Laserfiche WebLink
Y <br />Publi'c�_Works landtec as a magi helic. The shallow, intermediat , and deep probes were <br />tested and the negative pressure was the highest in probe 6 shallow (7.8 inches H2O). The <br />landtec was shutdown and the negative pressure drifted down to zero in less than 1 minute. <br />The other probes intermediate and deep exhibited a negative pressure around 4.0 inches of <br />H2O. Again the machine was shutdown and the pressure drifted to zero. <br />There was no effort on the part of Public Works to make changes to the probe. The <br />intermediate probe register 2.6% CH4. The shallow probe registered 0.3% CH4 and Deep was <br />2.2% CH4. The probes are monitored quarterly by Public Works contractor SCS. The <br />Environmental Health Department (EHD) was not trying to duplicate efforts, but merely spot <br />check wells during our inspection. I hope this addresses your concerns. <br />I have a few questions regarding this site and maybe you can help. <br />1. The probes at all of our sites seem to produce a sample with different efficiencies <br />(some are slow producers and others seem to be fine). Is there a standard for what <br />constitutes a plugged probe? Is there an approved methodology for determining this? <br />2. The sampling of the entire site is being done quarterly by SCS, is it necessary as part <br />of our inspection to sample all the probes quarterly, or just the probes that have been a <br />problem in the past? If you would like the EHD to sample all of the probe then we will <br />make it a part of the quarterly. Please let me know. <br />3. Have you had a chance to review Public Works last proposal to determine the extent of <br />the waste outside of the closure cap? <br />4. Probe #1 Deep as you know the screened interval is submersed in H2O. <br />This probe will require relocation. There are two options regarding this. One install the <br />probe in the closest location near the original location that is not subject to the <br />perched water. Or two raise the <br />screened interval to just above the perched water. <br />Please let me know what you are thinking regarding the sampling. Thanks Robert <br />Robert D. McClellon, Program Coordinator, REHS San Joaquin County Environmental Health <br />Department <br />304 E. Weber Ave, Third Floor <br />Stockton, CA 95202 <br />(209) 468-0332 <br />-----Original Message ----- <br />From: Yekta, Gino [mailto:GYekta@CIWMB.ca.gov] <br />Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:56 AM <br />To: Robert McClellon [EH] <br />Cc: Wochnick, Michael; Todd Del Frate <br />Subject: Corral Hollow Sanitary Landfill inspection <br />The latest inspection received at the Board dated 12/27/06 indicates that all of previous <br />ACs (inspection dated September 6, 2006) have been cleared; however, the issue with <br />ponding which was indicated as an AC still remains. Furthermore, it had been stated in <br />the same inspection that GW6 (intermediate and shallow) are plugged; however, there is no <br />mention of this problem being taken care of by the operator during the latest inspection <br />of December 2006. Gas monitoring from this probe apparently was conducted during December <br />2006 inspection and the results have been stated as below 5%. Are the results reliable <br />due to LEA's suggestion during September 2006 inspection that GW6 had been plugged. <br />Was there a reason to monitor only probes 3,6, and 7 and not the remaining probes at the <br />site? <br />Call or e-mail if you have any questions. <br />M <br />