|
On August 5, 2011, a return to compliance certification, work order for the replaced
<br /> diesel leak detector, and an updated monitoring plan was submitted for the violations on
<br /> the July 26, 2011, UST inspection report (Attachment 49). A corrective actions
<br /> statement was not submitted.
<br /> On August 16, 2011, Mr. Cacapit witnessed the successful testing of the replaced diesel
<br /> leak detector (Attachment 50).
<br /> On September 29, 2011, Mr. Cacapit spoke to Mr. Khajevandi and asked about the
<br /> corrective actions statement for the July 26, 2011, UST inspection report. Mr.
<br /> Khajevandi stated that he had already submitted the documents, but he would fax them
<br /> again.
<br /> On October 3, 2011, another copy of the monitoring plan previously submitted on August
<br /> 5, 2011, was submitted. Mr. Cacapit called Mr. Khajevandi and asked him to submit a
<br /> corrective actions statement for the July 26, 2011, UST inspection report. Mr.
<br /> Khajevandi stated that he would do it. Later that day, Mr. Khajevandi submitted a work
<br /> order that detailed the installation of the diesel leak detector and that water was removed
<br /> for the vent sump (Attachment 51).
<br /> On May 16, 2012, a monitoring system certification test report for the testing performed
<br /> on July 26, 2011, was submitted, eight months late (Attachment 52).
<br /> On September 4, 2012, Mr. Cacapit performed a routine UST inspection (Attachment
<br /> 53). The monitoring system certification, leak detector testing, and spill container testing
<br /> were already two months late and had not been scheduled. The 87-octane slave UST
<br /> annular sensor had been in alarm since September 1, 2011, and no actions have been
<br /> taken to address the alarm. Current financial responsibility documents have not been
<br /> submitted to the EHD, the designated operator failed to attach the alarm history to two of
<br /> the monthly inspection reports, and the only employee on site, Ms. Amrit Gill, was not
<br /> trained by the designated operator. Ms. Gill stated that Mr. Khajevandi no longer worked
<br /> there.
<br /> On September 28, 2012, Mr. Cacapit witnessed the monitoring system certification, leak
<br /> detector testing, and spill container testing. The diesel UST annular sensor, 87-octane
<br /> leak detector, and the 91-octane spill container failed when tested. Diesel was found
<br /> leaking from the filters at dispensers 5/6 and 9/10. Approximately a pint of diesel was
<br /> found in UDC sump 5/6. During a review of the facility's paperwork, Mr. Cacapit found
<br /> that the facility completed an In Station Diagnostic (ISD) upgrade on August 3, 2012,
<br /> which requires a reprogramming of the monitoring panel, without a permit from the EHD.
<br /> Maintenance and monitoring records for an alarm on September 3, 2012, were not found
<br /> on site, and the only employee on site, Mr. Harnek Singh, was not trained by the
<br /> designated operator. An inspection report was left on site (Attachment 54).
<br /> On November 7, 2012, Mr. Cacapit called Ms. Amiri and Mr. Sam Singh, District
<br /> Manager, and left each a message asking them to call back regarding the two
<br /> September inspections. Mr. Cacapit sent a follow up letter to the September 4, 2012,
<br /> and September 28, 2012, UST inspections (Attachment 55).
<br /> 6
<br />
|