CORRESPONDENCE_2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Vinoo Jain - 2 - COMMENTS 2 -COMMENTS TO TENTATIVE WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CORRAL HOLLOW SANITARY LANDFILL r: Other Items 1. Finding 21(page 5) states that surface water drainage from the site is to Corral Hollow Creek. With few exceptions, surface water drainage is first into the retention pond or other lower elevation features of the site. Only if these features become flooded, which is an unlikely occurrence, would surface water reach Corral Hollow Creek. We therefore suggest that the first sentence of Finding 20 be revised to clarify this situation: Surface water drainage primarily is to the retention pond or to other lower elevation features on site. Overflow from these features, if such were to occur,would be to Corral Hollow Creek. 2. Finding 36 (page 7) states that samples for Volatile Organic Compounds analysis are collected from each soil gas monitoring probe. Actually, a gas sample is collected from one probe at each well, these probes having been previously selected based on having the greatest potential for samples with VOCs. Therefore, we suggest that the second sentence of Finding 36 be revised as follows: Each gas monitoring well is monitored through one of three probes installed at shallow, middle, and deep elevations for fixed gases quarterly. Gas samples are collected from one probe at each well and analyzed for Volatile Organic Compounds(VOCs)semiannually. 3. Finding 63 (page 11) states that the County and Caltrans both attended a meeting on 22 February 2011 to discuss an impending Water Code Section 13267 Order. Actually, Caltrans staff members were not at the meeting attended by County staff. The meeting with County staff included a general discussion that an Order would be issued, but not the specifics of the Order itself. With this in mind, it does not seem that this meeting is of sufficient importance to be included as a "Finding". However, if this meeting is included, then the text should be revised to reflect the actual attendees. Certainly more important is that County and Caltrans received the specific requirements of the Order in an email from Water Board staff on or about 17 June 2011. This allowed the County and Caltrans to develop a Memorandum of Understanding to address items in the Order. In recognition of this, please insert the following text at the end of Finding 63: The County and Caltrans received a draft of this Order on or about 17 June 2011. Without this information, readers will be left to speculate why the County and Caltrans were not able to develop a Memorandum of Understanding until June 2011 (Finding 64).