Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />988/89.8888 <br />soo~o~~~~s <br />COMMERCIAL LABORATORIES <br />A DIVISION OF ACZ INC. <br />1P LINCOLN a V E. <br />PO B0%1'01° March 2 <br />$iEPMB04T SPRINGS CO B0OI , 1984 <br />Mr. Slade Dingman <br />Peabody Coal Company <br />10375 E. Harvard Avenue <br />Suite 400 <br />Denver, Colorado 80231 <br />Dear Slade: <br />In response to your letter of February 22nd, I have made a detailed <br />investigation of the cadmium and lead analyses performed on your water <br />samples which you had listed as suspect. Below are my findings from <br />that investigation. <br />After reviewing the cadmium analytical data, it does appear that we <br />have had the same instrument drift which occurred on your samples <br />analyzed November 29th and December 3, 1983. Attached are the <br />corrected cadmium values for the suspect samples. <br />We determined why the drift problem for cadmium is occurring and have <br />taken corrective action to prevent it in the future. <br />My investigation into the lead analyses has failed to reveal any <br />analytical problems which may be causing high lead values for your <br />samples. I have throughly reviewed the raw analytical data for the <br />lead analysis runs which included your samples. I have also reviewed <br />the data for all other lead analysis runs. From the runs which <br />included your samples, I have compiled all the quality control data <br />into a table for your review. <br />There appears to be no instrument drift, as was the case with cadmium. <br />Blank values for lead have been low and most of the lead values we <br />have reported have been at or near the detection limit of the method. <br />All other quality control data has been well within our control limits <br />and would indicate that the procedure is producing acceptable data. <br />