Laserfiche WebLink
California Regional Water Quality Control Board <br /> Central Valley Region -A <br /> Winston H.Hickox Steven T.Butler,Chair <br /> Secretaryfor Gray Davis <br /> Sacramento blain Office <br /> Environmental Internet Address: http://M%-%v.swTcb.ca.gov/—rwgcb5 Governor <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 OFMONITORINGREPORTS,FOOTHILL SANNITARYLANI7FILL, SAN <br /> 1 JOA QUINCOUNTY(CA SENO. .1928) <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 count has elected to not conduct Y _ resampling when concentrations of • • . <br /> constituents are detected at"estimated"values,that is concentrations-that are less than the practical <br /> 1 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 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 />