PERMFILE43283

• Permit No: M1999002
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 6/18/1999
• Doc Name: PREHEARING BRIEF OF GENERAL CHEMICAL
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

,.JUhl-19-1559 1299 :OTHGc PEr. JOHNSnN,°.L'ff_lN5 3G_17 6:i8 5252 F.c1
that an immediate eooeern for economic growth is not conducive to the detailed consideratiou
of regulatory requirements that must last, by American Soda's awn account, at least 30 years.
This is not as absttau concern. The Monitoring Program itself betrays hasty
preparation. For example, the premise of the direction of groundwater flows (p.~, on which
the appropriate location and number of the monitoring wells depends, is closer to assumption
than fact. No scientific evaluatiun of that premise is possible with the data tha[ have been
disclosed. [n the event that the supposed groundwater directions are incorrect, the entire
proposal for the location wad quantity of monitoring wells is likely to be flawed. Without the
data and detailed analysis of haw American Soda arrived at the conclusions concerning
groundwater flows, it is impossible to evaluate and approve the motutoring plait. Further, the
standards far some parameters, such as alkalinity, chloride, end sulfate, aze so extraordinarily
high that the baseline will not be meaningful. One blatant example is the PQL and MDL for
chloride which is off by several orders of tnagairude. The high tFtresholds will delineate a
baseline which reveals little, and which cannot provide a meaningful standard for later
monitoring.
The statute wisely counsels that the preliminary science be completed, wad digested in
tfte crucible of public eon~atent, before pressure is allowed to build for the commencement of
operations. The Monitoring Program is headed in the right direction but is is need of more
careful consideration and review, It must also be carried out before mining operations begin.
The second policy underlying the statute is a raognition that it is difficult to halt or
eves meaningfully adapt a project that is already under way. Comment 14 testifies to
American 5oda's desire w commence commercial operations as soon as passible. It is hard to
imagine that American Soda will have lost this desue after thirteen months of data have been
collected. Given [he poor choice of PQLs, we know in advance that the data will be
inconclusive, but one can anticipate that Americats Soda will insist on going forwazd because it
wi]I have satisfied the DMG's demands as embodied in the Monitoring Program. In the event
that tht: Moaitating Program is adjusted to provide for a sound baseline, and that the data
eventually ptrompts the DMG to propose conditions or bonding requirements which are
economically unacceptable to American Soda, there will be an equally predictable clash.
American Soda may be prepazed to take the regulatory risks associated with developing
baseline data after the fact, but these are not risks that the statute allows American Sada to
take. Further, American Soda was in a position to have avoided this kind of delay by
preparing a baseline while conducting its pilot plant opetations. It chose not to do so. and
there is nothing abou[ this choice that authorizes the DMG to waive the rcquitements of the
starute.
There are also other concerns about the methodology being smployed, whit11 likewise
argue that American Soda is not ready for permit authorization. At several points in the text
of page A-1 through A-3 of American 5oda's Environmental protection Plan Summary
Refrrence Document, American Soda addte~ses the issue of tonic materials that will be
disposed or disturbed as a result of mining operations. It does so by brief reference to
definitions in the rules; general denials [hat designated chemicals will be used; and broad