Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Kluksdahl letter i <br />March 8, 1993 <br />Page 2 <br />We are not surprised that BMG/BMRI has sought to narrow th'e third party <br />sampler's scope of work. It remains clear that BMG/BMRI would restrict <br />the third party samplers work to verification rather than oversight, as <br />originally expressed during the drafting of the MOU ~nd Contract. <br />However, in light of the findings of the first third p rty sampling <br />event, the Division finds your interpretation of the narrowness of <br />scope of verification unacceptable. We are sensitive to the situation <br />under which the monitoring program was ordered by the ~oard, and we <br />have taken care to evaluate what background is necessary to complete <br />the data verification task. In that regard we forwarded to you our <br />interpretation of the first third-party monitor's re~ort (see my <br />February 11 letter to Anne Maest), and our opinions of the scope of <br />work with regard to that report have not changed as a x}esult of our <br />February 19 meeting. <br />As a result of our meeting, the Division intends to propose revisions <br />to the MOU to better clarify our understanding of the S~ope of work. <br />We also believe the anticipated work effort should be 'iincreased to <br />reflect unanticipated cost. We hope to complete proposed revisions to <br />the MOU this week. BMRI/BMG may either accept the language of the MOU, <br />' ~ or request to negotiate a resolution. In accordance with Section X of <br />°~+` the M.O.U., "Disputes," if we have not reached agreement within ten <br />~ v~ days following your receipt of our proposed amendments, you may forward <br />~~ your dispute to the Mined Land Reclamation Board for resolution. We <br />will work with you directly to iron out minor difference, of course, <br />but we wish to avoid further time-consuming exchanges. You should <br />recognize that the Division feels that the objections Iexpressed by <br />BMG/BMRI are consistent with your previous reservations, ~ut we desire <br />to foster reliable field procedures, reporting and recor keeping. <br />Despite our differences in interpretation of the Scope of Work in the <br />MOU, we believe the third party monitoring is accomplishing its <br />intended objectives, and that your geochemical program will improve as <br />a result of having received a comprehensive verification. We trust <br />that this issue will be resolved soon, and that we can shove forward. <br />If you have any questions or need assistance, please con~act us. <br />Sincerely, <br />Harry H. Posey <br />Geologist; Contract Administrator <br />