COMPLIANCE INFO_2011-2018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

documents and records of employee training by the designated operator were submitted, but the June 2009 through January 2010 designated operator monthly inspection reports and a statement indicating the facility's designated operators were not submitted. On September 14, 2010, permit application SR0061062 was submitted to make repairs to the two UDC sumps. Mr. Wong approved the permit on September 22, 2010 (Attachment 54). On September 30, 2010, an inspection was scheduled by Franzen -Hill to test the 91- octane 1-octane secondary containment piping and UDC sumps (Attachment 55). When Mr. Wong arrived, the service technician informed Mr. Wong that UDC sump 3/4 was repaired, but he could not make the repair to UDC sump 1/2 because it was incorrectly installed to begin with. Repairs would have to be made to UDC sump 1/2 before the piping run could be tested. Mr. Wong reminded Mr. Zwahlen that all three piping runs still needed to be tested as part of permit SR0057217 conditions. On September 30, 2010, Ms. Lopez sent Mr. Wong an email with photos of the failed components and a description on how they could be repaired (Attachment 56). On October 1, 2010, a revised scope of work was submitted for permit SR0061062 to break concrete and make repairs on UDC sump 1/2. On October 4, 2010, Mr. Wong approved the additional work proposed (Attachment 57). On October 4, 2010, Mr. Wong delivered a Notice of Significant Violation to the facility for failing to demonstrate that the UST system was structurally sound to prevent any unauthorized releases (Attachment 58). On October 11, 2010, Mr. Wong witnessed the testing of the three secondary containment piping runs (Attachment 59). The diesel and 91 -octane runs passed, but the 87 -octane run failed. Mr. Wong also verified corrosion protection of the underside of UDC sump 1/2 (Attachment 60). Photos were taken showing the leak at UDC sump 1/2 and corrosion protection underneath (Attachment 61). On October 13, 2010, Mr. Wong witnessed a one-hour soap test of the 87 -octane secondary containment piping run (Attachment 62 and 63). The 87 -octane and 91- octane 1-octane secondary containment piping runs would have to be retested 24 -hours after concrete was poured. Since the UST system was not brought back into compliance within seven business days of the October 4, 2010, Notice of Significant Violation, Mr. Wong Red Tagged the 87 -octane and 91 -octane fill pipes to prevent any fuel inputs (Attachment 64 and 65). On October 15, 2010, Mr. Wong witnessed the testing of the 87 -octane and 91 -octane secondary containment piping runs after concrete was poured and allowed to cure at dispenser 1/2 (Attachment 66). The 91 -octane piping run passed, but the 87 -octane piping run failed. Mr. Wong left the site while the service technicians worked on the leak. Mr. Wong returned to the site and witnessed a second test on the 87 -octane piping run, and that test also failed. More repairs were made and the piping run was tested a third time, and still failed (Attachment 67).