Laserfiche WebLink
e � <br /> 0 9 DDDDD <br /> Pacific Gas and Electric Company Environmental Affairs JAN 0 8 2007 <br /> Stockton Division <br /> 9575 Victor Road ENMRONNIENT HEALTH <br /> P. o. Box K PERMIT,iSERMICES <br /> Victor, CA 95253 <br /> January 5, 2007 <br /> Mr. Toua Yang <br /> San Joaquin Environmental Health Department <br /> 304 East Weber Avenue, 3`d Floor <br /> Stockton, California 95202-2708 <br /> Subject: Response to Violation <br /> Stockton Service Center Underground Storage Tank Record <br /> Dear Mr. Yang: <br /> This letter is in response to a finding that occurred during the annual monitoring <br /> certification test at the above referenced facility. During your site review, you <br /> noted an alarm condition recorded on the Veeder Root system at the facility on or <br /> around July 21, 2006. The alarm code indicated a pressurized line leak detection <br /> at the below ground, unleaded fuel line. The alarm shut down the pumps for the <br /> unleaded fuel. The Veeder Root tape record indicated the alarm condition, and <br /> PG&E records kept at the site noted the alarm and related response. However, <br /> per the note on your inspection record, no Work Order was on record at the <br /> Stockton facility to document a repair or replacement of the associated sensor, <br /> and no permit was issued for a repair or replacement, as required by rule. <br /> Our written record of the alarm condition and correction indicated a <br /> "repair/replace" for the associated sensor. The subcontractor that responded to <br /> the condition was Stockton Service Station Equipment, Inc. (SSSE). Our follow <br /> up investigation indicated that no work was performed by SSSE that would have <br /> warranted a work order or permit. <br /> According to our staff, and our recollections, after the alarm disabled the pumps, <br /> SSSE was immediately contacted. I was also contacted by PG&E garage staff <br /> and I directed the staff to have the system checked by SSSE to determine if a <br /> true alarm condition existed, or if the sensor had failed. We believe, based on <br /> dates of other work orders, SSSE may have been at out facility at the time <br /> conducting other work. SSSE staff responded to the alarm by initially removing <br /> the piping sump manhole cover and inspecting for signs of fuel or water. <br /> According to SSSE, no signs of a release were evident, and the line sensor <br /> appeared to be in the proper location. SSSE staff then checked the Veeder Root <br /> and reset the alarm. SSSE staff advised PG&E garage staff to monitor the <br /> system for any further alarms and to contact SSSE should another alarm occur. <br />