoring may be appropriate
in some cases. Less protective containment
technology may be allowed if water
discharged by a facility will not impact
ground water quality. Because they are
mostly coarse-grained, soils in these areas
have low capacity to retain contaminants
and impede infiltration to ground water.
Areas where streams flow out of the
mountains across coarse-grained alluvium
along the mountain front are major recharge
areas for the adjacent alluvial valley aquifer.
Therefore, land application or construction
of facilities that discharge contaminants to
the subsurface is not recommended.

2. Lower Areas in Valleys with Lake
Bonneville Confining Layers (moderate
vulnerability)
Shallow ground water in lower valley areas
is generally of poorer quality than deeper
ground water in pre-Bonneville deposits.
The shallow ground water will be protected
for its limited uses and to prevent
contamination of deeper aquifers. Facilities
should be designed in such a way that any
releases of contaminants do not cause an
exceedance of protection levels. Ground
water monitoring well networks can usually
be designed in these areas which will
provide timely notice of exceedance of
protection levels. A greater risk of
contamination may exist if the facility is in a
well-head protection zone, if potential
pathways exist which may introduce
contaminants into deep aquifers (such as
abandoned wells), if there is a possibility the
hydraulic gradient may be reversed, or if the
facility handles dense non-aqueous phase
liquids. In these cases the permittee may
wish to evaluate more stringent containment
technology.

3. Salt Flats (low vulnerability)
Salt flats are generally areas of fine-grained
soils and poor-quality ground water which is
moving upward from deeper aquifers.
Ground water in these areas will be
protected for beneficial uses such as salt
extraction. Discharge of contaminants
which are not naturally present in the ground
water, such as synthetic compounds or
radionuclides will require best available
technology to prevent their release. Design
of monitoring well networks should take any
upward hydraulic flow into consideration
and should sample ground water which will
be first affected by discharges from the
- 12 -
facility. Construction of impoundments
with flexible membrane liners may not be
feasible due to accumulation of rising
ground water under the liners and resulting
structural disturbance.

4. Valleys without Confining Layers
(moderate to high vulnerability)
In valleys lacking lake clay confining layers,
the entire valley may act as a recharge zone
for unconfined aquifers underlying the
valley surface. Design considerations would
be similar to those in recharge zones, unless
the sire has poor quality ground water,
continuous confining layers, or the ground
water is shallow and moving upward under
artesian pressure. A monitor well network
can be designed to provide timely warning
of any exceedance of protection levels. In
these latter cases, less stringent containment
technology may be employed if a
meaningful compliance monitoring plan can
be designed.

Mountains

Mountainous areas in Utah are sources of
surface water and a recharge zone for
aquifers which are in adjacent lowland
valleys. Ground water in mountains is
usually of very good quality and may be
closely connected with surface waters. For
these reasons, ground water in mountainous
areas is protected to the greatest extent
possible. Ground water flow systems in the
mountains follow the geologic structure and
are usually highly complex. The water table
in these areas can also be very deep. These
factors can make it very difficult and
expensive to design a satisfactory ground
water monitoring system. Permit applicants
in these areas are encouraged to use best
available containment technology to prevent
and discharge of pollutants. Some facilities
which discharge must be located in
mountainous areas, particularly those related
to mining operations. In these cases, a
major effort may be required to monitor
ground water and demonstrate compliance
with the regulations.

Most sedimentary, intrusive igneous and
metamorphic bedrock in Utah’s mountains
has relatively low primary porosity. Ground
water flow is primarily along fractures. A
satisfactory ground water monitoring plan
must monitor the potential pathways that
discharged fluids are likely to follow. These
may be very difficult to predict and model,
particularly where fracture orientation,
width and density are not known.

Extensive, thick limestone formations
comprise many mountain masses in Utah,
including the Bear River Range, the
southern Wasatch Mountains and many of
the Great Basin mountain ranges. Fracture
flow systems and deep ground water in these
areas are further complicated by the
presence of caves and other solution
openings in the rock. These may allow for
very rapid movement of contaminants to the
ground water, with little opportunity for
retention on soil or rock surfaces. Fractured
limestone areas along mountain front faults
are especially vulnerable for introducing
contaminants into adjacent alluvial aquifers
in the valleys.
Exposures of volcanic rocks are scattered
throughout the western half of Utah and are
particularly abundant in the south-central
and southwestern parts of the state.
Geologically young volcanic rocks typically
are highly permeable, with ground water
flow through fragmental deposits, gravel
beds between lava flows, lava tubes and
vesicles, and cooling fractures within lava
flows and welded tuff deposits.
Geologically older volcanic rocks may have
lower permeability than younger deposits.

- 13 -
Considerations for Ground Water Permitting

1. General (high vulnerability)
To avoid risks of ground water
contamination and minimize costs for
compliance monitoring, permit applicants
should consider designing their facilities to
prevent any discharge of contaminants to the
subsurface and to allow source monitoring.
In planning for construction in these areas,
permit applicants should consider the costs
of monitoring and potential liabilities
associated with discharging designs against
the costs for complete containment
technology. If ground water monitoring is
chosen, the monitoring well network must
provide timely warning of a release of
contaminants. Design of such a system will
probably require extensive knowledge of
geologic structure and ground water flow at
the sight.

2. Fractured Bedrock (high vulnerability)
If ground water monitoring is chosen,
knowledge of the fracture flow system must
be sufficient to determine the location of
ground water which would be first
influenced by discharges from the facility.
Multiple pathways are possible in fracture-
flow systems, particularly for facilities
covering a large area, and each may require
coverage from one or more wells. Lacking
detailed knowledge of geologic structure in
the subsurface, suitability of a particular
well location may not be known until after
the well is drilled. In areas with deep
ground water, drilling costs may become
very high.

3. Limestone Bedrock (high vulnerability)
Design of ground water monitoring systems
should evaluate the effects of solution
channels on ground water flow, and monitor
the first ground water to be affected by
discharges from the facility. Facilities
should not be located near obvious
sinkholes. Land application of wastes
should only be done if the permit applicant
can demonstrate that it will not degrade
ground water quality.

