Laserfiche WebLink
0 • <br /> Pacific Gas and Electric Company Stockton Division <br /> 4040 West Lane <br /> Stockton, CA 95204 <br /> February 3, 2005 <br /> VIA HAND DELIVERY <br /> Michelle Le, R.E.H.S. I E5 W E 0 <br /> San Joaquin County Environmental Health-Department <br /> ' 304 E. Weber Avenue FEB <br /> Third Floor <br /> 3 2005 <br /> Stockton, CA 95202 ENVIiiONMENT HEALTH <br /> PEFWIT/SERVICES <br /> Subject: Response to Inspection Report <br /> Underground Storage Tank Inspection, January 4, 2005 <br /> Stockton Service Center <br /> Dear Michelle: <br /> This report is provided as a response to the findings of the San Joaquin County <br /> Environmental Health Department (SJCEHD) underground storage tank (UST) <br /> inspection conducted at the Stockton Service Center on January 4, 2005. <br /> Annual testing of the USTs was being performed on that date. During your <br /> inspection, you noted six (6) items that required additional information to be <br /> submitted by February 4, 2005. We provided information regarding four (4) of <br /> the items during the month of January, and will complete the response as of this <br /> submittal. <br /> A summary of the Inspection Items and the PG&E responses is given below. <br /> The Items are numbered as shown on the original inspection report, which is also <br /> attached to this report. <br /> • Item #4 — SJCEHD requested a copy of the PG&E Certificate of Financial <br /> Responsibility. PG&E provided a copy of the Certificate of Financial <br /> Responsibility by fax on January 5, 2005. A copy is also attached to this <br /> report. <br /> • Item #7 — SJCEHD noted that during the annual test, the sump sensor <br /> went into alarm and prevented the completion of testing on the unleaded <br /> UST. SJCEHD required that the sensor be repaired or replaced by <br /> February 5, 2005. PG&E mobilized a contractor to the site on January 4, <br /> 2005 to review the problem. The contractor discovered that water had <br /> entered the sensor housing during the sump leak test, and caused the <br /> sensor to shut down the pump. The contractor removed the water from <br /> the sensor housing and the sensor began operating properly. Therefore, <br /> no sensor repair or replacement was warranted. We contacted the <br /> County on January 5, 2005 and provided a verbal report of the results. <br />