SU0000026 SSCRPT - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7theTo east is also agricultural production, primarily alfalfa. The city of Tracy Wastewater Treatment Facility has wastewater holding ponds to the south and the Spreckles Sugar facility has wastewater holding ponds to the west. Due to the inaccessibility of the Sugar facility and their operational privacy, the land usage extent of their ponds is unknown, other than what is delineated on the USGS map. Two large channels of water are to the west and north: Sugar Cut and Tom Paine Slough. An unlined agricultural drainage ditch borders the south property line, and then continues northward. The property has been owned by the Hayes Family Partnership since 1985. Prior ownership was by an individual, Mr. Tony Bastian, and not a corporate entity. It is our understanding that Mr. Bastian grew alfalfa, sugar beets and tomatoes on the subject property. The region has been dry- land and irrigated farmed, particularly in row and pasture crops for the last several decades. Surrounding irrigation is provided by irrigation wells and the San Joaquin River. The property is subject to flooding, which was evident during the winter of 1997. Flood elevation is 20 feet N.G.V.D.- 1929 Datum. PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES County public environmental records were reviewed for sites which may have impacted the subject property. The databases accessed did not indicate a problem or potential problem with the subject property, exclusively. Possible environmental impact from the Spreckles Sugar facility was investigated. According to records reviewed at the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department, the following information was obtained: There have been two separate releases of gasoline and Bunker C Fuel from the Speckles Sugar facility. The two tanks are in within the interior of the facility, approximately 2500 feet southwest of the subject site. A March 3, 2000 correspondence from Mr. Harlin Knoll of PHS- EHD to Ms. Anne Olgrey, the Environmental Engineer for Spreckles indicates he wants a "well receptor survey" conducted within 2000 feet radius from Site B (the gasoline release). There apparently has been no response from Ms. Olgrey. Additionally, Mr. Knoll has also requested a feasibility study to excavate contaminated soil in the source area of the former underground storage tank(UST). Three applicable documents concerning these hydrocarbon releases can be found in the Appendices and include the following: The first is an Updated Workplan from John Minney, Consulting Engineer. As he states in his Workplan: The purpose of the updated workplan is to present a scope of work sufficient for the County to determine that no further action is required at the site..." The other two documents are Checklists of Required Data for No Further Action Requests at Underground Tank Sites. Both forms for the gasoline and Bunker C Fuel Oil state: "No migration occurring. Constituents will naturally biograde [sic] before reaching receptors. Impacted soil and groundwater sits [sic] under the factory." 2 Naffey Ag Research