Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Although we have not received the first report from the 3rd Party <br />sampler, Dr. Maest did indicate by phone that she will comment on <br />use of the cadmium-nitrate technique, and will recommend that it be <br />curtailed in future sampling. <br />CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS <br />I have put in a call to the Health Department Toxicology group to <br />inquire about the standards (they seem low). Until I clear up my <br />doubts about the standards I could not stand firm on any <br />recommendation regarding the toxicity effects of this element. <br />Furthermore, given that the sampling and analysis protocol provides <br />for a method whose detection limits are above the state standards, <br />there is more to be investigated. <br />While waiting for the CDH to respond, I recommend that you contact <br />Battle Mountain, ask them to explain all of the analyses, and re- <br />address and support the notion of field contamination. At a <br />minimum, the next sampling trip should collect and analyze from all <br />of the points that showed elevated values, and have those samples <br />analysed on rapid turnaround. <br />We should wait to read Dr. Maest's comments on the cadmium-nitrate <br />technique, and use that to our benefit if possible. <br />The fact that Halepaska failed to state definitively that the high <br />values are from field contamination leaves ogen the possibility <br />that at least some of the values are real. If the next suite of <br />samples show elevated values, we should contact WQCD. I do not <br />recommend contacting them until we can verify the data and the high <br />Cd values. <br />cc: Jim Stevens <br />Jim Pendleton <br />m:\min\hhp\cadmium <br />3 <br />