UNITED STATES ENVIRQNMENTAL PROTECTIGYSI AGENCY REGION. 5 3.4.45 ROSS sum.-: 1-2.00 TX 7e2a2..2?3e 2012 Zak Cover E"x-ecufive Director Texas Commission on Environrnental Quality PO. Box 13087' Austin, Texas '?871 1-3:087 RE: U-IC Program Revision to establish an Aquifer Exemption Fusselman Formation-, Montoya Group, and El Paso Group, El Paso County Dear Mr. Covarz am pleased to inform you EPA finds TCEQ's application to exem-p'tpo1't-iolls of the Fusselman Dolomite, Montoya'-'Doi1'o1nite arid El Paso (dolomite and lithestohe) g_ro'tJp in El Peso" Coolity, Texas"-, a non-substatitial re'visi'on to its injection control] As: such, by autho1"i'ty- delegated to our Regional' Ad'm'ini'strator and redelegated to the Water Quality Protection Division, we approve the ex'e_n1ption under the cri'teri'-a provided' in Title 40 of the Code of F-ederail Regu1ations? 1-46 .4. EPA "review of your confirms that the portion of the aquifer proposed for does not c11r1'eatl"y serve' as source of drinki-ng water; 'there- are no drinking water wells in the vi.ci.nity' of the. proposed exempted area that draw water fiom the proposed exempted" areas. In the remote location of the wells and their depths make recovery of the Twater for water purpose economically or techni'_ca'1ly'impractical. Fi1'rth'ermore,_ your a'pp.l.icati'ot1 demonst1'at'es' that water samples'- taken from the forr_natiot1s propo's'ed' for--exemptio.n exhibi-t high of certai:'n 1'..ad'ionuelides- (gross alpha and rad-ium 226-and 2-28). EPA concludes that the po1'7tii'o11'-of the aquifer proposed for exemption meets the criteria for exemption at: - It does not currently serve as a source of water; and' - ?-146.4 Thetotal dissolved sol'ids content of the ground water is more than. 3,000 and less than 10,000 and it is not reasonably expected to supply a public water system. The areal extent and horizontal boundaries of the exempted portions of these dolomite. and limestone groups. are as described in TCEQ's. February 27, 2012 aq'u'i'f'er exemption a_pp'Iicatior1 cover letter and depicted in figure 2 of Aquifer Exemption Order, Doolczet No. 201 1-- 1814 (enclosed). This exemption applies only to disposal of desalinatiotz wastes for 50 years througla the three existing as mode-led in the 'app'li_ea'tio'r1 for exempti'on. The internet Address a Flaeyeladifiaeyelabla Pfintedwith Vegetable Based Inks or'1=FleeyeIa'd Paper {Minimum 25% Postconsurner) existing wells are close to the Texas/New Mexico border, and modeling by the permit applicant shows -that injected waste -will remain on the Texas side of the boundary. This approval does not into New Mexico, and injection rates shall be managed to ensure that no inj.eeted- waste migrates beyond the Texas po1"t'i"on of the aquifer. Any modification adversely affecting the protection in New Mexico additional approval. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Philip Dellinger, Chief, Ground Waten"UlC Section at (21-4) 665-8324.. CCI Sincerely" .- I . . illiam Aeting Di-reo or I Water Quality Protection Division (GWQ) Ed Archu.Ieta, President, 1313/ i David Ma1"ti.n, Secretary, NMED -- . _i Bryan W. Show, Chairman Carlos Rubinstein, Com rnissioner Toby Baker, Coriunissioner Zak Covar, Director TEXAS COMMISSION ON Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Poliution May 24, 20.12 Mr. William K. Honker, P.E. Acting Director Water Quality Protection Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Region 6 1445 Ross Ave, Ste 12.00 Dallas, TX 75202-2733 Re: Request for Approval of Non--Substantial Underground Control Program Revision to Establish an Aquifer Exemption in the Goliad Formation, Goliad County Dear Honker: I am writing in response to your letter of 'May 16, 2012 requesting two separate groundwater modeling demonstrations to support TCEQ's non--substantial Underground Injection Control (UIC) program revision to identify an exempted aquifer in Goliad County, Texas. I appreciate your effort to explain the rationale for requesting -the modeling and for providing some of the specific details that you want to see modeled. However, as we have stated previously, EPA regulations, EPA guidance, and EPA precedent do not require groundwater modeling to consider a non--substantia1 UIC program revision to identify an exempted aquifer. I ask that you take final action on TCEQ's non--substantial program revision without consideration of the modeling that you request. TCEQ asks you to approve the non--substantial program revision under the provisions of 40 CFR 144.7, 145.32, and 146.4. EPA's request for modeling and information