Laserfiche WebLink
<br />David Berry <br />March 1, 1990 <br />Page 4 <br />RESPONSE: <br />The site was vandalized sometime after the June reading and it was not <br />repaired in time to obtain the other readings. <br />MLRD COMMENT: <br />5. The field parameter measurements were missed for Site 800 during <br />September; however, extra samples were taken in October and April. <br />RESPONSE: <br />The required 12 samples per year were obtained, which is in compliance with <br />the plan. <br />MLRD COMMENT: <br />6. Why is selenium analyzed for total selenium rather than total <br />recoverable selenium for Sties 700, 800 and 900? <br />RESPONSE: <br />The U.S.G.S. laboratory did the water quality analysis during this water <br />year and they use the total procedure rather than the total recoverable. <br />This is a more rigorous methodology and should provide useful data. <br />However, the U.S.G.S. is no longer doing the water quality work and the <br />commercial lab will be reporting the total recoverable concentration of the <br />metal. <br />MLRD COMMENT: <br />7. Has CYCC developed a reliable rating curve for Site 8? How often is <br />the channel cross section checked to verify curve reliability? This <br />issue also applies to the other monitoring stations where rating curves <br />are used. <br />RESPONSE: <br />Typically, the cross sections are checked three times per year, and it is <br />believed this is adequate for the installations and in the monitoring <br />program. <br />MLRD COMMENT: <br />8. Bicarbonate was not reported for the February, April and July samples <br />taken at Site 900. <br />RESPONSE: <br />Bicarbonate for three months at Site 900 is as follows: <br />February 22 - 506 mg/1 <br />April 22 - 250 mg/1 <br />July 27 - 261 mg/1 <br />MLRD comments numbered 9 and 10 do not require any response. <br />