[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 58 (Friday, March 26, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14800-14804]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-7432]



[[Page 14799]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 147



Underground Injection Control Program Revision; Aquifer Exemption 
Determination for Portions of the Lance Formation Aquifer in Wyoming; 
Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 58 / Friday, March 26, 1999 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 14800]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 147

[FRL-6316-4]


Underground Injection Control Program Revision; Aquifer Exemption 
Determination for Portions of the Lance Formation Aquifer in Wyoming

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final Rule--State program revision: aquifer exemption approval.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The State of Wyoming has submitted a revision to its 
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program, requesting that EPA 
approve an exemption from classification as an underground source of 
drinking water (USDW) portions of the Lance Formation in the Powder 
River Basin in Johnson County, Wyoming. The exemption area surrounds 
two Class I Non-Hazardous deep injection wells that will be used to 
dispose of operational bleed streams (excess fluids derived from the 
uranium mining) from commercial in-situ leaching uranium mining 
operations and fluids resulting from the ground water sweep (pumping 
out of contaminated fluids from the aquifer) operations for restoration 
of the Wasatch Formation aquifer being mined for uranium under a UIC 
Class III permit. After careful review of the exemption request and 
accompanying documents, EPA has determined that they contain sufficient 
information to meet the criteria for exempting portions of the Lance 
formation aquifer from the definition of a USDW. Based on the Wyoming 
Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) concurrence with the 
exemption, the request of the WDEQ director, the supporting technical 
documentation, and the lack of any public comment on the public notice 
to exempt the stated portions of the Lance Formation, EPA has decided 
to approve Wyoming's revision of its UIC program which exempts the 
designated portions of the Lance Formation from classification as an 
Underground Source of Drinking Water (USDW).

DATES: This rule shall become effective on April 26, 1999. In 
accordance with 40 CFR 23.7, this rule shall be considered promulgated 
for the purposes of judicial review at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 
9, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valois Shea-Albin, US EPA Region VIII, 
8P-W-GW, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202; (303) 312-6276.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated--Entities--Entities potentially affected by this action 
include the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) and the 
COGEMA Mining Company. The latter requested the exemption and the 
former recommended the approval of the exemption in October 1997. Any 
effect on these two entities would be positive, as they will be able to 
operate the disposal wells that are used for disposal of excess fluid 
in the uranium mining process and the restoration of the aquifer being 
mined.

I. Introduction

    The Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program, established by the 
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), provides for the protection of 
underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) from potential 
contamination from injection well practices. The UIC program 
regulations also provide for exempting aquifers from the definition of 
USDW, in 40 CFR 144.3, so that injection can occur. The UIC 
regulations, specifically 40 CFR 144.7 and 146.4, define and provide 
criteria for exempting aquifers.
    In October, 1997, COGEMA Mining, Inc., (COGEMA) and the Wyoming 
Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) requested that EPA approve 
an aquifer exemption for the Lance Formation in the areas encompassed 
by a radius of 1,320 feet surrounding two Class I non-hazardous 
injection wells, the COGEMA DW No. 1 and the Christensen 18-3, in 
Johnson County, WY. The proposed injection intervals are 3,818 to 6,320 
feet and 4,009 to 6,496 feet in depth below ground surface, 
respectively. The total area of the Lance Formation included in the 
exemption is approximately 0.4 square miles (0.2 square miles for each 
well).
    The Lance Formation fluids contain less than 3,000 mg/l Total 
Dissolved Solids (TDS) and the exemption is associated with a Class I 
1 injection well permit. These two criteria dictate that 
this aquifer exemption be a substantial revision of the Wyoming 
Underground Injection Control (UIC) program approved under section 1422 
of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Criteria for classification of a 
program revision as substantial or not are in UIC Guidance #34, 
Guidance for Review and Approval of State UIC Programs and Revisions to 
Approved State Programs. The procedures to follow to approve or 
disapprove substantial program revisions in the UIC program are in 40 
CFR 145.32 and in UIC Guidance #34. The aquifer proposed for exemption 
has been determined by WDEQ to be too deep to be considered as an 
economically feasible source of drinking water. On August 27, 1998, EPA 
published in the Federal Register a notice (63 FR 45810) requesting 
public comment on a substantial revision to Wyoming's UIC program to 
exempt a portion of the Lance Formation from designation as an 
underground source of drinking water. There were no comments or 
requests for public hearing submitted as a result of this notice. EPA 
has examined the aquifer exemption request, the accompanying 
information, and responses from WDEQ and COGEMA to EPA requests for 
additional supporting information, and, for reasons described herein, 
approves this request to exempt the designated portions of the Lance 
Formation from classification as a USDW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Injection wells are divided into 5 classes. Class I wells 
are associated with the disposal of industrial, municipal or 
radioactive waste into formations below the lowermost USDW. These 
wells have very strict standards for siting, construction and 
operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    COGEMA operates the Christensen Ranch in-situ leaching uranium mine 
within the Wasatch Sandstone Formation in Johnson and Campbell 
Counties, WY. The Wasatch Formation overlies the Lance Formation by 
about 2,600 feet at the mine site. The mining operation has comprised 
five well fields to date, two of which are currently producing, and 
three that have been mined out. The operation has reached the phase 
where large scale restoration of the ground water within the mined out 
well fields is being conducted simultaneously with mineral extraction 
in the two producing well fields.
    Ground water restoration is conducted to return the ground water 
affected by mining to its baseline condition or to a condition 
consistent with its pre-mining or potential use upon completion of 
mining activities. After the restoration process is completed, the 
concentrations of contaminants are reduced to levels below drinking 
water standards. For the successful restoration of the ground water 
quality within the mined-out areas of the Wasatch Formation, a 
wastewater disposal capacity of 300 to 500 gallons per minute (gpm) 
will be required over the next 18 years. Additionally, this type of 
operation requires the bleed-off 2 of part of the