about water wells 3 outside of the designated aquifer exemption area confuses the aquifer exemption requirements . with the UIC permit and rule requirements 'applicable to in situ uranium mining. In describing the aquifer exemption requirements, EPA has previously stated that the fact that persons may use drinking water drawn from the aquifer outside of the proposed exemption boundary is irrelevant to Section which looks only to the use of the exempted portion of the aquifer.' TCEQ agrees. Although the groundwater outside of the designated exempted aquifer is not relevant to the aquifer exemption criteria, such groundwater is protected by compliance with TCEQ injection well permits, production area authorizations, and enforcement of TCEQ's rules. EPA has also stated that it is the permit process, not the exemption, which is intended to control the mining through operational conditions and the requirements for monitoring, reporting, corrective action, and restoration." TCEQ agrees. EPA has similarly stated that even after an aquifer is exempted, strict controls upon construction and operation of the wells are imposed by The TCEQ agrees with the statements on p. 44 by EPA's Brief of Respondent submitted to the United States Court of Appeais for the Eight Circuit in defense of a challenge of EPA's appros-at of a non-substantial} program revision designating an exempted aquifer related to in sin; uranium mining in Nebraska. See Western Nebraska Resources EPA, 943 F.2d 867. Citations to follow are from Brief of Respondent. 2 Brief of Respondent, p. 42. ;8_711--3o87 0 512-239-1000 I tceq.te:ras.gox- -How is our customer service? William K. .-Honker, P.E. Page 2 M_ay 24, 2012 regulation and permits, and no "rn.ove1n'ent of -fluids into or between underground sources of wate1"(USDWs) .n_1a_y italte :pla.ce.3 TCEQ agrees. EPA has stressed that the safety of uraniuin mining is due to the pern1ittee's duty to satisfy the extensive operational, monitoring, restoration and corrective action requirements of the -state UI-C permit and the req-11-ired 1'-adioactive materials li.cense.4-' TCEQ a_gre'es. TCEQ, and its preclecessor age-ncies, have had over 30 years of regulation of in.--situ operations in'T'exas-. T.CEQ's permits and rules protect USDW-s. To ensure protection of groundwater in areas outside of the mining area-, the permittee: 1) must identify any existing wells that could serve. as a conduit for mining solutions to move outside the produetion zone or the production area (30 TAC 2) must construct Class wells in accordance witll proper construction requ-irenients (3-o TAC 3-) must maintain the mechanical integrity of all Class (30 TAC 4) must co1'rectii!e action standards as necessary to prevent or correct pollution of a USDW ('30 TAC 5) subject to Executive Director approval of construction -and complet-io.n of wells (30 TAC 6) must operate wells in accordance witli proper operation (30 TAC 1non.ito1'w'.el1s in accozidance wlitli monitoring reqtiireinents (3.0 8] must submit reports in accordance with reporting req-uirernentsi (30 TAC and 9) must close wells in accordance witli a plugging and abandonment plan in a manner that 'will not -allowthe Inovenient ofiluicls through the well out of the injection zone or to the lanclsurface (30 TAC 331.46 and 331.86). TCEQ .rules also require that Inining occur witliin designated production areas. The Production Area AL;1thorizati_o11 issued under the terms of the Class injection well perm-it further requires: 1) the con'finernen't -of niining solutions t.o the production zone witliin the area of designated production zone nion-itor wells (30 TAG 2) the establishment, location and spacing for production zone wells (monitor well ring) and non--production zone monitorwells -(monitor wells for underlying or overlying zones) (30 TAC ?331.1o3}; 3) the establish-men.t of baseline groundwa-ter quality for -restoration goals and control pa-rarneters for excursion detection (30 TAC 4) the establishinent. of Inon-itoring standards 'for _detecting mining solutions in rI1onito1'wel1s (30 TAC 5) remedi-al action for any -detected -excursions (30 TAC ?331.1o6); and 6) gro'-undwaterrestoratio-n after the co-rnpletion of mining (30 TAC The TCEQ's rules and requirements for in situ u-ran-iurn mining are more s'p'e'c'ific and more protective of groundwater and than EPA's regulations in 40 CFR Parts "144 and 146. I am troubled by the in your letter that 'based on EPA's experience with other in situ mining projects, EPA believes there. is a high likelihood that, following raining activities, residual