Laserfiche WebLink
. <br />11. Comment answered. <br />12. The Division does not accept the response. In a recent <br />example, cited in BMG's responses to comments in this section, <br />BMG sent identical samples to two independant EPA labs. The <br />labs reported dramatically different results, both using <br />standard methods. In a case like this, which valuE would you <br />accept; would you accept either? The Division insists that <br />responsibility for QA and QC reside both with the ll;b and with <br />BMG. Unless BMG has some way to periodically monitor the <br />quality of lab results, they must trust the lab Explicitly. <br />This is not good sampling procedure and will not lye accepted <br />a part of this protocol. This section must be re*addressed. <br />13. The response does not make sense. <br />addressed. <br />14. Comment answered. <br />RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY JAMES PENDLETON <br />1. Comment answered. <br />RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY JAMES STEVENS <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY DAVID HYATT <br />1. No comment. <br />2. Comment answered. <br />3. Comment answered. <br />This section must be re- <br />4. Because the MLRD regulates over 2000 mines, it is unreasonable <br />to assume that all reports will be studied in a timely way. <br />BMG should further its commitment to self-monitoring by <br />indicating in this protocol document that they wall make a <br />deliberate and timely effort to draw anomalous values to the <br />attention of MLRD. <br />5. Comment answered. <br />6. There is nothing in Dr. Hyatt's comments to indicatE he has an <br />academic interest in having BMG characterize the cotpditions of <br />the ponds fully. If the compositions of the process fluids <br />and local groundwater were known fully, BMG would be able to <br />