Laserfiche WebLink
Monitoring Report Compliance Checklist <br /> Discharges Regulated by Title 27 and/or Part 258 <br /> RWQCB <br /> Reference Parameter Yes No N/A Reviewer Comment <br /> WDRs/MRP/ Groundwater Monitoring <br /> Standard <br /> Provisions 1. Are all groundwater Field Parameters X <br /> (Sept 93/Aug 97) Monitoring Parameter, and COCs <br /> (if required) sampled and analyzed? <br /> in. Have any groundwater concentration X Several VOCs detected in G-1. <br /> limits been exceeded? If yes, identify MTBE detected in G-31). <br /> in comments. <br /> n. Is there a description and graphical X <br /> presentation of groundwater flow <br /> direction and gradient? <br /> o. Monitoring Wells: Is there a X <br /> description,method, and time <br /> of water level measurement and <br /> well recovery time? <br /> p. Purging: Is there a description X <br /> of the purging method,purge <br /> pump and its placement, and <br /> field parameters? <br /> Additional Comments and Recommendations: <br /> Retest results already received for G-1 and G-3D. VOCs in G-1 were not confirmed. The test for G-31)was <br /> inconclusive because the laboratory method used a higher reporting level than used previously during the <br /> quarterly sampling. Retest G-31) at lower reporting level using U.S. EPA Method 8260B. <br /> Annual sampling in 1999 indicated the presence of hexavalent chromium in both downgradient wells. Our <br /> letter of 25 May requested a retest of these wells with results reported to the Regional Board by 15 July. The <br /> county elected not to retest based on similar detects at Harney Lane and Foothill (their letter dated 22 June). <br /> County reports that a new pump will be placed in G-1. When will this occur? <br /> County reports that new downgradient well will be installed the week of August 7`h <br /> RWQCB Staff Signature: /Z <br /> Date: 3 August 2000 <br />