4. Volcanic Bedrock (high vulnerability)
Design of ground water monitoring systems
should take into account the distribution of
zones of greater and lesser permeability in
predicting the pathway of pollutants
discharged by the facility. Land application
of wastes should avoid areas of coarse and
highly permeable soils. Discharging designs
may not be permissible in areas which may
allow pollutants to affect water quality in
wells and springs.

Colorado Plateau

The Colorado Plateau is a region of southern
and eastern Utah which consists of flat-lying
to gently dipping sedimentary rocks which
are deeply eroded. A network of deep
canyons provides drainage to this region,
and alluvial deposits are mostly thin and
supply little water. Sedimentary rocks in
southeastern Utah are mostly of Mesozoic
and Paleozoic age; a bowl-shaped
depositional basin in northeastern Utah, the
Uinta Basin, has accumulated many
thousands of feet of Tertiary age
sedimentary rocks. Hydrogeologic
properties of sites in this region are greatly
affected by which sedimentary formation is
exposed on the surface. The most important
aquifers in this region are contained in
consolidated sedimentary rocks.

Among the Mesozoic sedimentary rocks of
the Plateau are several massive wind-
deposited sandstone units, the most
important of which is the Navajo Sandstone.
These units form productive aquifers where
the sandstone has fractures which enhance
the primary porosity. Because the Navajo
and other massive sandstone units are
- 14 -
usually overlain by shaly formations,
recharge to the aquifer is mainly from
precipitation on and streamflow over the
sandstone outcrop. Areas where windblown
sand or alluvial deposits lie on top of the
sandstones form particularly important
recharge zones because precipitation is held
in the deposits long enough to infiltrate into
the sandstone. Ground water quality in the
sandstone aquifers varies greatly.

Many other sedimentary rock formations of
the Plateau consist of interbedded sandstone
and shale, occasionally with other
lithologies such as limestone and gypsum.
Examples of this type of formation include
the Mesaverde Group and related rocks of
Cretaceous age and the Duchesne River and
Uinta Formations of Tertiary age.
Sandstone units within these formations may
locally contain aquifers where permeability
is enhanced by fracturing. Because of the
interbedded shales, perched aquifers are
common in these formations. Some
formation contain interbedded evaporate
minerals, which can leach into ground water
and affect water quality. In some instances
aquifers are contained in beds which have
been leached of evaporate minerals.

Several formations consist mostly of shale
and are thick enough to be significantly
isolated from usable aquifers. The most
important such formation is the Cretaceous
Mancos Shale, but several other shaly
formations have similar characteristics.
Ground water circulation in the shaly units
is sluggish and water quality is usually poor
because of dissolution of salts contained in
the rock. Because of these characteristics,
facilities built on shaly units may not require
designs as stringent as those needed in more
sensitive settings.

The La Sal, Henry, and Abajo Mountains
are comprised of shallow intrusive igneous
rocks which have domed the surrounding
sedimentary rocks. This structure is referred
to as a laccolith. Both the igneous rocks and
the surrounding sedimentary rocks are
highly fractured. These fractured areas may
form important recharge zones for aquifers
in the underlying sedimentary rocks. In
some cases these aquifers are of regional
extent and may discharge very far from the
recharge zones.

During the Pleistocene ice ages, glacial
meltwater from the Uinta Mountains
deposited a blanket of coarse-grained
“outwash” deposits in the northern Uinta
Basin. These deposits contain shallow,
productive unconfined aquifers. Hydraulic
conductivities and ground water velocities in
these coarse-grained deposits can be high,
and water quality is usually good. Because
of the coarse-grained texture, shallow depth
and lack of confining layers, these aquifers
can be highly vulnerable to contamination.

Considerations for Ground Water Permitting

1. General
Because of the drainage provided by the
deeply-incised canyons of the Colorado
Plateau, many sites in this region will have a
deep water table. Ground water monitoring
under these conditions may be very difficult
and expensive. Permit applicants at such
sites should consider other methods of
compliance monitoring, such as containment
technology or vadose zone monitoring.

2. Massive Sandstone Formations
(high vulnerability)
Permit applicants should design facilities in
recharge zones for sandstone aquifers to
prevent any release of contaminants
whenever possible. If ground water
monitoring is chosen, wells should be
located to monitor the first ground water
which would be affected by discharges from
- 15 -
the facility, taking into account the fracture-
flow system. In the most important recharge
zones, i.e. sand dunes overlying the
sandstone outcrop, the fracture pattern in the
underlying sandstone is not exposed at the
surface and it may be difficult if not
impossible to locate monitor wells correctly.

3. Interbedded Sandstone/Shale
Formations (moderate vulnerability)
Ground water monitoring should be done in
the same uppermost aquifer that underlies
the facility, even if it is perched. An
evaluation of fracturing may be necessary in
sandstone aquifers to insure correct
placement of monitor wells. Individual
sandstone beds may have unusual geometry
and may pinch out rapidly in any direction.
Prediction of flow paths and monitor well
placement may be difficult where several
sandstone and shale beds lie between the
point of discharge and the water table.

4. Thick Shale Formations
(low vulnerability)
Because of sluggish ground water flow,
monitor wells should be located as close as
practicable to the point of discharge as
possible. Consolidated shale formations
may have a fracture-flow system,
particularly in the subsurface. Facilities
should not introduce contaminants which are
not naturally present in the site’s ground
water. Facilities should not cause an
increased discharge of salts to surface water.

5. Laccolithic Mountains
(high vulnerability)
Design requirements would be similar to
aquifer recharge zones and mountainous
areas.

6. Uinta Basin Glacial Outwash
(high vulnerability)
Placement of monitor wells should take into
account the effects that coarse aquifer
materials and high ground water velocities
would have on dispersion of contaminants.
Monitor well installation may be difficult in
areas with boulders or cobbles in the
subsurface. Land application of wastes is
not recommended in these areas.

