COMPLIANCE INFO_PRE 2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

operator monthly inspection report. The sensor was not in alarm at the time of inspection. On October 27, 2010, Ms. Tran also performed a routine hazardous waste inspection (Attachment 40). When Ms. Tran arrived on site at 8:50 a.m. she noticed absorbent on the ground between dispensers 15A and 15B, and tractor-trailers were able to drive over the absorbent, dispersing it into the environment. The absorbent was not cleaned up until 2:30 p.m., after Ms. Tran asked the manager about it. The manager stated that a spill had occurred at 7:00 PM the night before. Ms. Tran also found two 5-gallon containers of used absorbent improperly labeled. Both were lacking the words "Hazardous Waste," hazardous properties, and physical state. One was also lacking the generator name and address. Ms. Tran also wrote a violation for failing to submit a Return to Compliance Certification and supporting documents for the violations found during the October and December 2009 hazardous waste inspections. On November 2, 2010, a Return to Compliance Certification and supporting documents were submitted in response to the October 27, 2010, hazardous waste inspection (Attachment 41). The violations found on November 2, 2010, were corrected, but the outstanding violations from the 2009 hazardous waste inspections were not addressed. On November 3, 2010, a permit application, SR0061364, was submitted to replace the diesel north fill sump. This permit was approved by Ms. Tran on November 5, 2010 (Attachment 42). On November 22, 2010, Ms. Tran witnessed the annual monitoring system certification and leak detector testing of the automobile side of the facility. The three spill containers were not tested due to time constraints, and would not be considered late if tested by December 2010. The 91-octane leak detector failed, approximately two cups of diesel was found in the diesel piping sump, and one inch of liquid was found in the vent sump. During a review of the facility's paperwork, Ms. Tran found that the annual permit fees still had not been paid, and therefore the facility still did not have a permit to operate the UST system in 2010. Current financial responsibility documents were still not on file with the EHD and current copies of the monitoring and response plans were not found on site. An alarm was not documented on the February 17, 2010, designated operator monthly inspection report and seven alarms were not documented in the October 28, 2010, designated operator monthly inspection report. An inspection report was left on site (Attachment 43). On November 22, 2010, Ms. Tran also issued a Notice of Significant Violation for failing to maintain a continuous monitoring system in the diesel north fill sump. The sensor failed testing on October 27, 2010. A permit application, SR0061364, was submitted and approved, but the sensor had not been replaced and the UST had been in use since that day (Attachment 44). On November 23, 2010, Ms. Tran witnessed the successful testing of the diesel north fill sump sensor (Attachment 45). On November 23, 2010, Ms. Tran called and left a voice mail for Mr. Gill reminding him that the return to compliance documents for the October 27, 2010, UST inspection would be due by November 29, 2010. 9