Laserfiche WebLink
• Monit6ring Report Compliance Checklist <br /> Discharges Regulated by Title 27 and/or Part 258 <br /> RWQCB <br /> Reference Parameter Yes No N/A Reviewer Comment <br /> WDRs/MRP/ Groundwater Monitoring <br /> Standard <br /> Provisions 1. Are all groundwater Field Parameters X <br /> (Sept 93/Aug 97) Monitoring Parameter, and CDCs <br /> (if required) samples and analyzed? <br /> Cl,N,and SO4 over concentration limit <br /> m. Have any groundwater concentration X in MW-1,MW-2,and MW-3. <br /> limits been exceeded? If yes, identify Methylene chloride detected in MW-2 <br /> in comments. and field and trip blanks. 1,1 <br /> Dichloroethene and Trichloroethene <br /> n. Is there a description and graphical were detected in MW-3. <br /> presentation of groundwater flow X <br /> direction and gradient? <br /> o. Monitoring Wells: Is there a <br /> description,method, and time X <br /> of water level measurement and <br /> well recovery time? <br /> p. Purging: Is there a description X <br /> of the purging method,purge <br /> pump and its placement, and <br /> field parameters? <br /> Additional Comments and Recommendations: <br /> • TCE (0.717 ppb) and 1,1 DCE (0.316 ppb) were detected in MW-3. <br /> • The revised Evaluation Monitoring Plan was received 21 March 2001 and has been reviewed. The response <br /> has been sent under separate transmittal. <br /> • Methylene chloride was detected in MW-2 and in the trip and field blanks, so the County believes it to be a <br /> laboratory contaminant. It was not detected in MW-1. <br /> • ANOVA was performed and the results showed a variance in Chloride,Nitrate, Sulfate, and EC in both <br /> down gradient wells. There were no significant increasing trends. <br /> RWQCB Staff Signature: <br /> Date: �G G <br />