Alluvial Stream Valleys
Active streams in mountain and plateau
areas are often flanked by narrow belts of
alluvium which are significantly more
permeable than the surrounding bedrock.
Aquifers in these alluvial deposits are
hydrologically connected with the stream,
and contaminants released into the alluvium
may move rapidly into surface water.
Because the alluvium consists of channel
and flood plain deposits, hydraulic
conductivity may vary greatly over a short
distance. Ground water in the alluvium may
be recharged from both the stream and
ground water flow from the bedrock. These
sources may have differing water quality.

Considerations for Ground Water Permitting
(high vulnerability)

Ground water protection levels may be
affected by surface water quality in
standards for the stream. In particular,
parameters which are not usually a concern
for ground water, such as biochemical
oxygen demand or fecal coliforms, may
need to be addressed in the monitoring
program. Placement of ground water
monitoring wells should take into account
preferential flow paths which would result
from varying hydraulic conductivity in the
alluvial deposits, seasonal changes in ground
water flow, and inflow of ground water from
the bedrock.
- 16 -
V. Possible Containment Control
Technologies for Permitted Facilities

The following suggestions are based on
current experience. Different approaches
and innovative technology will be given full
consideration, provided they meet the goals
contained in the Ground Water Quality
Protection Rules.

Industrial Wastewater and Process Water
Ponds
Impoundments designed to hold process
water or dispose of wastewater by
evaporation are required to obtain both a
ground water discharge permit and a
construction permit from the Division of
Water Quality. Requirements for
containment control technology vary
depending on the nature of the fluids stored
in the ponds and the hydrogeologic setting.
A construction quality assurance/quality
control plan must be used to insure the
facilities are constructed to perform as
designed.

In situations where some release of the
fluids stored in the pond would not cause
ground water protection limits to be
exceeded, a clay liner with a permeability no
greater than 1 x 10-7 cm/sec or less which
allows a seepage rate of 1/8 inch per acre
per day may satisfy permit conditions. In
these cases the permit applicant must
demonstrate that wastewater seepage
through the clay liner will not cause an
exceedance of ground water protection
levels. Ground water monitoring is usually
needed under this option to demonstrate that
ground water degradation is not occurring.
Permit applications must have contingency
and closure plans which commit to
remediate ground water contamination
caused by the facility and prevent
contamination after closure.

In cases where the impounded water is not
compatible with the receiving ground water
(i.e. contains constituents which would
probably cause an exceedance of protection
levels if released in small quantities), a
composite liner consisting of a synthetic
flexible membrane liner (FML) in intimate
contact with a 12-inch clay liner is highly
recommended, in addition to ground water
monitoring. In order to insure intimate
contact between the clay and FML, and to
prevent flotation of the FML resulting from
pinhole leaks, a “head break” system is
usually needed. This may consist of two
FMLs separated by a geonet or other
permeable medium, with the lower liner in
contact with the clay layer. The space
between the two FMLs must drain to a sump
which can be monitored for leakage.
Compliance is demonstrated by monitoring
inflow into the sump to insure that a
maximum allowable leakage rate is not
exceeded. This configuration would usually
be appropriate only in conjunction with
ground water monitoring, in order to insure
that no fluids are released into the
environment.

In very sensitive hydrogeologic settings or
where the fluids stored in the pond are
highly toxic, and ground water monitoring is
not feasible, a leak detection system may be
needed in addition to the “head break”
described above, to provide appropriate
containment and a means for compliance
monitoring. This will usually require a third
FML separated from the head break liners
by a permeable medium and overlying a 12-
inch clay layer. The layer above the lowest
FML must drain to a sump which can be
monitored. Compliance will be
demonstrated by no presence of fluids in the
leak detection sump.

- 17 -
Sewage Lagoons
All sewage lagoons must obtain a
construction permit from DWQ. The
lagoons must be built according to the
standards in UAC R317-3-10.
Municipal sewage lagoons which receive
sewage from only domestic sources (i.e.
those with no “significant industrial
dischargers”, as defined in F317-8-8.2(12),
in their service districts) are permitted-by-
rule under the Ground Water Quality
Protection Rules, and a ground water
discharge permit is not normally required.
Lagoons which service significant industrial
dischargers must apply for both construction
and ground water discharge permits.

Sewage lagoons are typically constructed to
allow some seepage through their liners.
Lagoons should not be located in
hydrogeologically sensitive areas where this
small amount of seepage could cause an
exceedance of ground water protection
levels.

Sewage lagoons which are regulated under a
ground water discharge permit and which
have liners that allow a discharge should
only be constructed in areas where ground
water monitoring is feasible. At most sites,
one upgradient and two to three
downgradient monitor wells are usually
needed. At a minimum, ground water must
be monitored for nitrate, total dissolved
solids and pH, as well as any site-specific
parameters related to industrial discharges
which may be of concern.
Sewage systems designed with a flow rate of
less than 25,000 gallons per day are
encouraged to use disposal methods other
than lagoons. Proposals for smaller lagoons
must be reviewed by the Executive
Secretary if no other disposal method is
feasible.

Animal Feeding Operations
Concentrated animal feeding operations
(CAFOs) having over 1,500 animal units
and a liquid waste handling system must
obtain a construction permit and a ground
water discharge permit from DWQ. An
“animal unit” is a measurement based on the
average weight of a particular type of animal
and corresponds to one slaughter steer.
CAFO limits for various animals include
1,500 slaughter cattle, 3,750 swine (over 55
pounds each), 1,050 dairy cattle, 15,000
sheep, or 82,500 turkeys. Smaller
operations which do not meet these
conditions need either a design approval
from DWQ or a design certified by the
USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS).

