Laserfiche WebLink
CNAPTERFIVE Dt~ft EIS Recisions <br />Pipeline operations offer little potential to adversely impact groundwater quality, except in the <br />case of a rupture. If this were to occur, only local impacts would be expected since spill <br />contingency plans required of the operator should prevent lazge-scale impacts. <br />Potential impacts to groundwater quality from WRN operations would be expected to be similaz <br />to those from the Yankee Gulch Project. However, WRN has a groundwater :monitoring program <br />in place that should provide eazly detection of problems and help minimize large-scale impacts. <br />Page 5-4; Meteorology and Air Quality <br />Table 4.5-5 presents the results from the Class I increment analysis. The combined impacts from <br />both the Piceance and Parachute facilities aze less than the proposed New Source Review Class I <br />significant impact levels. Impacts predicted below the significant and impact level aze by <br />definition determined to not significantly °'''°^• •~•° ^~- ^^°'~~• °* •'•° r•i°°° r °rear-Alat+ve <br />~aeirsut~il~ie <br />si~cantLy, consume PSD increment. Since American Soda had already prepazed a PSD <br />Increment Consumption Analysis as part of their New Source Review permit application to the <br />CDPHE-APCD, those results aze included in the EIS as additional information for the benefit of <br />the decision maker and the public. However, all NEPA analysis comparison:; to the PSD <br />increments aze intended to evaluate a "threshold of concern" and do not represent a <br />"PSD Increment Consumption Analysis." <br />A cumulative analysis was performed using all the increment consuming sources identified by <br />the CDPHE. Tables 4.5-6 and 4.5-7, present summaries of the Proposed Action cumulative <br />Class II increment analyses for the Piceance and Parachute Sites. Impacts from both the <br />Piceance and Parachute Sites are less than the Class II significant levels. The: Proposed Action <br />cumulative AORV analvsis did not predict significant imnact to visibiliri or lakes sensitive to <br />atmospheric deposition in any distant Class I azea <br />A separate cumulative analysis was performed for the Accelerated Development Altemative. <br />Based on the predicted exceedances of the PSD Class II PMio and NO, increments, the <br />Accelerated Development Altemative could not receive the required PSD air pollutant emissions <br />permit and would not be allowed to proceed as described. In addition, it is reasonable to assume <br />a sepazate Accelerated Development Alternative cumulative regional haze impact analysis would <br />exceed 1.0 deciview at the Flat Tops and other wilderness azeas. <br />CHAPTER 7.0 LITERATURE CITED <br />The following citations are specifically for literature cited in revisions to the Draft EIS text. <br />Literature cited in Chapters I.0 through 4.0 of this Final E/S are located in ~~hopter 6.0. <br />Agapito Associates, Inc. 1997. Water Well #20-8W Report. April. <br />Dale, R.H. and J.B. Weeks. 1978. Hydrologic Analysis of the U.S. Bureau of Mines <br />Underground Oil Shale Research Facility Site, Piceance Creek Basin, Rio Blanco County, <br />Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations 78-28. In: Steigers 1998. <br /> <br />5-32 <br />