PERMFILE110865 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

As we have already observed, it is impossible for an independent evaluator to presently prepare a more thorough critique. For example, while the EPA is prepared to allow the reinjection of "boiler blow down," the hazardous materials to be used in the boiler (as described on DEIS Table 2-5) are identified merely as "corrosion inhibitor," scale inhibitor," and "oxygen scavenger." One would have to guess not only at what the substances are, but also how they would interact with the other substances that may be employed in the injection fluid under various temperatures. Similarly, the water quality information which appears on Table 2-4 of the DEIS lists only four select sodium compounds, without disclosing measurements of the specific components of the compounds, or any other elements or substances that are mobilised by American Soda's solution mining process. (The utility of Table 2-4 is further limited by the fact that the information is presented in an aggregated summary.) American Soda is employing a process designed to leach sodium compounds out of rock, and such a process will unavoidably mobilize other substances along with the sodium compounds. Further, there is no dispute that changing temperature and pressure pazameters will affect both the effectiveness of sodium recovery, and the range of substances that are mobilized. Table 2-4 of the DEIS discloses neither the details of substances mobilised by current pilot project operations, nor the range of substances that may be mobilized by the full scale facility if it is operated at different temperatures and pressures. However, under the draft UIC permit, almost any solution which comes out of the ground or is used in processing may be reinjected. This is a subject which deserves more thoughtful treatment than the dismissal offered to the DMG by American Soda. Nor is it persuasive to claim that some other agency will take Gaze of the problem. Consider the EPA. The central premise of the Statement of Basis for the draft UIC permit is that the American Soda injection wells will be drilled through the Lower and Upper Aquifers into a stratum which is not itself an aquifer, so that if the integrity of the injection wells can be assured, there can be no risk of harm to the aquifers. The DMG's Second Adequacy Letter gives General Chemical considerable comfort that the DMG already appreciates some of the ways in which this approach may be catastrophically flawed. The key point here is that if the EPA is wrong, the proposed performance bond is a mere $68,400, i.e., EPA's estimate of the cost to plug and abandon each solution mining well. Drawing the larger picture together, then, American Soda would have DMG ignore the risks to aquifers for which there is admittedly inadequate baseline data, on the theory that a bond of $68,400 is a sufficient fallback in the event that the EPA's regulatory approach fails. Note that actual failure may be for reasons such as subsidence or fracturing which may be unrelated to the adequacy of the EPA's own regulatory constraints, and that the authorized injections can make it impossible to ever know what the baseline was. General Chemical submits that this result should be unacceptable to the DMG. Each state and federal agency has its own role to play, and no agency should be persuaded to refrain from asserting its authority on the premise that informal reliance on another agency will assure an undefined yet acceptable regulatory climate. President Harry Truman had a sign on his desk which read, "The buck stops here." American Soda is both explicitly and implicitly urging the DMG to accept the notion that the environmental buck stops somewhere else. Neither the drafr Environmental Impact Statement