REVISION - 10/1/2009, 7:24:39 AM-JWD

Home Browse Search

impacts on underground sources of drinking water, the EPA cannot effectively discharge this duty. The Draft Permit states at page 7 that "[c]ompliance with this permit does not ... authorize ... any infringement of state or local law or regulations." Further, Powertech (USA) Inc.'s April 30, 2009 Request for Permit letter states that the Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety (DRMS) is the state agency "overseeing the project." However, there is no record of Powertech having any active application for any permit covering the activities proposed in the Class V Draft Permit. Indeed, Powertech has recently withdrawn an application that would have covered some of the relevant activities. EPA should require Powertech to explain the relationship between the currently applied- for EPA permit and Colorado DRMS permit requirements for this same activity. As stated above, the Applicant does not at this time have any permit application in place before the DRMS, where the Applicant will be required to present substantial technical and baseline characterization evidence in order to obtain state authorization to conduct the proposed pump test. For instance, a letter dated March 31, 2009 from Mr. Allen C. Sorenson, Reclamation Specialist, DRMS to Mr. Richard Blubaugh, Powertech (USA) Uranium Inc., demonstrates the broad extent of the information that will be required as part of the state review. (attached as exhibit 2). This includes critical pieces of information related to the protection of the hydrologic balance and protection of water quality and quantity. Given the significant information that will be required in the state permit process, and the scant information currently available to EPA in the context of this UIC Class V permit (discussed herein) regarding the hydrologic balance and impacts on groundwater quality and quantity, the EPA should delay its permitting exercise to better coordinate with the DRMS in order to ensure that the EPA has sufficient evidence to draw rational conclusions with respect to the applicant's ability to comply with the SDWA and EPA regulations. Failure of the applicant to provide sufficient information to allow the EPA to draw such rational conclusions would violate the APA. The DRMS also expresses its requirement that the Applicant provide the location information for all wells within two miles of the proposed operation, including not just Powertech wells but also any other wells historically drilled in the area. These old wells may indeed present significant problems with respect to protecting underground sources of drinking water. The EPA's 1980 Statement of Basis and Purpose (National UIC Program Docket Control Number D 01079) provides a clear description of the problem, at pages 14-15: One of the common ways by which fluids can enter an underground source of drinking water is by migration through improperly abandoned and improperly completed wells. This would occur if fluids moving laterally within an injection zone encountered an improperly abandoned or completed well, and, following the path of least resistance, flowed upward within the well until entering an overlying underground source of drinking water or overflowing onto the land surface. Because of the large number of wells drilled in the past, and because well operation and abandonment have not always benefitted from close regulatory scrutiny, contamination by this route can present a significant risk to public health. 4