The agency's complaint is based on review of the terms of reference for two BHP studies, one on toxicity of the kimberlite pipes at the Lac de Gras site and another on tailings to be produced by the mine.

Chris Mills, a professional engineer who served as a consultant to the monitoring agency, said the tailing study's terms of reference are lacking in detail, has "critical omissions" and requires "standardization."

But such findings are "not unusual for large complex projects and there's nothing out of the ordinary here," Mills said.

His main problem with the BHP submission is that "it does not define exact test procedures to be used. I'm looking for tests that matched the Water Board hearing requirements."

Another problem is a lack of agreement on terms of reference and not enough detail.

"So we've discussed it (among the experts) and we'll work together to agree on terms of reference. Sometimes people use terms in different ways depending upon their field," he said in an interview.

In a letter written to Tony Pearse, vice-chair of the monitoring agency, Mills wrote about critical omissions of the Phase 1 laboratory testing. He said those omissions centre around a lack of detail and a need for standardization of terminology.

And Mills told News/North that "it's normal in a major project for licences to be issued with conditions. There's a lot of experts here and a lot who don't agree. The review process up here has been very, very thorough."

A review of the kimberlite toxicity study terms of reference by Andre Sobolewski of Microbial Technologies said he, too, found the draft terms of reference to be too ambiguous to be meaningful.

As for BHP, the company said last week that it's working on new terms of reference.

"Our water licence says we need to submit these terms of reference. And we did that. Now the monitoring agency has provided comments. We've redone the terms for the toxicity study and will resubmit in early August. We're consulting with a number of government agencies," said Graham Nicholls, manager of external relations for BHP Diamonds.

For the tailings study's terms of reference, "we received some comments and they were more minor in nature and we're responding to those comments and they'll go in at the same time."

The monitoring agency supports the findings of both reports -- that the company should use standard and appropriate terminology plus laboratory and field testing procedures should be clarified.

"We have a meeting scheduled for Aug. 27 to 29 in Yellowknife with BHP at our offices in the communications building," said Pedersen.

Many issues will be looked at and there'll be a review of what's been going on at the mine site to see if there's been any response at that time from the Water Board.

The Water Board sets the conditions and the monitoring agency ensures they're carried out. There have been two meetings since the agency was started, Pedersen said.