Laserfiche WebLink
Facility: Shell 1-5 <br />717 W. 8" Street, Stockton, CA 95206 <br />Date ofInspection: March 4,2D13 <br />Date of Response: March 27, 2013 <br />From: JoeOangtran <br />104. The Station has the same financial responsibility documents for last fewVears—nothing has <br />changed. I made a habit of around mid-March I would review and initial with the new dates. | <br />reviewed and the documents but initialed only the Letter from FO. | must have overlooked one CFR <br />document. Attached are the current same financial responsibility documents. <br />100. The contractor Pinnacle Testing said asanormal practice two copies oftheSecmndary <br />Containment Testing results were sent out simultaneously to the gas station and EHD. TheSta1iongot <br />its report ontime and |put1herninthe binder. EHC/sreport may have got lost inthe mail. |vvou|d <br />imagine the EHD should have notified the Station or the tester that it did not get the copy 30 days after <br />the testing. When | don't see any notification it's very easy toassume that all isgood. The EHDshould <br />have notified the station when it didn't get the report — not until a year later — I would have provided <br />immediately. Attached is the copy made from the station's copy. <br />204 | had requested the DOtodocument all future alarms inthe monthly reports nomatter how <br />obvious the alarms cause was. Hethought everybody would know the alarms occurred onApril 3O, <br />2012 were testing and induced "alarms" due to the Secondary Containment testing. <br />204. | made anote to the contractor Reliable Petroleum about miswriting the date off by a day. <br />Further research this isavery minor violation. | believe the Inspector was not properly classifying the <br />violation. Hopefully future DO reports won't have this minor problem again. <br />204. The station had January month inspected on January 18, 2012 not on January 30, 2012 as stated <br />inthe Inspector's report. Further review mfthe DOreport did not show such employee training <br />discrepancy. Attached is the copy of January 2012 DO report. <br />303. 1 believe the inspector meant the sensors were placed 2-6inches horizontally away from the <br />lowest point possible etthe bottom ofthe sump. There's noway the sensors could be"fkootno°above <br />the lowest point. The sump sensors were installed in true vertical position as recommended by the <br />manufacturer. I believe the sensor should meet two important criteria: 1) mounted in true vertical <br />position, 2\placed atthe lowest possible spot. They have been inthese positions for the last 8years <br />since the LIST were installed. They got inspected and approved 6vall EHDstaffs every year for all this <br />time. Nomod was made 10them whatsoever since first installed. Today two EH0inspectors required <br />the sensor Lobemodified and tilted atanangle ofatleast 2Odegrees. | authorized the tech made such <br />