Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Letter to Andre' J. Douchane <br />Adequacy Comments - TR-007 Response <br />page 2 <br />no quantitative evaluation of the variability based on <br />sampling error. Thus, unless the Division receives <br />information to the contrary, we will interpret the data to <br />mean that, in the future, the ponds need to be sampled at <br />several points, both shallow and deep, in order to be <br />representative. A statement telling how and where the ponds <br />will be sampled, and whether these will be combined into a <br />composite sample, needs to be provided before this portion of <br />the technical revision can be approved. <br />2. Your Comment 1. Second paragraph. <br />See comments above. This response needs to provide for at <br />least a minimum number samples taken over at least a minimum <br />period of time. <br />3. Your Comment 4. Second Paragraph. <br />The "likelihood" that the Inco system will be operative before <br />inclement weather is not adequate response to the Division's <br />concerns. Unless BMG can guarantee that the Inco SOZ/Air <br />system will be on line before the ponds freeze, there needs to <br />be some provision for distributing HzO2 to a fYozen pond <br />through a mobile line, in accordance with other prcDvisions. <br />In the interest of facilitating your response to these adequacy <br />comments, I am forwarding them to you. If you have any questions <br />or need clarification please contact me. The Division is still <br />awaiting the receipt of technical adequacy comments from the other <br />parties. The parties have until the close of business on Thursday, <br />June 11th to submit their comments to your original TR-007 <br />application. Your adequacy response letter did not indicate copies <br />sent to the parties. If you over looked providing copies of your <br />response to the parties, please see that they are provided copies. <br />Sincerely, <br />Harry H. Pose <br />Reclamation Specialist <br />