COMPLIANCE INFO 2012 - 2018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

violations noted this day include: (1) liquid was observed in the 91 -octane sump (2) the sensor in the piping transition sump (underground -aboveground) was raised about one inch from the bottom (3) secondary containment for the piping did not terminate within the 91 -octane, diesel, and transition sumps (air was observed stili being held within the secondary containment of the piping) (4) the 91 -octane and diesel spill buckets had debris in them and the diesel spill bucket contained fuel. Ms. Le, requested to see the maintenance and monitoring records from the office manager, Mrs. Spence. Mrs. Spence could not find any monitoring records. Mrs. Spence provided Ms. Le with copies of the maintenance records. Upon reviewing the maintenance records, it was noted that Donlee Pump, UST contractor, had replaced sensors and possibly other UST system components without obtaining a permit. See Attachment 6 for maintenance record summary of Donlee Pump invoices. Additionally, Ms. Le requested to see the maintenance record for the secondary containment repairs. According to EHD records, this facility originally had secondary containment testing performed on September 5, 2002. The original test results indicated a failure with the diesel and 91 -octane sumps, as well as, within the diesel annular space (Attachment 7.) The failed components were re -tested on December 13, 2002 and passed (Attachment 8.) EHD had not received a scope of work for the secondary containment repair. Secondary containment repair records could not be located at the time of inspection. Ms. Le, provided Mrs. Spence with a copy of the inspection report and informed her that the underground storage tanks are currently not being monitored for leak detection and that EHD is revoking her permit to operate. Mr. Le informed Mrs. Spence that each day that she continues to operate will be an additional violation. Mrs. Spence agreed to voluntarily cease operation. On June 10, 2004, Ms. Le, received and approved a permit to repair the monitoring system (Attachment 9.) On June 11, 2004, Ms. Le spoke with Elite IV Contractors, the UST contractor hired to repair the monitoring panel. According to Robert, with Elite IV, the existing monitoring panel could not be repaired and must be replaced. Ms. Le verbally approved the installation of a new Veeder Root TLS 350 monitoring panel with the condition that all sensors are listed in the State Water Boards Local Guidance Letter 113 and that the addendum to the permit be immediately submitted to EHD. The addendum was submitted on June 15, 2004 (Attachment 10.) With the installation of the new monitoring system complete, Mr. Catanyag witnessed the testing of the new system on June 11, 2004. All portions of the monitoring system were found to be functional. Mr. Catanyag issued the facility an inspection report (written by Ms. Le and provided to Mr. Catanyag to present during the inspection) allowing the facility to begin operating (Attachment 11.) This facility was still required to perform secondary containment testing on the under -dispenser containment units by July 9, 2004, due to the 6 month testing requirement after install (install date was December 12, 2003.) The facility also needed to perform the annual spill bucket integrity test that was never performed in 2003. Additionally, on this day Ms. Le was onsite and visually inspected the monitoring records that Mr. Spence claimed he had stored in the back of his office. The information provided in the monitoring records did not indicate that the facility had any alarms during the recording period of January 1, 2003 to June 9, 2004. Mr. Spence commented that, "the office girls didn't know where to look that day" (for the monitoring records). At this time, Mrs. Spence commented, that Elite IV figured out the water that kept getting into the tanks was coming from a broken sprinkler. On June 15, 2004, Ms. Le received the scope of the work performed by Elite IV for the secondary 3