SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

• MEMORANDUM • CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD - CENTRAL VALLEY REGION 3443 Routier Road, Suite A Phone: (916) 255-3000 Sacramento, CA 95827-3098 CALNET: 8-494-3000 TO: Antonia K. J. Vorster FROM: Camilla Williams Senior WRC Engineer Engineering Geologist DATE: 26 April 1993 SIGNATURE: YltGJi�L ✓P� SUBJECT: 23 MARCH 1993 MEETING, DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION REGION WEST (DDRW), TRACY, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY On 23 March 1993, James Taylor and I attended a meeting for DDRW, Tracy to discuss the Site-Wide Werk Plan. Our review of the Draft Site-Wide Work Plan was dated 9 April 1992. The Draft Site-Wide Work Plan was prepared by Woodward Clyde Consultants. A year ago, a working meeting was held on 23 to 24 April 1992 to discuss the Site-Wide Work Plan in order to determine the necessary investigation for each waste management unit (WMU) and underground storage tank (UST) . In Fall 1992, the Corps of Engineers (Co E) entered into a new contract with Montgomery Watson to conduct the site-wide remedial investigation (RI) for DDRW, Tracy and at DDRW, Sharpe for the remedial design (RD) of the Central Area. During the March 1993 meeting we discussed the specific Montgomery Watson proposals for the site-wide investigation which is slated for field work beginning in Spring 1993. Montgomery Watson handed out a summary of the proposed activities (attached) . Upon review of this document during the meeting, it became apparent that many of the concepts and issues that we thought we had achieved consensus upon in the April 1992 Meeting with the previous contractor, were not being proposed by the new contractor. The major issues which appear to have had disconnects between the contractors are listed below: 1 . Use of the Tri-Regional Recommendations for the investigation of the fuel USTs. 2. Use of a HydropunchT' as a screening tool in order to determine if a monitoring well at a WMU or UST is necessary. 3. Performing analyses for soluble concentrations on soil samples in order to assess the threat to water quality. The CoE and Montgomery Watson agreed to address Items No. 1 and 3 listed above. However, they maintain that it is not possible to replace the installation of the proposed monitoring wells at WMUs with HydropunchT" ground water sampling. This position is unfortunate because we provided recommendations to prevent the unnecessary installation of monitor wells in our 9 April 1992 letter. We maintain our position that DDRW, Tracy should either separate the drilling of the soil borings from the monitoring wells installations into separate programs (because more than one phase of investigation will be needed) , or to use the HydropunchT" as a screening tool . This meeting was discouraging because of the intent of our 9 April 1992 comments versus what may end up being performed. Our comments on the Draft Work Plan were prepared with extreme detail in order to prevent excessive and unnecessary expenditures so that adequate funds for the ground water remedial action will be available. In the April 1992 Meeting there were intense negotiations on a site-by-