The appropriate liner required for any
animal feeding operation, regardless of size,
shall be determined using liner criteria
Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c in NRCS Conservation
Practice Standard 313, Waste Storage
Facility (August 2006). These tables
determine the liner based on the risk and
vulnerability of contamination to waters of
the state, including ground water. For
example, in areas of low vulnerability and
moderate risk of ground water
contamination, a 12-inch clay liner with a
permeability no greater than 1 x 10-6 cm/sec
is appropriate. On the other hand, in areas
of high vulnerability and high risk of ground
water contamination, a synthetic flexible
membrane liner (FML) with a permeability
no greater than 1 x 10-12 cm/sec is required.
A construction permit must be approved and
issued before construction may begin.
Ground water quality should be monitored
for total dissolved solids, nitrate plus nitrite
as N, ammonia as N, chloride, pH and any
other parameters which may be of concern
at the site.

- 18 -
Most animal waste lagoons in Utah will
probably be located in alluvial valley areas
with relatively shallow ground water. In
these settings ground water monitoring is
required to demonstrate permit compliance
with ground water protection levels. In
other settings different requirements may
apply. In general, with ground water depths
around 100 feet or greater, uncertainty about
correct well placement coupled with high
drilling costs would tend to make monitor
wells infeasible.
In recharge zones of Great Basin alluvial
valleys, ground water may be too deep and
the geologic structure too complex to
develop a meaningful compliance ground
water monitoring plan at a reasonable cost.
If a lagoon must be built in such areas, a
design employing a leak detection system
may be more cost-effective than monitor
wells. An example of such design would be
two FMLs separated by a geogrid, with the
geogrid space between the liners designed to
drain to a sump which can be monitored for
head, volume, and water quality.

In certain other areas with low vulnerability
and slight risk of ground water degradation,
it could be reasonably expected that the
small amount of seepage from a properly-
constructed animal waste lagoon would not
harm beneficial uses of ground water. In
these cases ground water monitoring
requirements could be waived. Areas where
natural ground water quality is saline or
where low-permeability aquitard formations
are exposed at the surface could qualify for
this waiver. Examples of such settings in
Utah could be the Mancos Shale outcrop or
areas of fine-grained sediment and Class IV
saline ground water in alluvial valleys.

Leach Pads
Many mining operations rely on heap
leaching to extract precious metals from ore.
In this process granular ore materials are
stacked in a pile and sprinkled with a
solution which leaches metal ions from the
ore material. After the metals are extracted
from the solution, the solution is often re-
used. This process is often used for
extraction of gold from low-grade ore with
cyanide solution, but other metals may also
be recovered by heap leaching, such as
beryllium or copper.

Applicants for heap leach extraction
facilities should refer to the Design and
Construction Guidance Document for
Precious Metals Heap Leach Extraction
Facilities (June 1998), which is posted on
the DWQ Ground Water Home Page under
Publications and Rules.

Almost all ore deposits in Utah that heap
leach technology would be applicable are
located in recharge zones of mountainous
areas. The leach solutions are usually toxic,
particularly the cyanide solutions used for
gold extraction. Therefore, in most cases
leach pads should be designed to allow no
discharge of process fluids, and should
incorporate a leak detection system for
compliance monitoring. Most mine sites in
mountainous areas will have deep ground
water and complex geologic structure, which
could make ground water monitoring
difficult and expensive. In these cases, the
leak detection system for the leach pad
should be sealed from the underlying ground
in such a way as to assure that fluids will not
escape even if there is a leak in the primary
liner and fluids collect in the leak detection
system. Leach pad projects must obtain a
construction permit from DWQ before
construction may begin, in addition to a
ground water discharge permit.

An example of an acceptable liner approach
that could stand alone and not need ground
water monitoring would include the
following components, from top to bottom:
- 19 -
1. The stacked ore.
2. A granular cushion layer to protect
underlying liners.
3. The process fluid collection system.
4. The primary liner – an 80-mil thick
geomembrane (compatible with
leachate chemistry) in intimate
contact with a 12-inch clay layer of
hydraulic conductivity 1x10-7 cm/sec
or less.
5. A barrier geotextile to prevent
mixing of the clay with the
underlying leak detection medium.
6. A leak detection medium of
hydraulic conductivity of 1x10-2
cm/sec or greater, either granular
material (sand/gravel) or a synthetic
geonet.
7. Leakage collection and conveyance
piping.
8. A leak detection system seal. In
areas of high to moderate ground
water vulnerability with good quality
ground water, the seal should consist
of a 60-mil thick geomembrane
overlying 12 inches of clay with
hydraulic conductivity of 1x10-7
cm/sec or less. In areas with less
vulnerability or poorer quality
ground water, either the membrane
or clay layer may be used alone.

Hydraulic head on the primary liner should
be minimized to no more than one foot, so a
“head break” design is not needed as in
process water ponds. Valley fill or other
designs requiring construction on slopes of 7
percent or greater are discouraged because
of the low strength of liner materials.
Different design criteria will apply if
construction under these conditions is
necessary. Leach pads intended for repeated
uses will require additional structural
reinforcement to insure liner integrity.

Alternative designs that achieve the same or
better protection of ground water may be
utilized with Division approval.

Tailings Impoundments
Many ore processing operations generate
large volumes of tailings, often in slurry
form with solid to water ratio as high as
55/45. Water in the slurry often contains
many contaminants leached from the ore
materials and introduced during the
extraction process using chemical reagents.
The large volumes of tailings wastes require
a large area for their disposal. Often these
impoundments are located in highly
vulnerable mountain areas near the mine
site, whose hydrogeologic properties make
ground water monitoring difficult and
expensive. In these cases, an impoundment
design employing double FMLs with a leak
detection system may be more cost-effective
than monitor wells. An example of such
design would be two FMLs separated by a
geogrid, with the geogrid space between the
liners designed to drain to a collection sump
which can be monitored for head, volume,
and water quality analysis.

Permittees should use any feasible methods
to minimize impacts to ground water from
tailings impoundments. Among the options
that should be considered are detoxification
treatment for the tailings, best practical liner
design, and selection of the least vulnerable
site possible. Liners which allow a
monitoring plan that will detect ground
water contamination in the fastest time
feasible. In many cases, this may require
ground water monitoring, despite the
expenses and difficulties involved in
designing and installing a meaningful
monitor well network. Permit applications
must contain an acceptable contingency plan
to bring the facility into compliance if
ground water protection levels are exceeded.
The permit applicant must commit to an
- 20 -
acceptable closure plan which will prevent
ground water contamination after the end of
the facility’s use.

