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