[[Page 14801]]

fluid extracted in order to keep underground water flow into the mining 
area and prevent the contamination of adjacent aquifers in the Wasatch 
Formation. To date, COGEMA has managed disposal of the fluid wastes 
under an NPDES permit to discharge to the surface, and through using 
evaporation ponds and limited non-hazardous Class I injection well 
disposal. The recent regulatory requirement that reduces the 
concentration of selenium that can be discharged to surface waters 
permitted under NPDES has force COGEMA to discontinue this type of 
discharge. After evaluating treatment methods to remove selenium from 
the wastewater in order to continue surface discharge, COGEMA found 
that reverse osmosis was the only method that consistently met the new 
selenium standard. The reverse osmosis process would treat 75% of the 
waste stream resulting in water of high enough quality for surface 
discharge. However, the high volume of remaining concentrated brine 
produced by the reverse osmosis process would still require the use of 
the two Class I injection wells and the aquifer exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In order to prevent fluids in the underground formation from 
polluting adjacent aquifer portions, more fluid is extracted than is 
injected. In the process of leaching out the Uranium salts, the 
leaching agent is also replenished. The combination of excess fluid 
extracted and the equivalent of the fluid that is replenished is 
called the ``bleed'' stream. This volume of fluid has to be treated 
and/or disposed in an environmentally safe process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    COGEMA was previously granted an aquifer exemption for the COGEMA 
DW No. 1 and the Christensen 18-3 wells to inject into the Teckla, 
Parkman, and Teapot Formations (between 3,000 and 10,000 TDS, 
containing traces of oil and gas, and too deep to be an economically 
feasible source of drinking water). The original exempted interval for 
the COGEMA DW No. 1 was 7,500 to 8,470 feet in depth and 7,631 to 8,604 
feet in depth for the Christensen 18-3. Trial injection into these 
formations revealed they were only capable of receiving less than 10 
gpm instead of the 75 to 150 gpm anticipated from the evaluation of 
porosity logs. As a result, the company has now requested a permit 
modification to inject into the Lance Formation, instead of the Teckla, 
Parkman and Teapot formations, an overlying geologic unit to the ones 
originally exempted.

III. Injectate

    The fluid that will be injected (injectate) will consist of 
operational bleed streams from commercial in-situ leaching uranium 
mining operations as well as fluids from the restoration of the Wasatch 
formation. The constituents in the injectate include the following 
process and restoration bleed streams: normal overproduction (well 
field bleed) streams, laboratory wastewater, reverse osmosis brine, and 
ground water sweep 3 solutions. The bleed streams are 
defined as non-hazardous, and as beneficiation 4 wastes 
exempt from regulation as hazardous waste under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act as stipulated by the Bevill Amendment (40 
CFR 261.4(b)(7)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The operator is required to restore the aquifer being mined 
for Uranium. To restore this aquifer, ground water is pumped out of 
the formation and treated and/or disposed. Eventually the water in 
the formation will be restored to a pre-agreed baseline.
    \4\ For a list of the processes included under beneficiation, 
please see Title 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Basis for Approval of the Aquifer Exemption

    The information provided by COGEMA in the reports included in the 
docket adequately addresses the requirements of 40 CFR 146.4 supporting 
approval of the aquifer exemption request for the Lance Formation.

