Laserfiche WebLink
JUFI-19-1999 1203 F.OTHGEfiBEP. JOHNSOh13LY0N5 3G_17 638 6262 P.G]7 <br />. ,. • • <br />However, General Chemical's objection to the DMG's current position does not rest on <br />speculation about the positions the DMG might take. The defect of the DMG Response ran be <br />stated as two main points. <br />1. A Maaitoring Program that oaly leads to the establishmeat of standardf is not <br />the acme u the establishment of standards which ii required by the Rula. <br />The establishment of numeric protection levels after the completion of the Monitoring <br />Program is inconsistent with the plain language of the Rules. The Rules require the establishment <br />of permit conditions as part of the permit application. Rule 3.I.7(3)(a) states that the app]ication <br />"shall include permit conditions pursuant to paragraph 3.1.7(2)." If the application must include <br />conditions, then it is not enough for the application to include only a means to eventually include <br />conditions. Rule 3.1.7(2) has three subparts, each of which supports the conclusion that permit <br />conditions must be part of the permit application. <br />First, Rule 3.1.7(2)(a) states that "pemrit conditions shall be established for each <br />operation" like that of American Soda, and that such permit conditions "maybe in the form of <br />turmeric protection levels.. ° [italics supplied) The permit conditions must be established as part of <br />the application, and must be in the form of standards such as the numeric protection standard, <br />although the type of the condition may vary. There is nothing in the Rule which allows the <br />applicant to propose, or the DMG to accept, a plan for defemng the establishment of such <br />standazds. In partieulaz, a variation in the type of standard, i.e., practice-based or numeric, does <br />not allow an applicant to defer establishment of tfie standazd. <br />