Laserfiche WebLink
-. , <br /> <br />Review of 5/31194 Golder Response Letter <br />From H. Posey to B. Keffelew; 6/7/94 <br />Page 3 <br />The Division does not interpret these stipulations to be either particularly difficult to understand <br />or too onerous to comply with. Our consistent interpretation of water quality issues has been <br />that DMG regulates pollutants at their sources whereas CDH regulates pollutants at their points <br />of entrance into waters of the State or the United States. V/ater at any point above a discharge <br />point or a compliance point is regulatable by DMG, and may exceed discharge standards because <br />at that point it is process water. Such water may not leave a site by any means unless it meets <br />water quality standards. This approach in no means that the Division of Minerals and Geology <br />is regulating water quality of the waters of the State or of the United States. It means that the <br />Division is regulating the sources of potential water pollution. <br />Finally, statements made in this memo should not be const~ved to satisfy adequacy concerns that <br />were expressed previously, and which led to Stipulation 17. The Division emphasizes that <br />reiteration of the data already available in the Amendment documents, as was submitted in <br />Golder's letter of May 31, is not a satisfactory response to Stipulation 17. Stipulation 17 has <br />not been adequately addressed. <br />cc: Bruce Humphries <br />Jim Pendleton <br />Carl Mount <br />Allen Sorenson <br />Greg Squire <br />Bill York-Feirn <br />m : \min\hhp\golder. mem <br />