Land Application
Land application of materials such as
sewage sludge or agricultural manure should
be done in a manner which will not cause
contamination of ground water above the
appropriate protection levels. In many
instances this type of application may
qualify for permit by rule because of de
minimis (negligible) impact on ground water
quality. Allowable application rates have
been developed for some types of land
applied materials in hydrogeologic settings
with low to moderate ground water
vulnerability and many with high
vulnerability. Land application of sewage
sludge and animal manure which are used as
fertilizer are permitted by rule under the
Ground Water Quality Protection Rules
when applied at the “agronomic uptake
rate”, i.e. the rate at which all plant nutrients
are expected to be taken up by crops or other
vegetation and would not migrate below the
root zone. To qualify for permit by rule for
land application, the operation must have an
NRCS-approved Comprehensive Nutrient
Management Plan (CNMP) or a Plan of
Operation approved by the Division of Solid
and Hazardous Waste.

Some areas of high vulnerability, however,
may be impacted by land-applied materials,
allowing pollutants to move directly into
important aquifers. Examples of such
settings are areas of course-grained soils in
recharge zones and areas of karst
topography on limestone outcrops. The
applicant assumes the risk of causing ground
water pollution in these sites even if the
activity is permitted by rule.

All proposals for land applications of
materials which are not permitted by rule
should be reviewed by the Division of Water
Quality. The applicant should supply
information which would allow a
determination of the activity’s potential
impacts to ground water. This information
must include the location of the proposed
land application, characteristics of the waste,
and application rates. Information on soil
characteristics must be included if the
application is in an area of high ground
water vulnerability and the applicant is
proposing that pollutants will be bound to
soil particles and not enter ground water. In
some cases the land application would need
to be regulated under a ground water
discharge permit; some proposals may not
be permissible because of the characteristics
of the waste or the application site.
Repeated applications at the same site in
areas of high vulnerability require a ground
water discharge permit to demonstrate that
the disposal is not causing ground water
contamination. Land application of oil field
wastes is regulated by the Division of Oil,
Gas and Mining in the Department of
Natural Resources.

Landfills
Landfills which are not regulated by the
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste are
subject to Ground Water Quality Protection
Rules and may be required to obtain a
ground water discharge permit. In most
cases, wastes placed into landfills are in a
solid form, and the primary threat to ground
water is leachate generated by precipitation
infiltrating through the waste. The
constituents dissolved in this leachate, in
combination with the site characteristics,
determine the appropriate control
technology and regulatory requirements.
Slurries and wastes with high liquid content
that are placed in landfills must be properly
managed to prevent subsurface discharge of
contaminants and exceedences of ground
water protection levels.
- 21 -
Permit applicants should make an estimate
of the characteristics of leachate which
would be generated by the landfill. Some
types of waste may not require any special
treatment to control leachate, and the landfill
may qualify for permit-by-rule. If leachate
may cause an exceedance of ground water
protection levels, control technology
regulated under a ground water discharge
permit will be necessary. In cases where the
leachate quality and vulnerability of the site
present a low to moderate threat to ground
water, capping the landfill with low-
permeability earth layers or flexible
membrane liners to exclude precipitation
may be adequate containment technology.
Landfills which present a greater risk due to
toxic components in leachate or highly
vulnerable site characteristics may require
bottom liners in addition to capping. All
permitted landfills should have some means
of compliance monitoring. At many sites,
ground water monitoring wells may serve
this purpose. Where ground water
monitoring is not feasible, other means to
prevent leachate discharge or monitor
leachate quality may be necessary. Some
examples of alternate control and
monitoring technologies may be
impermeable lower liners with a leachate
collection and removal system, or collection
lysimeters to monitor leachate quality and its
movement into the vadose zone.

Waste Piles, Storage Piles and Mine Waste
Rock
Accumulations of solid materials which may
cause a discharge of contaminants to ground
water when exposed to precipitation will be
regulated in a manner similar to landfills.
Regulatory requirements will be determined
by the leachate characteristics and ground
water vulnerability at the site. If waste or
storage piles at a particular site are
determined to present a threat to ground
water, appropriate control technology and
compliance monitoring will be required
under the framework of a ground water
discharge permit. Control technology may
consist of impermeable bottom liners,
leachate collection systems, or temporary
covers. In some cases, rapid turnover of
waste or storage piles may be a reason for
less strict permit requirements, because
materials in the piles would be removed
before accumulating enough precipitation to
cause a discharge of leachate. Compliance
monitoring may involve ground water
monitoring, vadose zone monitoring, or
containment performance monitoring.

Mine waste rock must be managed in such a
way that it will not cause ground water
contamination. A ground water discharge
permit will be required for waste rock piles
unless the mine operator can demonstrate
that the waste rock will not produce leachate
which will affect ground water quality.
Evaluation of leachate producing potential
should take into account the effects of
weathering on the rock over time.
Laboratory testing methods such as toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP)
can estimate leachability for determining
appropriate waste rock management. Waste
rock testing should be used from the earliest
stages of mine development to guide
planning for future waste rock disposal
Waste rock management may be covered
under the same permit as other mine
facilities. Appropriate containment control
technology may involve constructing an
engineered cover system over the waste rock
piles to prevent infiltration of precipitation
through the wastes. Compliance monitoring
required by the permit may be accomplished
by ground water monitoring wells or a
vadose zone monitoring system such as
lysimeters.

Appendix A

PERMIT APPLICATION FORM

The following permit application form is designed to assist potential
applicants in submitting a Ground Water Discharge Permit Application.
This format is not mandatory but only guidance. Applicants are free to use
the format they deem appropriate as long as the requirements of R317-6-6.3
of the Ground Water Quality Protection Rules are met.
2
MAIL TO:
Utah Division of Water Quality Application No.:______________________
P.O Box 144870 Date Received:_______________________
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4870 (leave both lines blank)

UTAH GROUND WATER DISCHARGE PERMIT APPLICATION
Part A - General Facility Information
Please read and follow carefully the instructions on this application form. Please type or print, except for
signatures. This application is to be submitted by the owner or operator of a facility having one or more
discharges to groundwater. The application must be signed by an official facility representative who is: the owner,
sole proprietor for a sole proprietorship, a general partner, an executive officer of at least the level of vice
president for a corporation, or an authorized representative of such executive officer having overall responsibility
for the operation of the facility.

