My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
COMPLIANCE INFO_2016 - 2018
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
L
>
LOUISE
>
85
>
2300 - Underground Storage Tank Program
>
PR0231656
>
COMPLIANCE INFO_2016 - 2018
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2022 2:27:53 PM
Creation date
5/7/2020 9:58:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2300 - Underground Storage Tank Program
File Section
COMPLIANCE INFO
FileName_PostFix
2016 - 2018
RECORD_ID
PR0231656
PE
2351
FACILITY_ID
FA0003635
FACILITY_NAME
ARCO 06080
STREET_NUMBER
85
Direction
E
STREET_NAME
LOUISE
STREET_TYPE
AVE
City
LATHROP
Zip
95330
APN
19627010
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
85 E LOUISE AVE
P_LOCATION
07
P_DISTRICT
003
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
KBlackwell
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
410
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
f - <br /> Vicki McCartney [EH] <br /> From: Vicki McCartney [EH] <br /> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 2:12 PM <br /> To: 'Lee, Daryl' <br /> Subject: RE: Inspection report for ARCO 06080 <br /> Hello Daryl, <br /> Before replying to your questions, I discussed these items with fellow inspectors. <br /> I still do not have a definite answer for item 105. 1 will respond once I have more information. <br /> Concerning item 201, 1 have been told that if the designated operator addresses all of the alarms each month,then the <br /> facility is not required to document the alarms for that month. If the designated operator fails to document any of the <br /> monthly alarms,then it is a violation if the facility has not documented and addressed what action has been taken <br /> concerning the alarm. Based on this answer, I am closing violation 201. <br /> Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. <br /> Vicki McCartney, Senior REHS <br /> San Joaquin County <br /> Environmental Health Department <br /> 1868 East Hazelton Avenue <br /> Stockton, California 95205 <br /> Phone: (209)468-9852 <br /> Email: vmccartney(a-),sicehd.com <br /> ArW. <br /> Y µ ' i <br /> • tI <br /> From: Lee, Daryl [mailto:DARYL.LEE@bp.com] <br /> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 2:21 PM <br /> To: Vicki McCartney [EH] <br /> Subject: RE: Inspection report for ARCO 06080 <br /> Hi Vicki <br /> I have some questions or would appreciate your clarification regarding a couple of violations. I'll reference them by item <br /> #105—Yesterday(2/13)our consultant, Belshire, changed the Visual Inspection Records entry in CERS to "Yes" as you <br /> requested. But isn't this particular section in CERS dedicated to the monitoring system,therefore the Visual Inspection <br /> Records entry is for any visual inspection of the monitoring system? This facility only performs daily equipment <br /> inspections(copy attached), which are primarily focused on the dispensers and hanging hardware, not on the <br /> monitoring system itself. In fact there is only one item in the daily inspection checklist pertaining to the monitoring <br /> system (item#21), but even this item only checks to see if the monitoring system is powered on and not in <br /> alarm. Furthermore,the text for this item in the report cites"failed to have an approved UST monitoring plan." Our <br /> CERS submittal was 'Accepted'just last month (1/11/2017) by Willy Ng. Please advise? <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.