Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. J. David Holm <br />Water Quality Control Division <br />Page 8 <br />concept because it did not represent an effective solution to the water quality issues being <br />addressed in TR-26 and advised BMG representatives not to pursue further engineering <br />work on the concept. The slurry wall concept was also advanced to WQCD in the <br />context of BMG's proposed measures to respond to the issuance of the NOV/CD. On the <br />basis of subsequent discussions with WQCD representatives we were advised that <br />WQCD concurred with the DMG assessment and rejection of the slurry wail concept. <br />BMG believes that the slurry wall concept has been thoroughly reviewed and rejected, <br />and does not merit further consideration under this permit. <br />Groundwater Dischar¢es <br />A number of commenters asserted that there aze "dischazges [o groundwater" which <br />should be covered in the draft permit. Contrary to these assertions, under Rule 41.6 (B), <br />promulgated by the Colorado Water Quality Control Division, the DMG is the <br />"implementing agency" for the purposes of regulating the point of compliance for <br />dischazges to groundwater. As noted above, TR-26 is an enforceable part of the DMG <br />permit and, in conjunction with TR-15, establishes and regulates the points of compliance <br />for groundwater surrounding the operation. In addition, a number of these commenters <br />asserted that the conditions at the BMG facility constituted a threat to the water supply of <br />the Town of San Luis. These assertions aze without any legitimate technical support of <br />documentation. The January 18, 2000 EPA letter cited by commenters was subsequently <br />clarified in a February 17, 2000 letter from EPA. The DMG, the agency responsible for <br />groundwater regulation of the operation, responded to the original EPA letter on January <br />28, 2000 and rebutted the fundamental assumptions behind the EPA analysis. In a final <br />letter responding to EPA dated Mazch 8, 2000, the WQCD stated "both EPA and DMG <br />have concluded that the District's source water is not now endangered, nor is it <br />reasonably likely to be endangered, by contamination associated with the Mining <br />operation". Copies of each of the letters aze attached (Attachment C). The commenters <br />were copied on each of these letters and yet failed to acknowledge them in their <br />comments. BMG believes that such an approach is irresponsible and is intended to <br />