Section 146.4 (a)  The Formation Does Not Currently Serve as a Source 
for Drinking Water in the Vicinity of the Well Sites

    There are no drinking water wells extracting water from the Lance 
formation in the intervals and areas that are recommended for 
exemption. Current information indicates that there are no wells that 
could be affected by the injection of the waste in the two injection 
wells in question. The general ground water flow in the area is from 
the West-North West, putting the proposed injection wells and the 
exemption formation ``down-flow'' (down gradient) and at a considerable 
distance from any water well developed in the Lance formation. The 
nearest documented water well completed in the Lance formation is over 
24 miles to the west of the site. The exact use of this well is 
unknown, but appears to be associated with oil or gas development. 
Approximately 30 miles to the west, the Lance outcrops to the surface 
and wells developed there are for livestock use. Where the Lance 
Formation occurs near the surface at the western edge of the Powder 
River Basin 30 miles southwest of the exemption area, five wells 
extracted water from the Lance and Fox Hills formations to supply the 
municipalities of Midwest and Edgerton, WY, until 1997. At that time, 
the wells were abandoned because of low water productivity (40 gpm 
sustainable flow) and the expense of treatment that would be required 
to continue using these wells as a public water supply. The towns of 
Midwest and Edgerton have determined that piping in pre-treated water 
50 miles from Casper, WY is more economically feasible than continuing 
operation of the wells completed in the Lance/Fox Hills formations, 
even at the relatively shallow depth of 1,500 to 2,000 feet. The 
capital costs associated with the development and operation of a new 
well field for the municipalities prevented them from taking this 
option. Therefore, the Lance is no longer supplying water to a public 
drinking water system within 30 miles of the aquifer exemption area.

Section 146.4(b)(2)  The Formation Cannot and Will Not Serve as a 
Source of Drinking Water Because It Is Situated at a Depth or Location 
Which Makes Recovery of Water for Drinking Water Purposes Economically 
or Technologically Impractical

    The depth of the Lance Formation within the aquifer exemption area 
ranges from 4,009 to 6,496 feet at the location of Christensen 18-3, 
and from 3,818 to 6,320 feet at the location of the COGEMA DW No. 1 
well.
    The Wasatch Formation overlies the Lance Formation in the aquifer 
exemption area and provides a shallower, potential water supply source 
available for use in the area. According to the USGS publications 
referenced by COGEMA, any water supply wells (aside from water flood 
wells related to oil production) in the aquifer exemption area are 
completed in the Wasatch Formation. The Wasatch Formation is a high 
quality, prolific aquifer, located at approximately 1,200 feet in depth 
or shallower throughout the Powder River Basin, which includes the 
aquifer exemption area. The Wasatch Formation, alone, contains a volume 
of water that would supply a population of approximately 1.3 million 
people for 100 years. Given this abundant, shallow supply of high 
quality ground water, it is reasonable to conclude that the deeper 
Lance Formation will never be required to provide drinking water in the 
area of the aquifer exemption.
    COGEMA provided a cost evaluation for the capital costs and 
estimated operating costs for developing a private (50 gpm) and a 
public (750 gpm) drinking water well, including treatment costs based 
on the water quality analysis of samples collected from the Lance 
Formation as a water supply source within the aquifer exemption area. 
The costs to develop the Lance Formation within the exemption area were 
compared with estimated costs to develop the Wasatch Formation as an 
alternative public water supply (at the 750 gpm rate). The incremental 
cost increase to develop the

[[Page 14802]]

Lance Formation versus Wasatch Formation as a drinking water source for 
a public water supply is approximately $3,691,250. The incremental 
increase in operations and maintenance cost of using the Lance water 
over the Wasatch water as a drinking water source would be $2.40/1,000 
gallons.
    The Midwest-Edgerton public water supply scenario should be noted 
as the most compelling support for the approval of this aquifer 
exemption request and the infeasibility of using the Lance Formation as 
a public water supply. The five wells were abandoned in favor of piping 
drinking water in from Casper, WY. The decision to abandon these wells 
was based on the economic burden of treating the water and the low 
production rates of the wells, even though the costs of development had 
already been expended. Furthermore, the wells that used to serve the 
two municipalities tapped shallower portions of the Lance Formation as 
compared to any potential well tapping the Lance Formation within the 
aquifer exemption area. This added depth translates into significantly 
more expensive costs for the drilling and the operation of the wells.
    In summary, the Lance Formation will never be considered to be an 
economically feasible source of drinking water in the area of the 
aquifer exemption due to the great depth, low water production 
capacity, and treatment costs that will be incurred as shown by the 
Midwest-Edgerton wells experience. The cost of developing the Lance 
Formation as a drinking water supply within the aquifer exemption area 
is high compared to that of developing shallow, more prolific, and 
higher quality sources of drinking water, such as the Wasatch 
Formation. The Wasatch is better suited for development in this area as 
a source of drinking water due to higher producing capability, 
significantly better water quality, and lower or no water treatment 
costs.

