COMPLIANCE INFO_PRE 2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Inspection Response - Estes June 2, 2011 Page 2 of 5 #3: Inspector: UST facility form with the EHD is not current. Any change of information on these forms must be submitted to EHD within 30 days of the change. Immediately complete and submit a copy of facility form to EHD. Response: a current UST facility form is attached to this letter. #4: Inspector: Financial responsibility documents have not bee submitted to EHD. Current financial responsibility documents are required to be submitted annually. Compete and submit a copy of the financial responsibility by June 28, 2011. Response: a current UST financial responsibility form/letter is attached to this letter. 5 & 6: Inspector: Current approved copies of the monitoring and response plan not found on site. The monitoring and response plans must be current and approved by the EHD. Complete a coy of the monitoring and response plan for approval by June 28, 2011. Response: Current monitoring and response plan attached to this letter. 23c. Inspector: The designated operated failed to document all alarms for the previous month and check that they were responding to appropriately on October 2010 designated operator monthly inspection report. The missing alarms included LS STP sump fuel alarm September 22, 2010 and September 25, 2010. During the monthly inspection the DO shall review the alarm history of the previous month, check that each alarm was documented and responding to appropriately, and attach a copy of the alarm history with documentation taken in response to any alarms. Response: It is our understanding at the time of the inspection for that month the paper roll was not feeding correctly. Stockton service Station responded the following day and corrected. Stockton service station was asked to print out an alarm history at that time and provide to terminal manager. For reasons unknown, the terminal manager at that time did not attach it to the form. 23c. Inspector: The DO failed to visually inspect the STP Sump for leaks, water, or debris for October 2010 monthly inspection. During the monthly inspection the DO shell visually inspect all containers and UDS sumps, and any tank top sumps that had an alarm history for which there is no evidence of service visit. Response: It is our understanding that the DO removed the sump cover that was in alarm and found no visual evidence of fuel or water. For reasons unknown he failed to document this on his form. We will assure all alarms are documented and if an alarm occurs in the sump that it is addressed with a visual inspection by the DO or service tech and documented on the appropriate forms.