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

Home Browse Search

Regarding the Draft U1C Permit and the Statement of Basis for the permit, we make the following comments. The statement of Basis and Purpose states that the permit will contain "no requirements for reinjectate sampling and analysis." Statement of Basis and Purpose at p. 6. However, the same document states that the applicant "will sample the stored groundwater and have it analyzed before reinjection occurs." Id. at 5. The draft permit should be revised to specifically require a full suite of water quality sampling prior to any injection into the aquifer. Such a sampling is necessary to ensure that the injectate does not present a threat to underground sources of drinking water or to the existing quality in the aquifer, as required by 40 CFR § 144.82(a). This sampling should include protection against such things as bacterial growth in the storage containers, as well as to assess the potential impacts to the aquifer and the existing uses of the affected ground water. The need for sampling prior to injection raises additional issues related to the draft permit - namely the lack of a requisite analysis of the existing water quality in the aquifer. In fact, there appears to be a critical lack of information related to the existing water quality in the affected aquifer, including the water quality of the proposed injectate. Powertech states,in its cover letter attached to the permit that "The water quality analysis displayed in attachment D was obtained from an existing well ...located about 500 feet south of the pump test/proposed injection well, and completed in the same formation and interval." Cover letter at p. 3. The EPA must justify any decision to not require a more comprehensive characterization of not only the water proposed to be injected, but also the area of the aquifer proposed for injection. It appears that, as currently proposed, the agency is proposing to rely on a single sample from a single existing well located some 500 feet from the injection area to characterize the entire area of the aquifer from which the proposed injectate will be drawn and the area of the aquifer potentially impacted by the proposed reinjection activities. Review of the materials and discussion with agency personnel indicate that the withdrawn water proposed for injection will be drawn from the middle of a uranium ore-body yet there does not appear to be any data demonstrating the quality of the water in the well from which the water will be drawn. Further, there is no data demonstrating that the water to be drawn and reinjected will not encounter oxidizing conditions as the pumping and reinjection occurs (for instance, flow from reduction zones into more oxidizing zones that could lead to iron hydroxide precipitation and well fouling). Should this occur, it could result in mobilization of additional contaminants in the aquifer, posing additional threats to underground sources of drinking water. In short, this existing data set is woefully inadequate. Should the data demonstrate that the quality of water proposed to be injected contains high levels of toxic or noxious chemicals, a Class I UIC permit may be appropriate to ensure protection of underground sources of drinking water. However, without this data, the EPA cannot make a reasoned analysis of the impacts of the proposed injection in order to fulfill its duty to protect underground sources of drinking water. Notably, the additional information required of Powertech includes not only data on water quality of the aquifer and of the injectate, but also the geologic characteristics of the injection zone and the so-called confining strata. The EPA is authorized to require this information pursuant to 40 CFR § 144.27. Indeed, although drafted prior the finalization of the complete Class V regulatory program, the EPA's Statement of Basis and Purpose for the 2