03 - Laserfiche WebLink

® ®TechLaw qn.~,,,r ,. i,~,re.,,,. Mr. David Darlington July 1~4, 2006 Page 3 TECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The following technical/environmental issues were brought to the attention of the CMC by TechLaw since February 2005: Waste Acceptance Limitations In a memorandum to the CMC dated April 12, 2005, TechLaw raised questions regarding waste acceptance limitations. It was not clear from the information included in the monthly tonnage reports whether AI,RRF was in compliance with the settlement agreement limitations, in particular for special waste from outside the 9 Bay Area counties. TechLaw subsequently obtained reports from WMAC which clarified quantities accepted in teens of settlement agreement limits (information which could not be derived from the tonnage reports) and demonstrated compliance with those limits. TechLaw also evaluated the definition of disposal in terms of ADCs in view of the language in Alameda County's Measure U and in consultation with StopWaste.org. TechLaw concluded that WMACs calculation of disposal volumes was consistent with the existing regulations and the intent of Measure D, and that those volumes were in compliance with the settlement agreement. Groundwater Interceptor Barrier In a memorandum dated April 27, 2005, TechLaw raised concerns about the decommissioning ofthe groundwater interceptor barrier (GWIB). It appeared that contaminants may have been detected in the GWIB in excess of the Water Quality Standard, and that termination of extraction from the GWIB may have been inappropriate. Upon further evaluation of the data, and evaluation of a report discussing the effects of the termination pilot study (letter from TechLaw to the CMC dated September 13, 2005), the Water Quality Standard has been met at the GWfB. VOCs have not been detected at the GW[B at concentrations above reporting limits in over four years of monitoring. "I'he other `9andtill constituents" nitrate, total dissolved solid (TDS), and chlorido, were within control limits. TechLaw agreed that it appears at this time that continued extraction fi'om the GWIB in unnecessary. Groundwater Monitoring TechLaw identified potential concerns with groundwater monitoring procedures (ALRRF Community Monitor Progress Keport No. 8 dated March 21, 2006) including stabilization of parameters in Well G-21 before sampling, collection of an adequate number of stabilization parameters from G-O5, and L-07 and adequate purge volmnes. These issues were brought to the attention of WMAC to be corrected during subsequent monitoring events. AL1'016 -Community Monitor t:valuation.wpd