waste from mining activities will not remain in the exempted aquifer-_. EPA has not shared this .experience witli TCEQ on any of the in sin: uranium mining projects in Texas. There liave been .43 Class .ir_1jectioI-1 well permits issued for uran-iu-n1 mining -in Texas. After completion of mining, -restoration and reclania-tion activities, concurrence from-the United States "Nuclear Regulatory Commission 'is required to appirove the final including groundwater restoration, of an in situ u-ra-ninin mine. There has not been one instance of clocurnented off-site of a in situ uraniurn mining activities. TCEQ's pejrniits are -subjected to extensive public notice and participation requireinents, and TCEQ 3 p. 8. 4 Brief of -Respondent, :12. Williarn K. Hon-lter, P.E. Page 3_ May 24, 2-012. a-pprises EPA of pending permit actions. EPA has never commented to TCEQ that a pending permitting action for an in situ uranium ruining. project would lead to the contamination of a USDW outside of an exempted" aquifer. EPA has never informed TCEQ that the authorized UIC program is out of compliance the Safe Dri-nlci-ng ater Act because "Class. injection well operators are failing to protect or groundwater outside of exempted aqu-ifers. Nor, has EPA no'tifled- TCEQ that EPA. was intending to talie an enforcement action. against a Class i'nj"ect'ion we'll operator' for failingto protect US-DWS as requ-irecl by TCEQ permit or rule. It appears may be; swayed by the un-su-bstantiated allegations ruining opponents who have contacted you regarding T.CEQ's p'rog'ra1-n. revision. The TCEQ has not been invited to those discussions nor provided any 0-pportuznity to refute any allegations about UIC prog-ra-n1.. Again, I ask for your pr-otnpt approval of this non-su-bstantial program revision. The Safe Drinki-ng Water Act requires E-PA's approval or disapproval of a state's' entire UIC program within ninety d-aye of the-sta-te"s appl'i'cati'ou. Yet, EPA has taken over-a year to. consider-tl1e' non- substantial revision of TCEQ-'s a_lready--approved program relating to the aquifer exemption in- Goliad County. The delay and shift in position on_ the consideration of the program revision create uncertainty for the TCEQ program as well as the regulated community. If you decide to this program" revisioli, I would respectfully request that you prox-dd-e a statement of the reasons for your deterxnination, the citation to' the statute' or regulation that compels such a determination, and the source of any factual inforniation used to support such a determination. he TCEQ rernains committed to the approved UTC program. and believes our perrnits. and authorizations protect the area as required in the Safe Drinliing irVater Act. We will continue to consider all of our options" and remain hopeful. that under newleadership at Region we can reach a. satisfactory resolution for everyone involved. Sincerely, alc Covar Executive Director '-ucn- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 6 1445 R088 AVENUE, 1200 DALLAS TX 75202-2733 HAY 1 6 2012 Mr. Zak Cover Executive Director, Texas Commission on Environinental. Quality (TCBQ) Post Office Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 RE: Application for Exemption of Portions of the Goliad Aquifer Formation in Goliad County Dear Mr. Covar: EPA has been continuing our review of the Texas Commission on Environmental Qu-a1ity's (TCEQ) August, 2011 lette_r regarding the aquifer exemption request for Uranium Energy Corp's (UEC) proposed in siifu leach uranium mining activities in the Goliad Aquifer in Goliad County, Texas. We have had annurnber o.f discussions with representatives of UEC would like to update you on our thinking about this exemption request and outline a path for-ward. As you know, the protection of drinking water is one of the EPA's highest priorities. 'Working together, the EPA and TCEQ share a long history of cooperation and success with regard to monitoring and protecting drinlcirig water as a critical resource. As always, our respective staffs have discussed the aquifer exemption request i.n a thorough and professional manner. In summary, we continue to believe that the criteria for granting an aquifer exemption have not yet been met. For the EPA to approve an aquifer exemption, the. Agency must first find that the applicant has demonstrated that the aquifer or the portion of an aquifer identified by the State as exempt "does not currently serve as a source of drinking water" (40 CPR 146.4 The EPA's exainiga aquifer exemption request 3% Some of these wells are in to the pi'oposed