My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-01-03_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - P2008043
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Prospect
>
P2008043
>
2011-01-03_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - P2008043
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:28:25 PM
Creation date
1/19/2011 7:20:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
P2008043
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
1/3/2011
Doc Name
Petition for Review of UIC Permit
From
James B. Woodward
To
EPA
Permit Index Doc Type
Gen. Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
northeast of Fort Collins, 29 miles northwest of Greeley, 8 miles northwest of Nunn, and 8 miles <br />northeast of Wellington. <br />Powertech proposes to conduct the aquifer pumping test to meet the following objectives: <br />• Site specific and regional characterization of geology and groundwater. <br />• Assessment of hydrological characteristics and their lateral continuity within the <br />A2 sandstone, the formation within the Fox Hills Formation containing uranium <br />mineralization. <br />• Evaluation of hydrologic communication within the A2 sandstone between the <br />pumping well and surrounding observation wells. <br />• Assessment of the presence of hydrologic boundaries, if any, within the A2 <br />sandstone. <br />• Evaluation of integrity of the confinement zones above and below the A2 <br />sandstone to determine the degree of hydrologic communication, if any, between <br />the A2 sandstone and the overlying and underlying aquifers in the test area. <br />THRESHOLD PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS <br />Petitioner satisfies the threshold requirements for filing a petition for review under Part 124. <br />Petitioner has standing to petition for review of the permit decision because he participated in the <br />public comment period on the permit. See 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(a). Petitioner participated by <br />submitting comments to EPA during the public comment periods on the first and second draft <br />permits (written comments attached as Exhibit 1). The issues raised by Petitioner in this petition <br />were either raised with EPA during the public comment period and therefore were preserved for <br />review, or arise from significant changes from the draft permit to the final permit.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.