Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> E <br /> California Regional otter ality ' trl oar <br /> Central Valley Region <br /> Steven T.Butler,Chair <br /> Winston H.Hickox Gray Davis <br /> Secrelary for Sacramento Main Office Governor <br /> Environmental Internet Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/--wgcb5 <br /> Protection 3443 Routier Road,Suite A,Sacramento,California 95827-3003 <br /> Phone(916)255-3000•FAX(916)255-3015 <br /> 25 May 2000 <br /> Mr. Wes Johnson '`' <br /> County of San Joaquin <br /> Department of Public Works <br /> .P.O. Box 1810 , <br /> Stockton, CA 95201 - - <br /> REVIEW OFMO 7TOEINGAEPORTS,FOOTHILL SANITARYLANDFILL,SAN <br /> JOA(,JUINCOUNTY(CASENO. "25) <br /> Regional Board staff has reviewed two monitoring reports for the Foothill Sanitary Landfill: <br /> • Foothill Sanitary Landfill, Fourth Quarter and Annual Report for 1999, Groundwater and <br /> Surface Water Monitoring Report, dated 15 January 2000, and <br /> • Foothill Sanitary Landfill, First Quarter 2000, Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring <br /> Report, dated 15 April 2000. <br /> During the October sampling event,monitoring well MW-2 was unable to be sampled on the first two <br /> attempts (on 21 October and 26 October). The well was eventually sampled on 3 November,while <br /> MW-1 and MW-3 were sampled on 21 October. The two-week difference in sampling dates is not <br /> acceptable for this monitoring program. Additionally, your consultants should have provided evaluation <br /> of the sampling problem within the text of the report. Please provide such evaluation at this time to <br /> determine if well MW-2 is adequately constructed for future monitoring. <br /> Staff has noticed that the county has elected to not conduct resampling when concentrations of <br /> constituents are detected at"estimated"values, that is concentrations that are less than the practical <br /> quantitation limit,but greater than the method detection limits. Constituents that have a concentration <br /> limit of"detect"must be retested even though the detected amount is an estimated value. To be in <br /> compliance with Title 27, these detects should still prompt a retest to demonstrate if a release is <br /> indicated. Phenol was detected in monitoring well MW-2,but was not resampled during the next <br /> quarterly sample event since it had been analyzed only as part of the 5-Year Constituents of Concern <br /> monitoring. The county shall resample for phenol in monitoring well MW-2. Additionally, during the <br /> First Quarter 2000 sampling event,trichloroethylene was detected at an estimated concentration in <br /> downgradient well,MW-3. This should also be resampled. The resampling should be completed prior <br /> to 30 June and results reported to the Regional Board by 15 July 2000. <br /> I have attached a copy of each quarter's Monitoring Report Compliance Checklist that will be included <br /> in the case file for Foothill Sanitary Landfill. Please note the comments included at the end of each <br /> checklist. Your responses to the comments in this letter and in the checklist should be submitted to staff <br /> of the Regional Board by 30 June 2000. <br /> California Environmental Protection Agency <br /> �a Recycled Paper <br />