ENFORCE37481 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and was an effort to save BMG certain expense. Ilikewise, I exercised the option not to initiate a second sampling until reviewing the third party's assessment of the situation. Sample analyses were completed on about January 8, then the Third party monitor took about two weeks to evalkuate the data and prepare the report. The Division received the t~ird party monitor's report on January 27. Although the third party monitor could have sampled several times between the date of first sampling and row, but it was evident to me that if the sampling was not being done properly, such trips would have been to little avail. Having spoken with you, Ms. Scott and Mr. Massey it is clear that BMRI believes that the Scope of Work has not been follwed to the letter of the agreement. Respecting your opinion, i a committed to evaluate this position with you in the next few weeks. The sampling schedule has obviously been re-arranged (because of problems I did not foresee in helping draft the MOU. Certainly, the scheduling issue will need to be re-visited, and it is my hope that all of the issues cited by the third party monitor,as well as scheduling can be addressed in a timely manner. I have arranged with Dean Massey, Alana Scott, Jim Pendleton, and ~.nne Maest (tentatively) to meet on the afternoon of February 19 at our offices. By that time you will have had the opportunity to review the third-party report and reassess the Sampling Protocol. The next sampling trip is scheduled for March 1-2, regardless of whether we are able to collect our abilities and finalijze changes in the MOU and Sampling Protocol. I trust this clears up your questions and gives you n adequate status report. Please contact me if you have further ~uestions. Sincerely, Harry Posey Geologist cc: Bruce Humphries-DMG Jim Pendleton-DMG Larry Oehler-DMG Alana Scott-BMG Anne Maest-RCG/HBI Dean Massey-PMH&S Enclosure HHP/hp M:\MIN\HHP\BALDRIGE.LTR