Laserfiche WebLink
CNAPTERFOUR Responses to Public and I~gencY Comments <br />Letter and <br />Comment No. Response <br />inspections to be not more than 2.5 weeks. Two manual gate valves would <br />be installed in each pipeline, creating three segments in each pipeline. The <br />valves would be located in azeas allowing for relatively easy access, one <br />neaz the road in Stewart Gulch (Section 9 R96W TSS) and another at the <br />upper end of the Pazachute Creek Valley (Section 30 R95W TSS). <br />Precipitation in the pipeline is not considered to be a probable event. The <br />pipeline was designed based on a conservative average ambient ground <br />temperatwe of 10 degrees F. If the pipeline were shut in for whatever <br />reason, including a pipeline break, there would be over 4 days (101 hows) <br />of residence time before plugging problems would occw. This would <br />allow adequate time for corrective actions to be taken. <br />F-2.28 Refer to the Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Plan (Appendix <br />G) for details. <br />F-2.29 Approximately 296,000 tons per yeaz (tpy) of cazbon dioxide would be <br />released during processing. The majority (232,490 tons) would be released <br />as a result of the cazbon dioxide stripping at the Piceance Site. The <br />remainder would be released from the Parachute Site. Cazbon dioxide is <br />released from conversion of sodium bicazbonate to sodium cazbonate. An <br />additional 106,000 tons per yeaz cazbon dioxide would be collected at the <br />Piceance Site and trucked to the Parachute Site for use in processing of the <br />products. Additional amounts of COZ would result from the combustion of <br />natural gas at the site and associated with producing electricity used by the <br />facility. <br />F-2.30 Since American Soda had already prepazed a Prevention of Significant <br />Deterioration (PSD) Increment Consumption Analysis as part of their New <br />Sowce Review permit application to the CDPHE-Air Pollution Control <br />Division (APCD), those results were included in the Draft EIS as additional <br />information for the benefit of the decision maker and the public. However, <br />all NEPA analysis comparisons to the PSD Class I and II increments aze <br />intended to evaluate a "threshold of concern" and do not represent a <br />regulatory "PSD Increment Consumption Analysis." The determination of <br />PSD increment consumption is a regulatory agency responsibility <br />conducted as part of the New Source Review process, which also includes a <br />Federal Land Management Agency evaluation of potential impacts to Air <br />Quality Related Values (AQRV s) such as visibility, aquatic ecosystems, <br />flora, fauna, etc. <br />• <br />4-11 <br />