My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-01-03_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - P2008043 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Prospect
>
P2008043
>
2011-01-03_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - P2008043 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:28:25 PM
Creation date
3/29/2011 8:15:38 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- 1.
From
Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction
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.
/
76
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
EPA asserts that the prior pump test data is not required to be submitted in the context of <br />the agency's permitting decision because "[b]oth the Draft and Final Permits require that the <br />results of the proposed aquifer-pump test be submitted to EPA for review before EPA authorizes <br />injection of the stored groundwater back into the A2 sandstone." Responsiveness Summary at <br />16. This characterization is inaccurate, as the Final Permit Condition E requires only that <br />Powertech submit "a summary of the aquifer-pump test results." Final Permit at 4 (attached as <br />Exhibit 8). A "summary" of the results does not equate to the underlying data in terms of <br />completeness for review, and as such this Condition is inadequate. In any case, this information <br />will presumably be submitted and then reviewed by EPA without any public review or further <br />ability for comment, thus depriving the public of any meaningful opportunity to raise concerns or <br />otherwise question the results. Such a tactic of requiring such important and determinative <br />information to be considered outside of the normal public process effectively eliminates public <br />participation in the permitting process and should not be allowed. Importantly, nowhere in the <br />permitting documents does EPA assert that the prior pump test information is confidential, <br />burdensome to acquire, or unavailable in any way. <br />In this case, because the EPA's conclusions, including the pivotal "50 feet" <br />determination, were made without support in the administrative record, the Board should remand <br />the permit back to the agency for a complete review as required by the Administrative Procedure <br />Act. <br />II. EPA failed to require submittal, or to conduct any review of, relevant <br />information regarding the existence and condition of historic bore-hole <br />drilling in the vicinity of the proposed injection well. <br />Similar to the missing pump test data, EPA failed to require the applicant to provide any <br />information related to the location of historic bore-holes drilled in the area. These old wells may <br />12
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.