Laserfiche WebLink
STATE OF CAUFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,Governor <br /> CALIFORNIA PfEGIONAL WATE UALITY CONTROL ROAR®-- <br /> CEN,TRAL VALLEY REGION <br /> 3443 96LMER ROAD . • <br /> SACRAMENTO,CA 95827-3098 <br /> } k <br /> r <br /> v <br /> 28 November 1988 <br /> Mr. Stephen Chen <br /> Deputy Pub?i_c Works Director <br /> City of Stockton <br /> City Hall <br /> Stockton, CA 95202 <br /> REPORT OF WASTE DISCHARGE (RWD) , AUSTIN ROAD LANDFILL, STOCKTON, SAN JOAQUIN <br /> COUNTY (CASE NO. 2148) <br /> We have reviewed the Report of Waste Discharge for Austin Road Landfill and have <br /> the. following comments: <br /> 1. In the original proposal for disposal of 'nonhazardous' digested sludge <br /> from the Stockton Main Wastewater Treatment Plant a quantity of 1.5,000 <br /> cubic yards was proposed. In the RWD the figure 5,000 cubic yards was <br /> used. The exact: quantity must be detailed so that the percentage of sludge <br /> in the foundation layer can be defined. <br /> 2. _ More closure details are needed (i .e. , percentage of sludge in foundation <br /> layer, wastes in foundation, type of vegetative cover, etc, ). The waste <br /> discharge requirements (WDRs) will specify when a.c=lsure plan will be due. <br /> Our approval of a closure plan will not relieve the City from meeting more <br /> stringent requirements of the California Waste. Management Board which may <br /> e prescribed to meet AB 2448, Eastin. <br /> 3. The RWD outlines two alternatives for perimeter drainage control . Which <br /> alternative is to be used, and when will it be operational? <br /> 4. A plan for the use and monitoring of the south area must be submitted to <br /> the Board for approval before any discharge to the area can take place. <br /> The monitoring well system in place is inadequate to monitor the south <br /> area. This plan should include the proposed locations for any new well(s). <br /> 5. •There seems to be a discrepancy in the monitoring well designations. The <br /> RWD and the SWAT Proposal , dated July 1988, both have MW-1 in the northwest <br /> corner, MW-2 in the southwest, MW-3 in the southeast, and MW-4 in the <br /> northeast. The monitoring report, dated 1.3 July 1988, included in Appendix <br /> D. 'has Well No® I (NE corner) , Well No. 2 (NW corner) , Well No. 3 (SE <br /> corner) and Well No. 4 (SW corner) . Please notify us of the correct <br /> designations, and revise the monitoring reports to reflect the same. <br />