Laserfiche WebLink
permitting documents, however, EPA refused to require submittal or even conduct a review of <br />this data in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). <br />Similarly, EPA also failed to request or review relevant information on the existence and <br />condition of the extensive historic bore-holes previously drilled in the vicinity of the proposed <br />underground injection well. The record demonstrates that these historic bore-holes were in some <br />instances improperly abandoned or sealed, thus providing potential pathways for contamination. <br />EPA's refusal to require submittal, or conduct any review of, this relevant information violates <br />the APA. <br />EPA's issuance of Powertech's UIC permit is particularly significant because it marks the <br />first instance in the nation of EPA having permitting jurisdiction for an in-situ leach uranium <br />mine. While the permit currently under review in this proceeding is not for injection of leaching <br />chemicals, it nevertheless involves reinjection of fluids containing uranium, radium, and <br />antimony in concentrations that exceed drinking water standards. <br />ISSUES ON WHICH REVIEW IS SOUGHT <br />1. EPA failed to require submittal, or to conduct any review of, relevant <br />information from previous aquifer-pump tests upon which EPA based its <br />decision to issue the permit. <br />In issuing a Final Permit to Powertech for a new Class V injection well associated with a <br />planned aquifer pump test, EPA failed to require submittal of, or to conduct the required review <br />of, relevant data from prior pump tests conducted by the applicant in the same geologic <br />formations. As established under federal court and EAB precedent, federal agencies may not <br />simply refuse to consider relevant and available information. This is particularly true where, as <br />here, the agency permitting documents specifically rely on that same information as a basis for <br />issuing the permit. <br />8