rnming area, and are curreritly used for drinlcing water by local residents. This information has been confirmed by an EPA Region 6 site Visit and public meetings with the citizens of Goliad County, as well as by the Go-liad County government and the Go 11' ad County Groundwater Conservation District in correspondence to EPA dated March 26, 2012. Under these circumstances, not a.source:- We believe such information could . from two-phase although TCEQ or UEC could seek to make the necessary demonstration by alternate methods. We have discussed this modeling with UEC and are describing its scope and objectives more fully below. Internet Acieress in Recycled/Recyciabie GI Printed. with Vegetable Oil Baserl inks on l0D'l'ti Fleeyoled Paper, Process Chlorine Free As you know, consistent with EPA's longstanding interpretation and application of its regulations, EPA includes a buffer zone around the area requested for exemption to determine whether the exempted aquifer or portion currently serves as a source of drinking water. Attaclnnent 3 of Guidance 34 (July 5, 1984), "Guidelines for Reviewing Aquifer Exemption Requests" provides in pertinent part: [Ajll exemption requests must demonstrate that the aquifer . . does not currently serve as a source of drinking water." (40 CF To dernonstrate this, the applicant should survey the proposed exempted area to identify any water supply wells which tap the proposed exempted aquifer. The area to be surveyed should cover the exempted zone and a buffer zone outside the exempted area. The buffer zone should extend a minimum of a U4 mile from the boundary of the exempted area. Any water supply wells located should be identified on the map showing the proposed exempted area. If no water supply wells would be affected by the exemption, the request should state that a survey was conducted and no water supply wells are located which tap the aquifer to be exempted within the proposed area. If the exemption pertains to only a portion of an aquifer, a demonstration must be made that the waste will remain in the exempted portion. Such a demonstration should consider among other factors, the pressure in the injection zone, the waste volume, injected waste characteristics specific gravity, persistence, etc.) in the life of the facility. The letter TCEQ sent to EPA in August 2011 reflects a different view of the information EPA needs in order to approve an aquifer exemption and suggests that completing a well survey is sufficient for approval. However, our guidance indicates only that a well survey may support granting of an exemption if it shows that "no water supply wells would be affected by the exemption." Where -- as here the survey and other information identifies wells within the buffer area that are likely to draw water from the aquifer, the survey should be supplemented with additional information. TCEQ also appears to interpret our regulations to mean that EPA may only look at whether the drinking water Wells in the vicinity are -- "at present" -- withdrawing the water in the portion of the aquifer proposed for exemption. That interpretation ignores the regulatory text "serve as a source." Determining whether water in a portion of an aquifer is eurreiirly being wfrlidrawn for use in the present moment is not the same as determining whether a portion of the aquifer proposed for exemption ""currently serve[s] as a source of drinking water." Water that currently serves as a source of drinking water includes water that is being withdrawn in the present moment and water that will be withdrawn in the future by wells that are currently in existence.' 1 TCEQ cites Western Resources Council 12. EPA 943 F.2d 867 (Em Cir. 1991), which was a sequel to Western Nebraska Resources Council v. EPA 793 F. 2d l94 (Sm Cir. 1986). EPA agrees with TCEQ that the Court in WNRC ll rejected a challenge to EPA's approval of the aquifer exemption at issue. However, the Court held that EPA's approval was supported by the administrative record, not that there are limits on EPA's evaluation of aquifer exemption requests in general, or the specific inquiry as to whether the portion of the aquifer proposed for exemption meets the regulatory criterion in 40 C.F.R 146.4(a) in that it "does not currently serve as a source of drinking water." To the contrary, in WNRC H, the Court acknowledged that EPA has discretion in evaluating aquifer exemptions based on the specific The EPA's evaluation of TCEQ's aquifer exemption request is governed by the EPA's regulations and application of the regulations to the specific facts. Here, our