Laserfiche WebLink
A <br /> • • <br /> ?REO STgTF <br /> UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY <br /> ° A F' Region 9 <br /> y� ILL ,�� r ��� 75 Hawthorne Street <br /> San Francisco CA 94105-3901 <br /> APR 18 2002 <br /> ENVIRONMENT HEALTH <br /> PERPv11T/SERVI0ES April 10, 2002 <br /> I <br /> Mr. Joe Peterson <br /> San Joaquin Farm Bureau Federation <br /> P.O. Box 8444 <br /> Stockton, CA 95208 <br /> RE: Proposed Plan and Record of Decision Amendment for National Priority List Site at <br /> Tracy, California <br /> Dear Mr. Peterson, <br /> Thank you for your letter of March 7, 2002, in which you have expressed you concern <br /> regarding the proposed plan of the Tracy Record of Decision (ROD) Amendment to allow <br /> discharge of treated groundwater to the West Side Irrigation District Canal (WIDC) adjacent to <br /> the Tracy Defense Depot in Tracy, California(DDJC-Tracy) operated by the Defense Logistics <br /> Agency. <br /> In response to your question, please know that the current status of this plan is pre-final. <br /> The ROD Amendment has yet to be accepted by the regulatory agencies. Further, it is our <br /> understanding that the Defense Logistics Agency,by letter dated March 18, 2002, has provided <br /> you with data summaries in response to your question about the current levels or <br /> concentrations of the constituents of the treated groundwater. <br /> The original remedial decision for this site requires that the treated groundwater be <br /> returned to the aquifer via reinfection wells and infiltration galleries. However, as you may <br /> know, the current system has been unsuccessful in achieving the designed volume for lack of <br /> sufficient disposal capacity. This proposed plan would introduce new options for the disposal <br /> of the treated groundwater. The use of the overland flow method, already tested on site, <br /> promises to allow the system to operate at designed volumes. It was also thought prudent to <br /> allow for the discharge of the treated groundwater to the irrigation canal; there may be an <br /> occasional situation in which maintenance on part of the system or an overly saturated overland <br /> flow area would require either another temporary disposal alternative(e.g., the canal) or a <br /> cutback in treatment . EPA still prefers the original remedy's objective to return the <br /> i <br />