Laserfiche WebLink
SUMMARY <br />The pilot-scale project is an experimental demonstration <br />project to define and prove the technical and economic <br />feasibility of nahcolite solution mining. Techniques and <br />methodologies, such as their proposed well completion <br />and abandonment procedures, need to be allowed by <br />BLM so that the best, most cost effective operational <br />procedures can be proven. <br />2. The upper and lower aquifers are hydraulically <br />connected in the central Piceance Basin and are, in <br />reality, one aquifer, therefore, there is no reason to <br />isolate them. <br />3. Their proposed well completion and abandonment <br />procedures are technically proven and will provide <br />adequate protection to resoures of concern (i.e., <br />groundwater and oil shale). BL1vt's well completion <br />stipulation is too costly. <br />BLM has never disagreed with or' misunderstood the <br />experimental intent and demonstrative purpose of WRC's <br />pilot-scale project. However, the terms of the sodium leases <br />held by WRC are very explicit in regard to protection of <br />groundwater and oil shale resources, n:gardless of the type <br />or purpose of development. The environmental impact <br />analysis on the pilot-scale project, just/ az our analysis on <br />the commercial-scale nahcolite project, waz structured and <br />constrained by these leaze requirements (See drak E[S, <br />Appendix E, Sections 2(I), (q); 5(a), (b), (c); and Stipulation <br />No. 12). <br />In regard to the "one versus two" aquifers issue, BLM <br />acknowledges that site-specific evidence seems to indicate <br />that the upper and lower aquifers are hydraulically <br />connected; however, we are not ready to accept matter- <br />of-factly that they are in communication to the extent that <br />they can be considered az a single aquifer. The extent and <br />degree of communication has not yet been qualified or <br />quantified. Therefore, in the absence of more definitive data, <br />prudent management by BLM must be exercised in light <br />of the explicit lease requvements addressing protection of <br />the groundwater resources. <br />BLM had, and continues to have several technical and <br />environmental concerns related to WRC's proposed well <br />completion and abandonment methods. These concems have <br />focused upon the specific intent of the explicit lease terms <br />requiring protection of groundwater and oil shale resources. <br />These concerns are detailed in the Water Resources rewrite <br />(Section 3, TEXT CHANGES) and in BLM's technical <br />evaluation (Appendix B). <br />Pursuant to federal regulations 40 CFR Parts 144 to 147 <br />(az promulgated from the Safe Drinking Water Act), the <br />United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has <br />authority and responsibility to ensure protection of <br />underground sources of drinking water for activities <br />involving the injection of Buids into the ground. EPA is <br />currently analyzing an application for a Class 111 - <br />Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit on WRC's <br />commercial nahcolite project (the Proposed Action). EPA <br />has many of the same technical and environmental concerns <br />expressed by BLM in this document. !t's expected EPA <br />will have a draft UIC permit completed by August 1987. <br />1.4 Summary of Impacts <br />The following table (Table 2-2) summarizes the potential <br />impacts, by resource, for each of the alternatives as described <br />in the Environmental Consequences section of the drak E1S <br />and the Text Changes section of this document. Impacts <br />which are considered significant are duly noted. <br />1-3 <br />