1. Administrative Information. Enter the information requested in the space provided below, including the name, title
and telephone number of an agent at the facility who can answer questions regarding this application.
Facility Name:__________________________________________________________________

Mail Address:__________________________________________________________________
(Number & Street, Box and/or Route, City, State, Zip Code)

Facility Legal Location* County:_____________________________
T.__________, R.___________, Sec._________, __________1/4 of_________1/4,
Lat.______________________’__________”N.Long.____________________’_________”W
*Note: A topographic map or detailed aerial photograph should be used in conjunction with a written description
to depict the location of the facility, points of ground water discharge, and other relevant features/objects.

Contact’s Name:________________________Phone No.:(____)__________________________
Title:_________________________________________________________________________

2. Owner/Operator Information. Enter the information requested below, including the name, title, and phone number
of the official representative signing the application.
Owner
Name:___________________________Phone No.:(____)_________________________

Mail Address:____________________________________________________________
(Number & Street, Box and/or Route, City, State, Zip Code)
Operator
Name:___________________________Phone No.:(____)_________________________
(If different than Owner’s above)

Mail Address:____________________________________________________________
(Number & Street, Box and/or Route, City, State, Zip Code)

Official Representative
Name:___________________________Phone No.:(____)_________________________

Title:___________________________________________________________________

3. Facility Classification (check one)

[ ] New Facility
[ ] Existing Facility
[ ] Modification of Existing Facility
3
4. Type of Facility (check one)

[ ] Industrial
[ ] Mining
[ ] Municipal
[ ] Agricultural Operation
[ ] Other, please describe:________________________________________________________

5. SIC/NAICS Codes:_________________________________________________________________________________
Enter Principal 3 Digit Code Numbers Used in Census & Other Government Reports

6. Projected Facility Life:__________________________years

7. Identify principal processes used, or services preformed by the facility. Include the principal
products produced, and raw materials used by the facility:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

8. List all existing or pending Federal, State, and Local government environmental permits:

Permit Number

[ ] NPDES or UPDES (discharges to surface water) ____________________
[ ] CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation) ____________________
[ ] UIC (underground injection of fluids) ____________________
[ ] RCRA (hazardous waste) ____________________
[ ] PDS (air emissions from proposed sources) ____________________
[ ] Construction Permit (wastewater treatment) ____________________
[ ] Solid Waste Permit (sanitary landfills, incinerators) ____________________
[ ] Septic Tank/Drainfield ____________________
[ ] Other, specify__________________ ____________________

9. Name, location (Lat.___________’______”N,Long.____________’______”W) and description of:
each well/spring (existing, abandoned, or proposed), water usage(past, present, or future); water bodies;
drainages; well-head protection areas; drinking water source protection zones according to UAC 309-
600; topography; and man-made structures within one mile radius of the point(s) of discharge site.
Provide existing well logs (include total depth and variations in water depths).

Name Location Description Status Usage

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

The above information must be included on a plat map and attached to the application.
4
Part B - General Discharge Information
Complete the following information for each point of discharge to ground water. If more than one discharge point
exists, photocopy and complete this Part B form for each discharge point.

1. Location (if different than Facility Location in Part A ):
County:______________________________________________
T.___________, R.___________, Sec.___________, ___________1/4 of ___________1/4,
Lat.______________________’__________”N.Long.______________________’___________”W

2. Type of fluid to be Discharged or Potentially Discharged
(check as applicable)

Discharges (fluids discharged to the ground)

[ ] Sanitary Wastewater: wastewater from restrooms, toilets, showers and the like
[ ] Cooling Water: non-contact cooling water, non contact of raw materials, intermediate,
final, or waste products
[ ] Process Wastewater: wastewater used in or generated by an industrial process
[ ] Mine Water: water from dewatering operations at mines [ ] Other, specify:____________________________________________________________

Potential Discharges (leachates or other fluids that may discharge to the ground)

[ ] Solid Waste Leachates: leachates from solid waste impoundments or landfills
[ ] Milling/Mining Leachates: tailings impoundments, mine leaching operations, etc.
[ ] Storage Pile Leachates: leachates from storage piles of raw materials, product, or wastes
[ ] Potential Underground Tank Leakage: tanks not regulated by UST or RCRA only
[ ] Other, specify:____________________________________________________________

3. Discharge Volumes
For each type of discharge checked in #2 above, list the volumes of wastewater discharged to the
ground or ground water. Volumes of wastewater should be measured or calculated from water
usage. If it is necessary to estimate volumes, enclose the number in parentheses. Average daily
volume means the average per operating day: ex. For a discharge of 1,000,000 gallons per year
from a facility operating 200 days, the average daily volume is 5,000 gallons.

Discharge Type: Daily Discharge Volume all in units of
(Average) (Maximum)
_______________ ___________ ___________ __________

_______________ ___________ ___________ __________

4. Potential Discharge Volumes
For each type of potential discharge checked in #2 above, list the maximum volume of fluid that
could be discharged to the ground considering such factors as: liner hydraulic conductivity and
operating head conditions, leak detection system sensitivity, leachate collection system
efficiency, etc. Attach calculation and raw data used to determine said potential discharge.

