Laserfiche WebLink
JUN-19-1999 12 04 F.OTHGER9ER JOHN60N3LYON5 3cJ7 638 6252 P.59 <br />.~ • • <br />protection levels rosy not be deferred for thirteen months while the Monitoring Progam is being <br />conducted, and American Soda may not proceed with development activities in the interim. <br />Further, the establishment of standards after tfie application has been granted is <br />inconsistent with the Rules for public participation. Rule 1.7.1 provides for comments on any <br />permit application. However, until the results are in, there are limits on the meaningful comment <br />that can be made on either the Monitoring Progatt>, or appropriate numeric protection levels. An <br />objector would also be foreclosed entirely from questioning whether Monitoring Program has <br />been properly carried out. <br />The DMG Response to Comment Number 20 is an argument for an exception to the <br />statute and Rules. The exception is contrary to the requirements of Rule 3.I.7(3). <br />2. Collection of data don sot eliminate the need for esereise of judgment, and <br />therefore cannot eliminate pressures to e:ereise judgment in favor of the project once it u <br />underway. <br />The DMG assumes that the data collection effort contemplated by the Monitoring <br />Program will be successful. It does not account far the possibility that the exeation of the <br />Program may prove to be flawed, or that the results may in some other way be inconclusive or <br />unsatisfactory. This is oat mere speculation. One of the American Soda wells which had <br />produced suspect data has already been removed from consideration. As a General Chemical <br />witness will note, goundwater quality may not be uniform in the aquifer, and gaundwater Sows <br />