Laserfiche WebLink
�~I I't 0 4 <br />STP OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor <br />CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD— r6ro,"'"� <br />CENTRAL VALLEY REGION <br />3443 ROUTIER ROAD, SUITE A <br />SACRAMENTO, CA 95827-3098w.m <br />28 August 1990 <br />147 <br />a y <br />AUG 3 <br />Z 1. <br />Mr. Steve Chen <br />IRMII <br />Deputy Public Works Director <br />City of Stockton <br />Stockton, CA 98202 <br />VERIFICATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND REPORT OF WASTE DISCHARGE, FRENCH CAMP <br />LANDFILL, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CASE NO. 3032 <br />I have reviewed the Verification Monitoring Program And Report of Waste Discharge <br />for French Camp Landfill. The following comments are in regard to the <br />Verification Monitoring Program (VMP) portion of the report: <br />1. You state that monitoring well MW -3 was inadvertently damaged and buried. <br />What damage was done to the monitoring well, and how was it repaired? <br />2. Ground water samples taken in August 1989 were analyzed for, and found to <br />contain, semivolatile organic compounds using EPA Method 625. However, <br />ground water samples taken in May 1990 were not analyzed for semivolatile <br />organic compounds using EPA Method 625. What was the basis for the <br />decision not to evaluate these parameters? <br />3. The report states that the soil method blank for EPA Method 8240 was lost <br />in a laboratory accident. This is not the case. A review of the <br />Certified Analytical Reports shows that the soil method blank for EPA <br />Method 8270 was lost. <br />4. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was found in boring SB -3 and was attributed to <br />laboratory contamination. The method blank for EPA Method 8270 for the <br />May 1990 analysis was lost due to a laboratory accident. However, this <br />compound was detected in MW -3 during the August 1989 sampling event, and <br />was not found in the method blank. Therefore, the conclusion that the <br />detection of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was probably due to laboratory <br />contamination is unfounded. <br />5. Acetone was found in all of the soil samples taken in May 1990. However, <br />it was not detected in the method blank. Acetone was also detected during <br />the November 1988 and August 1989 sampling events and was not detected in <br />the method blanks. Therefore, it seems likely that the source of the <br />acetone is not laboratory contamination. <br />The following are my comments regarding the Report of Waste Discharge (RWD) <br />portion of the subject report. Responses to these comments are needed to <br />complete the draft Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). <br />1. What are the Assessor's Parcel Numbers for the site? <br />