Discharge Type: Daily Discharge Volume all in units of
(Average) (Maximum)
_______________ ___________ ___________ __________

_______________ ___________ ___________ __________

5
5. Means of Discharge or Potential Discharge (check one or more as applicable)

[ ] lagoon, pit, or surface impoundment (fluids) [ ] industrial drainfield
[ ] land application or land treatment [ ] underground storage tank
[ ] discharge to an ephemeral drainage [ ] percolation/infiltration basin
(dry wash, etc.)
[ ] storage pile [ ] mine heap or dump leach
[ ] landfill (industrial or solid wastes) [ ] mine tailings pond
[ ] other, specify________________________

6. Flows, Sources of Pollution, and Treatment Technologies
Flows. Attach a line drawing showing: 1) water flow through the facility to the ground water discharge point, and 2) sources
of fluids, wastes, or solids which accumulate at the potential ground water discharge point. Indicate sources of intake
materials or water, operations contributing wastes or wastewater to the effluent, and wastewater treatment units. Construct a
water balance on the line drawing by showing average flows between intakes, operations, treatment units, and wastewater
outfalls. If a water balance cannot be determined, provide a pictorial description of the nature and amount of any sources of
water and any collection or treatment measures. See the following example.

BLUE RIVER MUNICIPAL BLUE RIVER 90,000GPD WATER SUPPLY 10,000 GPD
RAW COOLING
MATERIAL 45,000 GPD 45,000GPD 30,000GPD WATER

10,000 GPD 15,000 GPD 20,000 GPD 10,000 GPD 10,000 GPD
40,000 GPD 40,000GPD 40,000 GPD 5,000 GPD
TO
ATMOSPHERE

30,000 GPD 40,000 GPD 50,000 GPD
SOLID
WASTE
4,000 GPD

STORMWATER
MAX 20,000 GPD
STORM WATER 140,000 GPD TO PRODUCT

5,000 GPD

7. Discharge Effluent Characteristics
Established and Proposed Ground Water Quality Standards - Identify wastewater or leachate characteristics by providing the
type, source, chemical, physical, radiological, and toxic characteristics of wastewater or leachate to be discharged or
potentially discharged to ground water (with lab analytical data if possible). This should include the discharge rate or
combination of discharges, and the expected concentrations of any pollutant (mg/l). If more than one discharge point is used,
information for each point must be provided.

Hazardous Substances - Review the present hazardous substances found in the Clean Water Act, if applicable. List those
substances found or believed present in the discharge or potential discharge.

FIBER
PREPARATION

DYEING

WASHING

DRYING
GRIT
SEPARATOR
NEUTRALIZATION
TANK
WASTE
TREATMENT
PLANT
WASTE
IMPOUNDMENT
(DISCHARGE 2 GDP)
6

Part C - Accompanying Reports and Plans

The following reports and plans should be prepared by or under the direction of a professional engineer or
other ground water professional. Since ground water permits cover a large variety of discharge activities,
the appropriate details and requirements of the following reports and plans will be covered in the pre-design
meeting(s). For further instruction refer to the Ground Water Permit Application Guidance Document.

8. Hydrogeologic Report

Provide a Geologic Description, with references used, that includes as appropriate:

Structural Geology – regional and local, particularly faults, fractures, joints and bedding plane joints;
Stratigraphy – geologic formations and thickness, soil types and thickness, depth to bedrock;
Topography – provide a USGS MAP (7 ½ minute series) which clearly identifies legal site location
boundaries, indicated 100 year flood plain area and applicable flood control or drainage barriers and
surrounding land uses.

Provide a Hydrologic Description, with references used, that includes:
Ground water – depths, flow directions and gradients. Well logs should be included if available.
Include name of aquifer, saturated thickness, flow directions, porosity, hydraulic conductivity, and other
flow characteristics, hydraulic connection with other aquifers or surface sources, recharge information,
water in storage, usage, and the projected aerial extent of the aquifer. Should include projected ground
water area of influence affected by the discharge. Provide hydraulic gradient map indicating equal
potential head contours and ground water flow lines. Obtain water elevations of nearby wells at the time
of the hydrologic investigation. Collect and analyze ground water samples from the uppermost aquifer
which underlies the discharge point(s). Historic data can be used if the applicant can demonstrate it
meets the requirements contained within this section. Collection points should be hydraulically up and
downgradient and within a one-mile radius of the discharge point(s). Ground water analysis should
include each element listed in Ground Water Discharge Permit Application, Part B7.
NOTE Failure to analyze for background concentrations of any contaminant of concern in the discharge or potential
discharge may result in the Executive Secretary’s presumptive determination that zero concentration exist in the background
ground water quality.
Sample Collection and Analysis Quality assurance – sample collection and Preservation must meet the
requirements of the EPA RCRA Technical Enforcement Guidance Document, OSWER-9959.1, 1986
[UAC R317-6-6.3(I,6)]. Sample analysis must be performed by State of Utah certified laboratories and
be certified for each of the parameters of concern. Analytical methods should be selected from the
following sources [UAC R317-6-6.3L]: (Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 20th Ed.,1998; EPA, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, 1983;
Techniques of Water Resources Investigation of the U.S. Geological Survey, 1998, Book 9; EPA
Methods published pursuant to 40 CFR Parts 141, 142, 264 (including Appendix IX), and 270.
Analytical methods selected should also include minimum detection limits below both the Ground
Water Quality Standards and the anticipated ground water protection levels. Data shall be presented in
accordance of accepted hydrogeologic standards and practice.

Provide Agricultural Description, with references used, that includes:
If agricultural crops are grown within legal boundaries of the site the discussion must include: types of
crops produced; soil types present; irrigation system; location of livestock confinement areas (existing or
abandoned).

7

Note on Protection Levels:

After the applicant has defined the quality of the fluid to be discharged (Ground Water Discharge Permit
Application, Part B), characterized by the local hydrogeologic conditions and determined background ground
water quality (Hydrogeologic Report), the Executive Secretary will determine the applicable ground water
class, based on: 1) the location of the discharge point within an area of formally classified ground water, or the
background value of total dissolved solids. Accordingly, the Executive Secretary will determine applicable
protection levels for each pollutant of concern, based on background concentrations and in accordance with
UAC R317-6-4.

9. Ground Water Discharge Control Plan:
Select a compliance monitoring method and demonstrate an adequate discharge control system. Listed
are some of the Discharge Control Options available.

