PERMFILE43283 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

•., JUN-19-1999 1209 F.OTHOEF.BER JOHNSON~LYONB 397 638 6252 P.22 reliance on other agencies to apply eonvtraints which will forestall any potential problems. This is not an analysis, but rather a refusal to analyze. The practical effect of American Soda's response may be to shuffle agency relationships in a way that hinders the oversight required by law. Perhaps this reflects operational habits which American Soda has acquired under its prospecting permie. For example, as we have already noted above, the only statutory reference to a pilot plan[ places such a plant squazely in the context of the development phase of a mining operation. Solution mining is at most marginally addressed by [he defitririon of prospecting which appeazs in the Colorado Mined Reclamation Aet: °Prospecting" mearu the act of searching for or investing a mineral deposit. "Prospecting" includes, but is not liatited [o. sinking shafu, tunneling,. drilling core and bore holes and digging pits ar cuts and other works for the purpose of exttactiag samples prior to the commencement of development or extraction operations, and the building of roads, access ways, and other facilities relayed to such work... C.R.S. § 34-32-103(12). A prospector has the advantage of being able to maintain the confidentiality of certain limited kinds of information, under Rule 5.2. Out review of the permit application, together with documents submitted to other agencies, leads us to question whether the protection afforded by Rule 5.2 has been exceeded. This is nosy clear in the context of information about the precise chemical aspects of its solution mining technique. Such process information is necessary for an independent observer to provide a thorough analysis of tonicity. The broad reading of prospecting is inconsistent with a narrow reading of the DMO/EPP requirements. On the one hand, the DMG is asked to stretch the boundaries of 'prospecting," brat oa the other, it is asked to evaluate the Environmental Protection Plan hazed on a training paradign many deudcs old. In fact, one does not have to go far to find general evidence of taxiciry. Tables 2-a and 2-5 of the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Yankee Gulch Soditun Minerals Project represent admissions on this point. For example, in Table 2-4, an evaporation pond pH of 10 and an inlet percentage of total dissolved solids of 20.5 qualify as toxic for mast purposes. Similarly, Table 2-5 eleazly lists "Hazardous Materials°. If one compares these tables with the injection fluids which will be authorized by the FAA pursuant to its Sutemeat of Basis (at pp. 17-18) for the draft American Soda UIC permit, it seetas clear that (i) many of the materials identified is Table 2-4 will be available for reinjection, and (2) fluids from sources which employ hazardous materials will also be reinjected, despite the EPA's general admonition that injection of hazardous waste (as opposed to hazardous materials) is prohrlrited. Put in the simplest tents, it is quite clear that American Soda proposes to reinjeu toxic materials into the ground, and seeks as much operational latitude to do so as the regulatory authorities will allow.