Laserfiche WebLink
In the Statement of Basis for the permit, EPA explained that its finding that issuance of <br />the permit would not endanger the drinking water quality in the overlying Laramie Formation <br />was based on the applicant's report produced by Petrotek Engineering Corporation in support of <br />Powertech's mineral prospecting permit application submitted to State of Colorado: <br />The Petrotek report that is included in the administrative record for the second Draft <br />Permit demonstrates that the injectate will travel less than 50 feet from the injection well <br />(see page 5 of the report). <br />Statement of Basis for UIC Class V Permit, at 10 (attached as Exhibit 5). In response to <br />Petitioner's comment that EPA was required to review the prior pump test information, EPA <br />stated: <br />EPA does not need the information from the two previous aquifer-pump tests that <br />Powertech has conducted at the proposed Centennial mine site in order to develop permit <br />requirements that are protective of underground sources of drinking water during the <br />proposed injection activity. As discussed in Section 4A, the area of impact from the <br />proposed injection activity is expected to extend less than 50 feet away from the injection <br />well. <br />Responsiveness Summary at 16. <br />However, the Petrotek report, and its conclusions as to transmissivity, hydraulic <br />conductivity, and storativity of the A2 sandstone, which in turn resulted in Petrotek's "50 feet" <br />determination adopted by EPA, was based expressly on the data derived from the previous <br />aquifer pump tests. See Petrotek report at 3, 5, 8 (attached as Exhibit 6). Thus, although EPA <br />relied exclusively on the Petrotek conclusions in making its determination regarding the <br />hydraulic conductivity of the A2 sandstone, the agency refused to review or even request a copy <br />of the underlying data upon which the Petrotek conclusions were based. This is despite the fact <br />that Petitioner's comments specifically alerted EPA to the need for such a review. <br />Under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), an agency determination must be <br />invalidated where it as "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in <br />9