|
On June 17, 2010, a response to Mr. Wong's email asking for information needed to
<br />approve permit application SR0057217 was submitted (Attachment 44). A statement
<br />indicated a new penetration for the new vent line was installed, and that "the existing
<br />vent lines are to remain connected to the existing vent column and to the existing tanks
<br />through the exiting sumps," but did not clearly indicate if the existing vent lines were still
<br />physically connected to the tank.
<br />On June 18, 2010, Mr. Wong approved permit application SR0057217 (Attachment 45).
<br />On June 29, 2010, Mr. Wong performed a routine LIST inspection (Attachment 46) and
<br />witnessed the annual monitoring system certification, leak detector testing and spill
<br />container testing. The 91 -octane and diesel spill containers were last tested on
<br />September 8, 2008, and were nine months late, though Mr. Wong incorrectly wrote that
<br />they were last tested on September 8, 2010. The 87 -octane spill container was last
<br />tested on October 1, 2008, and was eight months late. The 87 -octane leak detector was
<br />last tested on September 8, 2008, and was nine months late. The diesel and 91 -octane
<br />leak detectors were last tested on October 1, 2008, and were eight months late. The
<br />audible alarm on the monitoring panel did not appear to function correctly. When an
<br />alarm was triggered, the panel would sound once and stop. Liquid was found in the 87 -
<br />octane piping sump. During a review of the facility's files, Mr. Wong found the current
<br />financial responsibility documents were not on file with the EHD, a new designated
<br />operator was hired and the EHD was not notified within 30 days, and there was no
<br />record of employee training by the designated operator. Designated operator monthly
<br />inspection reports for June 2009 through January 2010 were not found on site. A test
<br />report was submitted, but did not list any of the piping sump sensors or UST annular
<br />sensors (Attachment 47). On March 28, 2011, Mr. Wong called and left a message for
<br />Mr. Steve Zwahlen, the service technician who performed the testing, asking him to
<br />submit a revised copy of the report.
<br />While on site for the June 29, 2010, testing, Mr. Wong also verified that the old 91-
<br />octane
<br />1-octane vent line was disconnected in the 91 -octane piping sump and capped off
<br />(Attachment 48).
<br />On July 27, 2010, Mr. Wong witnessed secondary containment testing of the 91 -octane
<br />tank annular, piping sump, and 91 -octane secondary containment piping as required by
<br />permit SR0057217 (Attachment 49). The tank annular and piping sump passed, but the
<br />piping run failed, which the service technician, Mr. Zwahlen, stated was due to leaking
<br />test boots in the UDC sumps (Attachment 50). Mr. Zwahlen asked Mr. Wong if he would
<br />witness the testing of three piping sump sensors and two UDC sump sensors if he
<br />reprogrammed the electrical relays to correct the audible alarm so it would stay on until it
<br />was acknowledged. Mr. Wong agreed to perform the inspection and required that a
<br />permit application be submitted within 24 hours. After the reprogramming, the
<br />monitoring panel was verified to function normally (Attachment 51).
<br />On July 28, 2010, permit application SR0060671 was submitted for the work on the
<br />monitoring panel, but it wasn't entered into the EHD database until July 30, 2010. Mr.
<br />Wong approved the permit on July 30, 2010 (Attachment 52).
<br />On September 8, 2010, a Return to Compliance certification was submitted in response
<br />to the June 29, 2010, UST inspection (Attachment 53). Current financial responsibility
<br />N
<br />
|