Laserfiche WebLink
determinations under the Order, the Division considered all relevant information related <br />to Battle Mountain's MLRB Permit, including technical pnedietions, as well as all <br />information in the Division's possession with respect to the facility. <br />12. Shalom Ranch commented that the Order does not address the possibility of <br />impacts of groundwater contamination occurring beyond Battle Mountain's own property <br />boundaries. Shalom Ranch also expressed concern that the Order does not identify the <br />lateral extent of the dischazges from the West Pit, the boundaries of the plume of <br />groundwater contamination, the specific locations of seepage points along the Rito Seco, <br />or the volttme of discharges to surface or groundwater. Similarly, the Groups stated that <br />the Order fails to account for the significance of groundwater discharges and their effect <br />on the Rito Seco, and specifically fails to identifi~ the volume of seepage. <br />As an initial matter, the Division does not have jurisdiction over "discharges to <br />groundwater." Uader the WQCA, the MLRB and DMG are authorized to regulate such <br />discharges as "implementing agencies," while the Division retains authority o ver <br />discharges to surface water. Ibis regulatory dichotomy necessitates coordination <br />between the agencies incases such as this where contaminants are dischazged into <br />groundwater and travel via groundwater to surface waters. In ligltt of the WQCA's <br />jurisdictional mandates, however, the Division's Order does not address "dischazges to <br />groundwater" per se; its determinations with respect to penalties only cover the discharge <br />of pollutants to the surface waters of the Rito Seco. Accordingly, the Order d~~es not <br />address the possibility of impacts of groundwater contamination occurring be~~ond Battle <br />Mountain's own property boundaries. The Division notes, however, that according to <br />monitoring information conducted pursuant to TR-26, the contaminated groundwater <br />plume is at least 1.8 miles from the "downstream" boundary of Battle Mountain's 3q <br />property (as the plume has not reached the DMG compliance well, M????) ^t~ation <br />regazding the extent/boundaries of the groundwater plume is documented witt. the MLRB <br />as part of Battle Mountain's groundwater monitoring and containment prograzn under <br />TR-26, and is available to the public through the MLRB. <br />The Order does not specifically identify the lateral extent of the discharges from <br />the West Pit, the specific locations of seepage points along the Rito Seco, or the volume <br />of discharges to surface water. However, the penalty determinations containe,I therein <br />are based on in-stream water quality data from monitoring station RS-5 at Battle <br />Mountain's downstream property boundary. The data indicate elevated levels of <br />pollutants at RS-5, which are the result of the groundwater window and surface seeps <br />from the West Pit. Accordingly, the Order takes into consideration the amount and types <br />of pollutants that were dischazged from the West Pit through surface seeps anti the <br />groundwater window. <br />13. CCCD and PAES similarly commented that the Order does not recognize the "full <br />range of pollutants" which have been detected in the seep and the pollutants which have <br />been found downstream of the West Pit. <br />The Division believes that the Order fiilly addresses the pollutants of concern as <br />required to protect the classified uses of the Rito Seco, and that its determinations are <br />LO'd LT:£i 00, 6 End 8S5£998£0£:Xe~ _ <br />