V. Regulatory Impact/Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies 
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13054 because it is not 
economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and because the 
Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or 
safety risks authorized by this action impact children. The rule 
authorizes injection in a formation that is deep underground and 
separated from any aquifer that can provide drinking water. Therefore, 
it does not present any foreseeable effect on children's health and 
well being.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    There are no information collection requirements established by 
this rule. Therefore, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA), EPA generally is required to conduct a regulatory flexibility 
analysis describing the impact of the regulatory action on small 
entities as part of rulemaking. However, under section 605(b) of the 
RFA, if EPA certifies that the rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA is not 
required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. Pursuant to 
section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the 
Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. First, EPA 
is unaware of any small entities currently injecting into this aquifer, 
or using this aquifer as a source of drinking water. Furthermore, since 
this rule relieves existing regulatory requirements for entities 
injecting into the aquifer, this rule would have no regulatory impact 
on small entities, were there any.

E. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships

    Under Executive Order 12875 (48 FR 58093, October 28, 1993), EPA 
may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute and that 
creates a mandate upon a State, local or tribal government, unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by those governments or EPA consults with 
those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget a 
description of the extent of the EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the 
nature of their concerns, any written communications from the 
governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's rule does not create a mandate on a State, local or tribal 
government. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. The rule merely approves a request, from the State of 
Wyoming, to exempt the designated portions of the Lance Formation from 
classification as an underground source of drinking water.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for

[[Page 14803]]

Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on 
State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under 
section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written 
statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for and final rules with 
``Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, 
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of 
$100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule 
for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA 
generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of 
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective 
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the 
rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 
adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective 
or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the 
final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before 
EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it 
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government 
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected 
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to 
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provision of Title II of the UMRA), for State, local or tribal 
governments, or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable 
duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. 
Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 
and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has also determined that this rule contains no 
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affects 
small governments. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the 
requirements of section 203 of UMRA.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act (NTTAA), the Agency is required to use voluntary 
consensus standards in its regulatory and procurement activities unless 
to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, 
business practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standard bodies. Where available and potentially applicable 
voluntary consensus standards are not used by EPA, the Act requires the 
Agency to provide Congress, through the Office of Management and 
Budget, an explanation of the reasons for not using such standards.
    EPA does not believe that this rule addresses any technical 
standards subject to the NTTAA.

H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of 
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in 
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or 
uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. There are no tribal 
jurisdictions on or near the area of the exemption. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this rule.

I. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective on April 26, 1999.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 147

    Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations, Water 
supply.

    Dated: March 22, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 147 is amended 
as follows:

PART 147--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 147 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300h; and 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.

Subpart ZZ--Wyoming

    2. A new Sec. 147.2555 is added to subpart ZZ to read as follows:


Sec. 147.2555  Aquifer exemptions since January 1, 1999.

    In accordance with Sec. 144.7(b) and Sec. 146.4 of this chapter, 
the aquifers described in the following table are hereby exempted from 
the definition of an underground source of drinking water, as defined 
in 40 CFR 144.3:

[[Page 14804]]



                Aquifer Exemptions Since January 1, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Formation              Approx. depth           Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powder River Basin, only        3,800 to 6,800     Two cylindrical
 approximately 0.4 square        feet from          volumes with centers
 miles of the Lance Formation    surface.           in the wells COGEMA
 which is less than 0.005% of                       DW No. 1 and 18-3
 the Basin at indicated depths                      Christensen
 and location..                                     respectively, and
                                                    radius of 1,320
                                                    feet. Both wells are
                                                    located in the
                                                    Christensen Ranch,
                                                    in Johnson County,
                                                    WY. The COGEMA DW
                                                    No. 1 well is
                                                    located at
                                                    approximately 450
                                                    feet West of N/S
                                                    line and 100 feet
                                                    North of E/W line of
                                                    SE/4, NW/4, Section
                                                    7, T44N, R76W. The
                                                    18-3 Christensen
                                                    well is located
                                                    approximately 600
                                                    feet West of N/S
                                                    line and 550 South
                                                    of E/W line of NE/4,
                                                    NW/4, Section 18,
                                                    T44N, R76W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 99-7432 Filed 3-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P