CORRESPONDENCE_2003-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Monitoring Report Compliance P p *cklist i Discharges Regulated by Title 27 and/or Part 258 4 Reference Parameter Yes No N/A Reviewer Comment WDRs u. Is there a summary of the monitoring X Standard results indicating any changes made Provisions or observed since the previous annual (1993,1997,2000) report? X v. Is there an evaluation of the effectiveness of the leachate monitoring/control facilities? Standard w. Is there a discussion about the X Provisions annual LCRS testing and a (April 2000) comparison to earlier testing? or check WDRs Violations Noted? (check one) Yes x No If Yes, check all issues that apply and provide comments: x Incomplete transmittal letter Comments (to be entered into SWIM): x Incomplete report Late report. Inaccurate notation of COCs in groundwater. Inadequate monitoring program Failure to perform discrete retest for VOCs per Title 27. New release Upgradient well MW-1 may be impacted with VOCs. Inadequate response to evidence of a release WDRs violation other than listed above Other(explain in comments) Additional Comments and Recommendations: - Anomalously high TDS of 360 mg/L (10/14/02) in upgradient MW-1. See Table 1 &Time Series Charts in Appendix F. TDS was 170 mg/l on 8/1/02. Increase not noted in report. Field EC shows low value of 250. EC cannot be lower than TDS. County should provide explanation for inconsistency. - Report mentions MTBE and 1,4-Dichlorobenzene in MW-1 and MW-3. No resampling performed because County states they are in evaluation monitoring. MW-1, upgradient well should be replaced with new upgradient well if contaminated. Constituent(µg/L) MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 Comment (upgradient) MTBE 1.4 BL ND Not noted correctly in text, table, and/or graphs 5.3 Seq ND Correct 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.8 BL ND Not noted correctly in text, table, and/or a hs