review of the aquifer exemption application indicates that there are multiple drinking wa '5 addition, the 0re--containin zones that would be mined are . . . strata of the Gohad aquifer, and groundwater from all four strata IS hydrologrcally connected to the water drawn by the numerous drinking water wells in the area. It thus appears that - groundwater currently moves through the area proposed for exemption on its way to the drinking water wells down gradient. Accordingly, based on the information before the Agency at this time, the EPA cannot conclude that the portion of the aquifer proposed for exemption does not currently serve as a source of drinking water for those wells. Furthermore, the application does not demonstrate that "the waste will remain in the exempted portion" consistent with Guidance 34 (see excerpt above) and, expexgiegeg "p_'roj is a likeli-l;1oo df tlia the Nonetheless, these initial indications could be overcome by information demonstrating that the portion of the aquifer proposed for exemption does not in fact currently serve as a source of drinking water for those wells in the vicinity of the area proposed for exemption. As we have discussed with you and UEC, such information could potentially be obtained from a two phase modeling approach. The first phase would consist of a groundwater transport and capture model to show that all existing drinking water wells in the vicinity of the area proposed for exemption at least those wells within or near mile of the proposed exemption boundary) are not capturing nor expected to capture water from the portion of the aquifer proposed for exemption. EPA believes that the model should examine the remaining lifetimes of the wells. For purposes of this analysis, EPA recornmends using a well lifetime estimate of 75 years. If the results of the groundwater modeling indicate that the wells in existence are not and would not be likely to capture water from the portion of the aquifer proposed for exemption during the lifespan of the wells, a second phase of modeling would help to show, among other things, that facts presented: "[t]he regulatory approach adopted here by EPA a broad definition of covered underground waters coupled with a discretionary exemption mechanism -- is a common method by which agencies preserve their discretion to regulate equitably on a case--by-case basis." 943 F.2d at 870. Moreover, in WNRC I, the Court spoke approvingly of EPA's consideration of the whole record when it stated that "as was appropriate under the circumstances, a number of other factors were considered and a number of other findings were made by and those findings "flowed from a reasonable exercise of the agency's particular expertise in the area of environmental safety." 793 F. 2d at 201. significant adverse. aiinpaet on or .on-the env_i;j_oi1111_e11t -'as of 1'esu_lt ex_ern_ption. --79,3 F. 2d at 201 Cir. 1986) (eziihpliasis added): I the "waste will remain in the exempted portion" of the aquifer consistent with Guidance 34. A chemical fate and transport model that builds upon many of the same transport parameters utilized in the first phase of the model referenced above could track the attenuation of contaminant concentrations of the residual plume as it migrates in the post restoration phase until the model shows that the plume would not reach either the existing wells or the non--exe1npt portion of the aquifer in concentrations harmful to human health. On January 18, 2012, UEC met with EPA staff and presented an approach to determine whether wells in the Goliacl area were drawing on water in the proposed exempted area. UEC's approach used a set of equations to solve for the limits (outer edges) of groundwater entering a well. However, the approach presented did not account for actuai variability in geologic and hydrogeologic conditions across the site different zones of hydraulic conductivity), could not handle multiple aquifers or regional groundwater stresses, and could not take into account multiple pumping wells. Based on the number of surrounding drinking water wells, all of these parameters would need to be factored into the model. Finally, the modeling approach presented by UEC only accounted for the eight year time period when the mining and associated artificial negative pressure was expected to occur without an explanation of why that period meets the specific characteristics of the site. Whenever EPA reviews an aquifer exemption application, EPA seeks information sufficient: to support that specific aquifer exemption request. The aquifer exemptions