Laserfiche WebLink
timeframe, see attached. In addition, after I sent her the RTC, I corresponded with her and sent her clarification on the <br /> contractor response to the liquid in sumps/UDCs, see attached. In her correspondence, Betty stated this was the only <br /> outstanding violation after I sent the RTC, and I did not hear back from her since my last response to her. Is there <br /> something else you are looking for here? Please let me know, otherwise I submit we are not in violation of this <br /> item. Please note that notwithstanding of all this, and in an effort to demonstrate good faith, I sent a Gettler-Ryan <br /> technician, David Rouse, back out to the site this past Thursday 1/24/2019 to further investigate for any possible brine <br /> leaks, gaskets, etc. and he reported no issues, see attached his work order. <br /> Item #306—In Betty's pictures from her inspection (in her 2/1/2018 email attached), image "IMG_0637" clearly shows <br /> the sump sensor in the sleeve closest to the turbine. She did not note this to be an issue. When the Gettler-Ryan <br /> technician David went to the site this past Thursday 1/24/2019, the sensor was found in the same sleeve, see <br /> attached. If this was an issue, why didn't Betty mention or document or relay this to BP? Can we remove this violation <br /> please? Furthermore, I am not aware of the history for this site, but the fact that there is another sensor sleeve located <br /> adjacent to the sump wall implies that the sensor had at one point been in this sleeve but asked by an inspector to <br /> relocate it. With all due respect, it is not reasonable for us to keep having to relocate the sensor. Can we be assured the <br /> next inspector will not ask us to relocate the sensor again in the future? Please note that notwithstanding this, on <br /> 1/24/2019 1 had the technician relocate the sensor closer to the sump wall, see attached pictures. <br /> Please feel free to call me to discuss, however note I will be on vacation from 1/29—2/1 so I will not be available by <br /> phone during this time; you can either leave me a voicemail or email me and I will respond as soon as I return. Thank <br /> you for your time. <br /> Daryl Lee <br /> Retail Compliance Coordinator <br /> BP—Fuels North America <br /> 415.902.5089 <br /> Confidential <br /> From: Elena K. Manzo [EH] <emanzo@sjcehd.com> <br /> Sent:Thursday,January 24, 2019 10:45 AM <br /> To: Lee, Daryl<DARYL.LEE@bp.com>; 'oscar.garzon@belshire.com' <oscar.Barzon@belshire.com> <br /> Subject: FW:Amended 85 E Louise MSC and routine UST inspection report <br /> From: Elena K. Manzo [EH] <br /> Sent:Thursday,January 24, 2019 10:32 AM <br /> To: 'DARYL.LEE@ bp.com' <DARYL.LEE@ bp.com>; 'oscar.garzon@belshire.com'<oscar.garzon@belshire.com> <br /> Subject: RE: Amended 85 E Louise MSC and routine UST inspection report <br /> Hello <br /> Attached please find an amended report for above inspection. I didn't include the late monitoring system certification <br /> report on the original inspection so it was added on this amended report.Also attached please find your inspection <br /> pictures. Please don't hesitate to call me if you have any questions. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Elena K. Manzo, Lead Sr. REHS, <br /> San Joaquin County <br /> Environmental Health Department <br /> 1868 E. Hazelton Ave. <br /> Stockton, CA 95205-6232 <br /> Voice: (209) 953-7699 <br /> 2 <br />