SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

I ��r TABLV1 - CHECKLIST OF REQUIRED Ck dA FOR NO FURTHER ACTION REQUESTS AT UNDERGROUND TANK SITES Site Name and Location: Beneto Inc., 10842 Harlan Rd, French Camp, San Joaquin County (Eustis #391172) Y1 1. Distance to production wells for municipal, domestic, agriculture, industry The consultant did not conduct a well and other uses within 2000 feet of the site; survey. T0607709384 y Site maps, to scale, of area impacted showing locations of any former and existing tank One 20,000-gallon double Jj systems,excavation contours and sample locations, boring and monitoring well elevation wall UST remains in contours, gradients, and nearbysurface waters, buildings, streets, and subsurface utilities; service. Y 3.Figures depicting lithology(cross section), treatment system diagrams; Site lithology consists of clay,silt and sand to 32 feet, the total depth investigated. N 4. Stockpiled soil remaining on-site or off-site disposal(quantity);. Since the tank remains in service,no soil was removed. I Y 1 5. Monitoring wells remaining on-site, fate; Threel monitoring wells(MW1 through MW3) will be properly abandoned. 6. Tabulated results of all groundwater elevations Depth to groundwater was approximately 20 feet below ground surface. and depths to water, The groundwater gradient was 0.0012 fl/ft, and the downgradient direction was northwest. -'-' - 7-Ta6ulated-results of-all sampling and —--Maxirrlu n-sail-boring concentraaVon`in-12704-was-TPHd,t7-mg/kg-ln 9/06, - analyses: all soilboring results were ND. Maximum grab groundwater concentration FYI 12104 was: TPHd, 240 ug/L. In 9/06 and 10106,all groundwater results ❑ Detection limits for confirmation sampling were ND. ❑N Lead analyses 8. Concentration contours of contaminants found and those remaining in soil and The extent of contamination is groundwater, and both on-site and off-site: defined by soil borings. No groundwater contamination was ❑Y Lateral and ❑Y Vertical extent of soil contamination detected in monitoring wells. © Lateral and © Vertical extent of groundwater contamination 9. Zone of influence calculated and assumptions used for subsurface remediation Active remediation was not system and the zone of capture attained for the soil and groundwater remediation required. system; YJ 10.Reports/information FY] Unauthorized Release Form ❑Y QMRs(1, summary of two sample events, 9/07 and 10/07) 'P Welland boring logs ❑N PAR 0 FRP ❑N Other YJ 11.Best Available Technology(BAT) used or an explanation for not using BAT, Natural attenuation for soil contamination. N 12.Reasons why background wads unattainable using BAT,' Minimal soil contamination remains on-site. t ---Fassessments, - - - -' __-- - - `Consultant did not estimate-TPHd soil mass.'Groundwater - alance calculation of substance treated versus monitoring showed no impacts from TPHd or BTEX. ing; - ptions, parameters, calculations and model used in A risk assessment was not required. sments, and fate and transport modeling; j ale why conditions remaining at site will not adversely Soil contamination is limited in extent. Monitoring ter quality, health, or other beneficial uses;and shows the groundwater is not impacted by TPHd. � By.' JLB Comments:One 20,000-gallon double wall UST remains in service at the subject site, a card lock facility. Prior to a property transfer In 12/04, a soil and groundwater investigation was conducted. Low levels of TPHd contamination Date: were reported in soil and groundwater. Additional soil investigations and groundwater monitoring conducted in 9/06 5/24/2007 shows TPHd is currently not leaching to groundwater. Due to low levels of soil contamination, which do not exceed Region 2 ESLs for TPHd, a soil vapor survey was not required. Based upon the fact that groundwater samples were NO in 2006 and due to the limited extent of TPHd contamination present in soil, Regional Board staff concur with San i Joaquin County's Closure Recommendation. i l 1