for in-situ uranium mining projects that have previously been approved are not in areas where there are several drinking water wells in close proximity to and within the mile buffer area of the project. This two--phased modeling approach is warranted to protect against endangering the drinking water source here given that there are multiple human water source wells down gradient of and in proximity to the area proposed for exemption, and there is no lateral confinement between the portion of the aquifer proposed for exemption and the portion of the aquifer that would not be exempted. This two--phased modeling approach could provide a pathway for EPA to approve the aquifer exemption consistent with EPA regulations and longstanding guidance. I hope that the information provided in this letter makes clear the necessity and rationale for the additional information we previousiy requested. I believe that EPA and TCEQ share the mutual" goal of assuring that our actions do not adversely affect the critical sources of drinlring water. Working together we can meet that goal. Our technical staff is ready to discuss both modeling 2 Region 6 has approved over 30 aquifer exemptions related to in--situ mining activities in the past -- an indication that we support such proposals ea-sea' has also-f; iasui?ei.ex 'for' currently served as a source of "existing" the p_ei-p1i--t to p'ltt'gT- wel'l's and provide -'owner-st. phases in' greater detail at your request and to continue its ongoing dialogue with UEC. Should you wish to this letter, please Contact myself or Mr. Philip Dell inger, Chief of the Ground Water/UIC Section at (214) 665-8324. Sincerely yours, W6 William K. Honker, P.E. Acting Director Water Quality Protection Division Enclosure cc: Charles Magu-ire, TCEQ W. SI-'mw, Hxiddy Garcia, Caries Rzihinsiein, C0mmiss:'o:1er Maw: R. Vickery, P43, it-'xeczzfiizie TEXAS om Prosacir'-fig by and Aug'us't 23, 2011 33.35 2535 Mr. Miguel Di1*ec'tor: Wa'te1* Quality Protectian Divisian {haired St21_te$ P1"0f.eCfEm1 Agency Region 6 (6WQ) 1445 {-1033 Avenue 7520227' 3. Re: Requests ofNor1--Subsi:am:i:1I Uxlcicrgraumi Revisicns to Establish an Aquifer' Exernptirm in the Gofiad For-ma'rioI1, Gafiad and in the Goliad Formaticm. Duval Cou1:1Ly Deal' Flores: i am response to the by Enviro rzmental Regian 6 that the Cormniss 1011 on Ellivirontxieniiai Q'uality's (TCEQ) applicatizms "far the revisicms emf the Izijecfion Central Prt3gram 3.113 ir1cGr:1pIe'te':. A3 expiained 'ba'-flow, the TCEQ the that the firms program 're.vi3i.<3r1s are incomple-'fie and disagrees with the novei by Region 6 of the FeCj_11iI't3fZE1Ei1t11 uI1de2'40 CFR 146.4. the TCEQ requfists that to process and censicier the TCEQ's us for revisiozzs witlmm the requested moderling ajrxalysis. the The for exz::mptir1.g an aquif:-:r is a tea-t. first prong of the tars': under 40 CF13. 146 that the exempt:-td aquifer or portion order ta e,va1ua'c& the first prang of the EPA is{1im\r flu 1'r3q_11esti11g modeling that axtezlds ilifa the future 2211 projected. periods of prr3d11c:tim'1 and phascs of the uramium mining prajects. This" is an Bf colxciitions but an e'sra1uati(m_ of CD}ldi'fl0}jS. Webste1":3 Dicizionaiy d'efiz1es as "at }"a'z'ird New Dictianar-y, 20:32.} To deternfine wE1etl1er .2: proposed aquifer serves 35 2. s0I.1r::e of drirrlcing wahzr; the the pmpeged area to establish if there are any exisfing wells within the propo:3-eel t.i1:a:i: pa-mritie water 'Em: human consumptiarz. For both the URI and UEC aqziifer exemption clesiguztfions (and all other TCEQ the pm-p_o3ad areas and datermjned - L, 0 we'/ I I5: 'F/up fit RU. i3fi=Ei'F Austin, Texas 1'3. Mr. flares Augzmt 23, 291.: Page 2 es 3' mg I the 1'-Zlginkevaar, many hyd'r0Iog1'c c0t1c1iti<:ms mmid have 0 or assumptions In de to lira water in a particu1a1' water well to 21 particm of an aquifer some distance away. The Eiycirsmlic or disconnect'iv'Lt3f between the aquifer well and the welfs. screen, perforations, or spam informatioit abmzt older weils is available); the hydrologic: gradi-ant in the area; the design cf the well and well coxnpommts; the i.n'fI'ue.r1ce: of ether wefls in {ha area; the inflt-tense of injectiern or grounciwater withcirawal during mining or I'f3SfOi'ElfiU?'1', and, any Eeegal or regulatory requirements on groutidwater usage are all factors that could influence whether" a pzirticuiar water we-E! can draw g1"-ounciwater 21 purlriori of an aquifer some distance. away. Consideraizioti ofsuch factors is not needed ta cEete1'm.ine whether the proposed exempted aquifer currently serves as 3 of clrinl