SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

TABL 7 - CHECKLIST OF REQUIRED 13761A FOR NO FURTHER ACTION REQUESTS AT UNDERGROUND TANK SITES Site Name and Location: Former Dole Fresh Fruit, 8751 East Highway 12,Victor, San Joaquin,County 1. Distance to production wells for municipal, domestic, agriculture, A well survey was not completed. Consultant states that Victor Well#2 is approximately 500 feet northeast j industry and other uses within 2800 feet of the site; of the former UST. Y❑ 2. Site maps, to scale, of area impacted showing locations of former and existing tank systems, Site maps are provided. excavation contours and sample locations, boring and monitoring well elevation contours, � gradients, and nearby surface waters, buildings, streets, and subsurface utilities; 3. Figures depicting lithology(cross section), treatment system diagrams; Boring logs show silty sand, sand and gravel from ground surface to 65 feet bgs. 4. Stockpiled soil remaining on-site or off-site disposal(quantity); An estimate of excavated soil was not presented. p� 9 A (p Y)� 5 Monitoring wells remaining.on-site, fate Monitoring wells were not installed at this site. ❑' 6. Tabulated results of all groundwater elevations and depths to water; Depth to water was measured at 64 feet bgs, and , groundwater flow is estimated to the southwest. 0 7.Tabulated results of all sampling and analyses: A groundwater grab sample collected in August 2000 was non-detect 7 for all constituents. Maximum soil contamination shows MtBE at ❑Detection limits for confirmation sampling 80 pg/kg at 21 feet bgs. All other constituents were non-detect No Lead analyses indication of lead analysis. 8. Concentration contours of contaminants found and those remaining in soil EY-1and groundwater, and both on-site and off-site: Lateral and vertical extent of soil ❑ Lateral and Y❑ Vertical extent of soil contamination con-detec tion lldefined. Groundwater is Y Latera!and 0 Vertical extent of groundwater contamination non-detect for al[constituents. 9. Zone of influence calculated and assumptions used for subsurface FR-1 remediation system and the zone of capture attained for the soil and A remediation system was not operated at groundwater remediation system, this site. ❑ 10.Reports/information F Unauthorized Release Form QMRs It Boring logs NN PAR 0 FRP ❑ Other(Site Closure Reports/Addendums) 11.Best Available Technology(BAT) used or an explanation for not using BAT, Remove contaminate source, natural Q .� - �.-- — attenuation. _ . . ,.-.,--. _ - 7.. I 12.Reasons why backg_round waslis Y❑ unattainable using BAT Confirmation groundwater and soil samples were non-detect for all constituents. 13.Mass balance calculation of substance P71 treated versus that remaining; A mass balance was not completed. 14.Assumptions, parameters, calculations and model used in risk assessments, and fate and transport modeling; A risk assessment was not completed. 15. Rationale why conditions remaining at site will not adversely Confirmation groundwater and soil samples were non- impact water quality, health, or other beneficial uses;and detect for all constituents. Any'remaining soil contamination is limited in extent. Comments: The site is currently an active fruit processing facility. One 550-gallon gasoline UST was removed from the site in November 1991. Soil samples collected at 15 and 20 feet;bgs at the former UST showed MfBE at a maximum of 80 ug/kg. Confirmation groundwater and soil samples collected from 20 to 65 feet bgs in August 2000 were non-detect IIfor all constituents, including MBEAny remaining soil contamination is limited in extent. Victor Well#2, a municipal Date: water supply well, is approximately 500 feet northeast of the former UST. This well is reportedly completed to 483 feet, / / with a surface sea!to 58 feet bgs. Based on the limited extent of soil contamination, and no groundwater contamination, 2I 7-,3 01 Board staff concur with San Joaquin County's closure recommendation.