Laserfiche WebLink
<br />April 22, 1999), which were not confidential, were submitted to EPA on Apri127, 1999. These <br />documents have been available in EPA's offices since the time of their filing. <br />EPA does not consider the availability of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) <br />Commercial Mine Plan (Mine Plan) to be directly related to the UIC Permitting process. A copy <br />of the Commercial Mine Plan (absent confidential material) was available as part of EPA's <br />administrative record for public review in the Regional Office. A detailed description of the <br />Yankee Gulch proposal was also available in the BLM's Drag EIS (DEIS). Additionally, the <br />Mine Plan was also available for public review at Rio Blanco County and the CDMG offices <br />throughout the public review periods for their respective Permit applications (Special Use Permit <br />Application and 112 Reclamation Permit Application). These actions overlapped EPA's public <br />comment period. It is important to note, however, that the information in the UIC Permit <br />Application, the Draft Statement of Basis, and the Draft Class III UIC Area Permit does not rely <br />on the Mine Plan. The mine plan provides details regarding the project in a different format. <br />Other information including the subsidence modeling data and Experimental Test Mine <br />operations data, were not made available for public review because these data aze considered <br />confidential business information, as defined in 40 CFR Part 2. The BLM and CDMG treated this <br />same information as confidential in their respective Permitting activities. <br />As a result of the review of this comment and the associated information, EPA has <br />determined that no changes to the Permit are needed in response to this specific concern. <br />Comment 24: Commentors contend that it is not possible to evaluate potential impacts to <br />ground water without knowing the constituents in the minin¢ inject fluid. and consideration of this <br />information as confidential by the proponent is unacceptable. <br />Response: EPA reviewed data for the chemical composition of the injection fluid obtained <br />during the test mine phase and did not have reason to expect the presence of hazazdous <br />constituents. Test Mute operations data, were not made available for public review because these <br />data are considered confidential business information, as defined in 40 CFR Part 2. EPA believes <br />that the information available to the pubhc describing the fluid streams was adequate for <br />evaluating the potential impact of release to the environment. The request for inclusion of the <br />additional waste streams into the closed loop extraction system was also evaluated and EPA <br />believes that these streams do not represent a source of wastes that would be defined as <br />hazardous under 40 CFR 261.3. <br />The Permit has been modified, however, to require that the Perntittee supply their <br />determination that the operational waste stream is not hazardous to EPA. Additionally, <br />the determination must be maintained for inspection in the on-site files (see response to <br />Comment #10). As a result of the review of this comment and the associated information, <br />EPA has determined that no additional changes to the Permit are needed. <br />39 <br />