COMPLIANCE INFO_2014-2017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Elianna Florido [EH] From: Marty Weithman <martyw@servicestationsystems.com> Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 8:22 AM To: Elianna Florido [EH] Subject: FW: SR0077395;Valero, 1210 E Hammer Lane, Stockton; Attachments: IMG_0071.JPG; IMG_0072.JPG; IMG_0073.JPG; IMG_0074.JPG Hi Elianna, I have been working for the better part of a month trying to figure out what transpired at this site in order to respond to your previous email and voice mail. The scope of work for the above referenced SR was limited to the replacement of the 91 primary and secondary product line below dispenser#7/8. The scope was then expanded to include the replacement of the Fireflex flexible connector. The Service Director and the technicians confirm that this was the scope of work executed. According to them,all work was done per manufacturer specifications including using the proper adhesive recommended by Bravo and NOT Sika Flex. Senior technicians Kelly Burningham and Mike Trejo made the repairs and can attest to their proper completion. However, you,as to complete your inspection,wanted a passing test on the UDC. So, before the techs backfilled with concrete,they wanted to test the UDC. In so doing,they found a loose ICON conduit entry boot.They loosened the boot and added some Sika Flex 1A to the ICON conduit boot to get a better seal on the conduit.The technicians were low on Sika Flex so the lead technician sent our SSE [helper] to the store to get more. However he came back with the wrong adhesive.They were unable to use the adhesive due to it being the wrong type of Sika Flex.Able techs have since returned to the site to clean up the UDC and get a passing test.We have removed all of the "grey in color" sealant on the 89-bravo hub, placed by another contractor.See attached pictures for correct Sika flex used on ICON conduit boot. Apparently,Technicians Erik Salinger and Tony McCarter met with you at the site. Ordinarily,they are testers and inadvertently showed you the wrong Sika Flex. This created confusion for everyone, unfortunately. In addition,the site had other failures and other repairs made by other contractors take place before our inspection. This adds to the confusion. Perhaps this summary might be helpful: • Site had a failing 91 flex line under dispenser 7/8. • Able maintenance had a permit to replace the 91-product primary flex line • Able maintenance made the repairs and setup the inspection. • Inspector wanted to see a primary pressure test and a soap test on the 91-product flex hose at/under UDC 7/8 o Inspector witnessed both passing test on the 91-primary product flex line under udc 7/8 • Inspector wanted to see a secondary pressure test and soap test on the 91-product secondary flex hose under dispenser 7/8 o Inspector witnessed both passing test on secondary flex • Site had SB989 testing done at this site during the above.Site had other failures.Able Maintenance instructed the owner that they were too busy to make the repairs in a timely manner.So the owner had repairs made on failing components after the Able repairs but before the inspection What we would like to do is to schedule the final inspection which is a hydrostatic test on the UDC 7/8.We will go to the site, place and finish concrete,and have the inspection on the UDC with the inspector after the concrete is down. 1