My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
COMPLIANCE INFO
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
M
>
MACARTHUR
>
28983
>
2800 - Aboveground Petroleum Storage Program
>
PR0539028
>
COMPLIANCE INFO
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/11/2019 12:11:42 AM
Creation date
7/10/2019 4:40:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2800 - Aboveground Petroleum Storage Program
File Section
COMPLIANCE INFO
RECORD_ID
PR0539028
PE
2832
FACILITY_ID
FA0014411
FACILITY_NAME
CALAVERAS MATERIALS INC - Tracy RMC
STREET_NUMBER
28983
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
MACARTHUR
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
TRACY
Zip
95376
APN
25312047
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
28983 S MACARTHUR RD
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
FRuiz
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
2) We discussed some of these additional violations while you were on site and I believed that we had reached an <br /> agreement as to why these are not violations.There appears to have been some changes after the site visit and <br /> therefore we are not in a position to sign without additional information. To address these potential additional <br /> violations added after the inspection, I have listed each one out with a response and a suggested corrective <br /> action that we can discuss further. As these items have not been fully addressed during the inspection the 30 <br /> day compliance period should start once we have reached a resolution on these additional items. We <br /> respectfully request you adjust your compliance system calendar to reflect this. <br /> ASPA 712 <br /> The SPCC does include a deviation statement in Section 1.2. As stated in our meeting, SP001 is confusing and is not site <br /> specific, as it is meant to cover all types of tanks/vessels and any type of material that can be stored in a steel tank, this <br /> confusion causes misjudgment or inaction on site tank inspectors.The point of the SPCC is to write a site specific plan to <br /> address site specific items. In most cases the standard form in SP001 test method is overreaching and not applicable <br /> (this is why all items on the SP001 form includes an N/A choice), by removing these items and shorting the form you <br /> provide better compliance and more thought out inspection procedures. SP001 is not an industry standard it is a test <br /> method. There is no regulation that requires SP001 to be used. The forms used do meet industry standard which is to <br /> evaluate the tank/vessel for signs of leaks or potential corrosion. SP001 was developed in 2011,the standard for <br /> inspecting tanks has been around for 20-30 years before this test method was available. <br /> Suggested corrective action: County to provide code that list SP001 or equivalent as a specific requirement in spill plan <br /> inspections. Either federal,state, or local code shall suffice. If no code is available, it is recommended that the County <br /> not require items that are not enforceable by code, and therefore not preview to code enforcement. <br /> ASPA 715 <br /> Section 112.38(c)(8)(v) states "You must regularly test liquid level sensing devices to ensure proper <br /> operation." SP001 only checks "proper operation" on an annual basis, by asking questions all which can be <br /> answered using "Not Applicable" as a valid answer. The monthly SP001 only checks for damage, which is <br /> covered by a tank damage question in the alternative logs. There is no reason to clarify difference between <br /> damage to the tank or damage to an attachment to the tank as the SP001 log does. During the inspection the <br /> gauge was observed and appeared to not be damaged and be in working condition as our logs indicate. <br /> Suggested corrective action: Removal of this violation from the inspection log as the current form includes <br /> inspection equivalent to SP001. <br /> HW 101 <br /> We requested confirmation of this item in an email on 4/23/19 and again at the inspection. I did not receive an <br /> acknowledgement of the email request and I believe your response on Friday was it was not necessary to reactivate the <br /> EPA ID number.This one is easy to correct and would have reactivated prior to the inspection if requested to do so. <br /> Suggested corrective action: We will reactivate the EPA ID number for this facility and submit a copy of the reactivated <br /> number to your office. <br /> HW 107 <br /> Again as we discussed,there is no code requiring that we maintain vehicle maintenance logs, I had verbally agreed to <br /> provide contract information, if available, and forms for your preview as a side. I do not anticipating signing documents <br /> that include the lack of these forms as a violation. As I stated on site I was not familiar with the full process for <br /> 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.