|
BLE 1 -CHECKLIST OF REQUIRED DATA
<br /> FOR NO FURTHER ACTION REQUESTS AT UNDERGROUNDQNK SITES
<br /> Site Name and Location: Spreckels Sugar Co., Inc. (Former Holly Sugar), 20500 Holly Dr., Tracy, San Joaquin.County
<br /> (RB#390132)
<br /> y 1. Distance to production wells for municipal, domestic, Three inactive process supply wells are located 400'fo '
<br /> agriculture, industry and other uses within 2000 feet of the site. the southwest, 550'to the west, and 800'to the north. The
<br /> facility is closed and the wells were not impacted or
<br /> threatened.
<br /> Y 2. Site maps, to scale, of area impacted showing locations of Two 1,000-gallon gasoline USTs were removed 10/85
<br /> any former and existing tank systems, excavation contours and (Sites A and B), and one 10,000-gallon fuel oil {
<br /> sample locations, boring and monitoring well elevation underground bunker UST was removed 1/11 during site it
<br /> contours, gradients, and nearby surface waters, buildings, demolition.
<br /> streets, and subsurface utilities; p
<br /> Y 3. Figures depicting lithology(cross section), treatment system Site s igatio .consists of clay to s; the Iota!depth t the
<br /> g investigation. The nearby City wastewater treatment
<br /> diagrams; ponds(WWTP)investigated to 100'bgs and reported
<br /> clay,silt,sand, and gravel.
<br /> Y 4. Stockpiled soil remaining an-site or off-site disposal (quantity); 1,700 yd of over-excavated soil was transported toForward Landfill in Manteca
<br /> '_Y1 5. Monitoring wells remaining on-site, fate; Two remaining monitoring wells(MW-A1 and MW-B1R)installed for the USTs
<br /> investigation will be properly abandoned. The City WWTP monitoring wells,
<br /> Sa-used-forthe LfSTz mire orr,--remain for=VtrBRs monitorin -•-
<br /> Depth to groundwater varied from 4'to 10'bgs. Groundwater flow
<br /> 6. Tabulated results of all groundwater direction was towards the northeast. �
<br /> elevations and depths to water,
<br /> 7. Tabulated results of all sampling All data adequately tabularized in various reports, including closure report.
<br /> and analyses:
<br /> QDetection limits for confirmation
<br /> sampling
<br /> Lead analyses
<br /> 8: Concentration contours of contaminants found and those remaining in soil and The extent of the identified
<br /> groundwater,and both on-site and off-site: contamination is described in the
<br /> reports.
<br /> QLateral and 0 Vertical extent of soil contamination
<br /> Lateral and FYI Vertical extent of groundwater contamination
<br /> 9. Zone of influence calculated and assumptions used for subsurface remediation An engineered remediation was not
<br /> system and the zone of capture attained for the soil and groundwater remediation required by the lead agency.
<br /> s stem;
<br /> 10.Reports/information0 Unauthorized Release Form FY QMRs 9/98 to 6109
<br /> FlWell and boring logs PAR FRP FYI Other Closure Report(12/94)
<br /> 4 Y 11.Best Available Technology(BAT) used or an explanation-for not using removal,soil over-excavation and
<br />� nnatuatu ral attenuation.
<br /> BAT;
<br /> 12.-Reasons why background wasris. ___Minor residual,soi!and groundwater(MW B�) contamination remain on
<br /> ttainabfe using BAT site.
<br /> N 13.Mass balance calculation of substance Mass was not calculated by the consultant
<br /> treated versus that remaining;
<br /> Y 14. Assumptions, parameters, calculations RP's consultant(Ground Zero)states that based on soil and GW sampling
<br /> and model used in risk assessments, and fate minimal threat by contact or vapor migration exists from residual impacts.
<br /> and transport modeling; WQGs TPH will be reached in 30 years.
<br /> YD15. Rationale why conditions remaining at site Soil contamination reportedly is limited in extent. Water quality is i
<br /> will not adversely impact water quality, health, seriously degraded due to WWTP salinity.All buildings have been
<br /> or other beneficial uses;and demolished and the site is vacant land next to a wastewater treatment
<br /> plant under WDRs.Land use(commercial)is not expected to change in
<br /> the foreseeable future.
<br /> j By: JL13Z > Comments Two 1,000-gallon gasoline USTs were removed 10/85, and one 10,000-gallon fuel oil UST was
<br />!i removed 1/11 during site demolition at the subject site. Minor residual soil and groundwater contamination
<br /> Date: remains on-site. Based upon 17 monitoring events showing declining gasoline concentrations, the limited
<br /> 7/11/2011 extent of contamination reported in soil, groundwater reaching WQGs in 30 years, no foreseeable changes in,
<br /> land use, and minimal risks from soil,soil vapor,and groundwater, Regional Board staff concur with San
<br /> Joaquin County's Closure Recommendation.
<br />
|