COMPLIANCE INFO - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The following is an itemized list of aboveground petroleum storage act violations that have not been addressed for MID VALLEY AGRICULTURAL SERVICES, INC as of July 08, 2019. Open violations from October 08,2018 inspection Violation#301 -Failed to amend Plan as necessary. The SPCC plan lists audible alarms used for overfill prevention on the two 10,000 gallon tanks. Facility personnel stated that audible alarms were not part of the system. Section 11.2.2 of the SPCC plan states that there are no manual valves installed on the diked areas of the facility to facilitate drainage.A manual drainage valve was observed crossing the secondary containment wall of the 10,000 gallon tanks.The drainage valve was observed near ground level,went across the secondary containment wall and terminated above a drain on the outer side of the wall. The drain was said to lead to the facilities retention pond.The Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure(SPCC) Plan must be amended when there is a change in the facility design, construction, operation, or maintenance that materially affects its potential for a discharge,within 6 months of the change, and implemented as soon as possible, not later than 6 months following preparation of the amendment. Immediately make all necessary amendments to the SPCC Plan to accurately represent the procedures and policies currently in place at the facility. Violation#602-Plan failed to discuss equivalent environmental protection,if applicable. The Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure(SPCC)failed to discuss alternative environmental protection requirements. The SPCC plan makes a claim that the plan along with its implementation by the facility provides conformance with the requirements under 40 CFR 112. It states that the plan does not deviate from the requirements of under CFR 112.7(g), (h)(2), (h)(3)and (i)and 40 CFR 112.8. The plan was found to deviate from section 112.8(c)(6). The SPCC plan does not call for formal inspections to be conducted on the facility tanks and does not cite an industry standard that would allow this. If the SPCC Plan does not conform to the applicable requirements,the reasons for nonconformance must be stated and the alternate methods to achieve equivalent environmental protection must be described in detail in the Plan. Immediately amend the SPCC Plan to include a discussion of equivalent environmental protection. Note: Per US EPA guidance, if an owner or operator deviates from applicable industry standards to develop an integrity testing program,then a PE must certify an environmentally equivalent alternative in the SPCC Plan. The Plan must provide the reason for the deviation, describe the alternative approach, and explain how it achieves environmental protection equivalent to the applicable industry standard. Violation#710-Plan failed to adequately discuss procedures to test or inspect each container for integrity. The SPCC plan did not take into account the size, configuration, or design of the tank.The SPCC plan does not reference an industry standard for inspections. Each aboveground container shall be tested and inspected for integrity on a regular schedule and whenever repairs are made. The qualifications of personnel performing tests and inspections,frequency and type of testing and inspections that take into account container size, configuration, and design shall be determined in accordance with industry standards. Examples of these integrity tests include, but are not limited to: visual inspection, hydrostatic testing, radiographic testing, ultrasonic testing, acoustic emissions testing, or other systems of non-destructive testing. Comparison records and other records of inspections and tests must be maintained on site. Immediately conduct the necessary testing and submit a copy of the test results to the EHD, or provide equivalence as allowed by CFR 112.7(a)(2). Page 1 of 1