HYDRO22446 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

j '* .i. 1 MICHAEL C. ]RELAND, P.C. Atxomey at law the resulting long term reliability of the well for purpose of monitoring. ~~s a result, a new well shall be installed prior to commencement of this project." My Comments on the above: Upper Aquifer: the conclusion that USDWs are confined to the Uinta portion of the Upper Aquifer are not supported by any data other than the applicant's. During my conversation with Mr. Jackson in April, he acknowledged the defects in the applicant's data and DINS since it appeared then and now that anomalous data points with high values had been selected for publication in the DEIS. These data are inconsistent with other USGS data in tl.e area and with the bulk of the data points collected by the applicant. Even the DEIS concedes the Upper Aquifer has USDWs and no mention is made in the DEIS of USDWs being confined to one formation in the Upper Aquifer. Lower Aquifer: The analysis here appears even less thorough than for the Upper Aquifer. First, the statement that TDS concentrations range from 38,000 to 60,000 mg/1 is misleading at best. It is true that applicant obtained those data points but they do not represent a "range" as implied but rather are high points chosen from a sample that is problematic at beast (See eg., Glenn A. Miller's letter of March 8, 1999 describing problems with "hydraulically isolated nahcolite.") Even the BLM, a supporter of the project (aka "development partner") ,states the following in a letter to me dated April ]9, 1999: oData from four of White River Nahcolite's wells directly cross gradient showed average TDS values of 4477 mg/l, 19,134 mg/I, 39,324 mg/1 and 45,827 mg/1 respectively. o Why does the EPA insist on including only the highest data points availltble without reconciling them with other data that show lower readings? The Draft UIC Permit appears to embrace as a resolution for these problems the notion that baseline data and monitoring can and should be conducted after the permit is issued. This would appear to be in fundamental conflict with the intent of the EPA permitting process because it deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on data and conclusions prior to approval. The legal safeguards built into the NEPA process that make public challenge to the data are absent once the permit is issued. Are interested parties going to have to request monitoring data and a cessation of activity through court action once the permit issued? Or will the data be labeled proprietary as have previous Commercial Mining Plans? ] can't believe the EPA would allow, for example, highway construction to begin or a ROD to issue for a new highway before establishing baseline wildlife or air qu:dity conditions.