No Discharge – prevent any discharge of fluids to the ground water by lining the discharge point with
multiple synthetic and clay liners. Such a system would be designed, constructed, and operated to
prevent any release of fluids during both the active life and any post-closure period required.

Earthen Liner – control the volume and rate of effluent seepage by lining the discharge point with a
low permeability earthen liner (e.g. clay). Then demonstrate that the receiving ground water, at a point
as close as practical to the discharge point, does not or will not exceed the applicable class TDS limits
and protection levels* set by the Executive Secretary. This demonstration should also be based on
numerical or analytical saturated or unsaturated ground water flow and contaminant transport
simulations.

Effluent Pretreatment – demonstrate that the quality of the raw or treated effluent at the point of
discharge or potential discharge does not or will not exceed the applicable ground water class TDS
limits and protection levels* set by the Executive Secretary.

Contaminant Transport/Attenuation – demonstrate that due to subsurface contaminant transport
mechanisms at the site, raw or treated effluent does not or will not cause the receiving ground water, at a
point as close as possible to the discharge point, to exceed the applicable class TDS limits and protection
levels* set by the Executive Secretary.

Other Methods – demonstrate by some other method, acceptable to the Executive Secretary, that the
ground water class TDS limits and protection levels* will be met by the receiving ground water at a
point as close as practical to the discharge point.

*If the applicant has or will apply for an alternate concentration limit (ACL), the ACL may apply instead of the class TDS
limits and protection levels.

Submit a complete set of engineering plans and specifications relating to the construction, modification,
and operation of the discharge point or system. Construction Permits for the following types of facilities
will satisfy these requirements. They include: municipal waste lagoons; municipal sludge storage and
on-site sludge disposal; land application of wastewater effluent; heap leach facilities; other process
wastewater treatment equipment or systems.

Facilities such as storage piles, surface impoundments and landfills must submit engineering plans and
specifications for the initial construction or any modification of the facility. This will include the design
8
data and description of the leachate detection, collection and removal system design and construction.
Provide provisions for run on and run-off control.

10. Compliance Monitoring Plan:
The applicant should demonstrate that the method of compliance monitoring selected meets the
following requirements:

Ground Water Monitoring – that the monitoring wells, springs, drains, etc., meet all of the following
criteria: is completed exclusively in the same uppermost aquifer that underlies the discharge point(s)
and is intercepted by the upgradient background monitoring well; is located hydraulically downgradient
of the discharge point(s); designed, constructed, and operated for optimal detection (this will require a
hydrogeologic characterization of the area circumscribed by the background sampling point, discharge
point and compliance monitoring points); is not located within the radius of influence of any beneficial
use public or private water supply; sampling parameters, collection, preservation, and analysis should be
the same as background sampling point; ground water flow direction and gradient, background quality at
the site, and the quality of the ground water at the compliance monitoring point.

Source Monitoring – must provide early warning of a potential violation of ground water protection
levels, and/or class TDS limits and be as or more reliable, effective, and determinate than a viable
ground water monitoring network.

Vadose Zone Monitoring Requirements – Should be: used in conjunction with source monitoring;
include sampling for all the parameters required for background ground water quality monitoring; the
application, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the monitoring system should conform
with the guidelines found in: Vadose Zone Monitoring for Hazardous Waste Sites; June 1983, KT-82-
018(R).

Leak Detection Monitoring Requirements – Should not allow any leakage to escape undetected that
may cause the receiving ground water the exceed applicable ground water protection levels during the
active life and any required post-closure care period of the discharge point. This demonstration may be
accomplished through the use of numeric or analytic, saturated or unsaturated, ground water flow or
contaminant transport simulations, using actual filed data or conservative assumptions. Provide plans
for daily observation or continuous monitoring of the observation sump or other monitoring point and
for the reporting of any fluid detected and chemical analysis thereof.

Specific Requirements for Other Methods – Demonstrate that: the method is as or more reliable,
effective, and determinate than a viable ground water monitoring well network at detecting any violation
of ground water protection levels or class TDS limits, that may be caused by the discharge or potential
discharge; the method will provide early warning of a potential violation of ground water protection
levels or class TDS limits and meets or exceeds the requirements for vadose zone or leak detection
monitoring.

Monitoring well construction and ground water sampling should conform to A Guide to the Selection of
Materials for Monitoring Well Construction. Sample collection and preservation, should conform to the
EPA RCRA Technical Enforcement Guidance Document, OSWER-9950.1, September, 1986. Sample
analysis must be performed by State-certified laboratories by methods outlined in UAC R317-6-6.3L.
Analytical methods used should have minimum detection levels which meet or are less than both the
ground water quality standards and the anticipated protection levels.

11. Closure and Post Closure Plan: The purpose of this plan is to prevent ground water contamination
after cessation of the discharge or potential discharge and to monitor the discharge or potential discharge
9
point after closure, as necessary. This plan has to include discussion on: liquids or products, soils and
sludges; remediation process; the monitoring of the discharge or potential discharge point(s) after
closure of the activity.

12. Contingency and Corrective Action Plans: The purpose of this Contingency plan is to outline
definitive actions to bring a discharge or potential discharge facility into compliance with the regulations
or the permit, should a violation occur. This applies to both new and existing facilities. For existing
facilities that may have caused any violations of the Ground Water Quality Standards or class TDS
limits as a result of discharges prior to the issuance of the permit, a plan to correct or remedy any
contaminated ground water must be included.

Contingency Plan – This plan should address: cessation of discharge until the cause of the violation can
be repaired or corrected; facility remediation to correct the discharge or violation.

Corrective Action Plan – for existing facilities that have already violated Ground Water Quality
Standards, this plan should include: a characterization of contaminated ground water; facility
remediation proposed or ongoing including timetable for work completion; ground water remediation.

Certification

I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and
evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or
those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for
submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.

___________________________________ ___________________________________
NAME & OFFICIAL TITLE (type or print) PHONE NO. (area code & no.)

__________________________________________ __________________________________________
SIGNATURE DATE SIGNED