Laserfiche WebLink
<br />RESPONSE TO PAGE-BY-PAGE COMMENTS BY HARRY POSEY <br />1. [No response required.) <br />2. [No response required.) <br />3. [No response required.) <br />4. The Division expects that RS-S and RS-ti, M-2, M-6, M-7, M-8 and M-9 will be <br />monitoring bi-weekly. <br />RESPONSE: This is also BMR's understanding on the bi-weekly sampling regNirements. <br />5. (No response required.) <br />6. It appears that BMRI did not understand the intent of this comment, perhaps <br />because of my imprecision. <br />Ordinarily, all sample bottles sem to the lab should be completely full. Anything <br />less than a full bottle should indicate to the lab either leakage pr !ow sample <br />availability. 77te sampling protocol should account for tl~e disposition of partial <br />samples, and make the lab responsible for noting such somplgs. If partial <br />samples are to be supplied to the lab, BMRI should evaluate the probable e,~ects <br />on the analyses of agitation, and error, during shipment. <br />RESPONSE: All samples taken from the tailings facility, the ground water monitoring wells <br />and the surface water stations should be sufficient to fill the samplC bottles. The <br />sampling protocol will make provision for the laboratory to notate Sample bottles <br />that are not full and may be indicative of leakage. <br />If sample bottles are sent to the laboratory in other than less than full condition, <br />it will be noted on the chain-of-custody form. <br />7. [No response required.) <br />8. [No response required.) <br />9. 77te Division does not accept the response. If water of any sort is found in a well <br />that ordinarily does not cotuain fluid, BMRI should immediately investigme the <br />problem. BMRI must develop an adequate protocol for addressing this issue. It <br />is unreasonable to assume that a laboratory method should be deemed more <br />important than a field observation. BMRI should know the compostkions offluids <br />-4- <br />