My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL48883
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL48883
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:26:22 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 4:38:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1983194
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
1/29/1987
Doc Name
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL UIS 2ND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON APPENDIX F OF NAHCOLITE DRAFT ENVIRO
From
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
To
DAUB & ASSOCIATES
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
(VII) "Daub & Ass~ates feel that the annular ceme~ requi rements as <br />well as the cement inside the 8 5/8" casing are not necessary." <br />(VIII) "The drill hole abandonment plugging gel located bet•,veen the top <br />of the cement plug at approximately 1775' and the base of the <br />cement surface plug at 65' (Figure 2) will effectively stabilize <br />the hole. In addition, the plugging gel will prevent ve rtical <br />movement of groundwater as well as seal the drill hole." <br />RESPQNSE #2 <br />These continents and their supporting reasons were discussed extensively <br />during the negotiations to grant an additional 1-year extension of rule <br />authorization for the Pilot Phase of the nahcolite mine project. This <br />extension was granted witFi the stipulation that Wolf Ridge Corporation (!d RC) <br />submit detailed monito ring plans for assessing the allegations concerning <br />mud-gel performance and plugging & abandonment proposal adequacy. <br />Further reiteration of these assertions, without supporting field data <br />from Pilot Project operations, is pointless. Decisions regarding the <br />Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class III permit requirements will take <br />these assertions into account. However, if additional data are needed, draft <br />permit conditions will be written so as to incorporate these needs. Please <br />refer to the EPA letter ckited July 22, 1986, for an indepth discussion of <br />current expectations concerning results obtained from the Pilot Project. <br />COMMENT #3 <br />This comment made it very clear that WRC believes that the available <br />evidence indicates the hydraulic gradient to be downward. <br />RESPONSE #3 <br />We feel that this cormnent was adequately addressed under RESPONSE #1 of <br />the EPA letter dated December 17, 1986. <br />CQht4ENT #4 <br />The commenter requested that any reports, which demonstrate the hydraulic <br />gradient to be upward, be presented as evidence. Also, the potential for <br />casing failures was discussed. <br />RESPa~SE #4 <br />The Water-Resources Investigation.Open-File Report 82-637, by O.J. Taylor <br />(1982), entitled "Three-Dimensional Mathematical Model For Simulating the <br />Hydrologic System in the Piceance Basin, Colorado ,provides conceptual <br />hydrogeologic information that suggests that the gradient could be upward. <br />However, we recognize that specific data is much more reliable than general <br />concepts. <br />As far as the commenter's discussion of well failure, our position was <br />made clear under RESPONSE #4 of the EPA letter dated December 17, 1986. <br />-3- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.