Laserfiche WebLink
all violations from the 9/8/17 inspection report and all subsequent amendments, full report dated 9/28/18. FXG initially <br /> provided documentation requested by Betty Ho after telephone communication, and believed all items were either <br /> addressed or an approved action plan was in place addressing all issues. Upon various review stages, Betty Ho <br /> requested additional documentation requests. FXG continued to provide all information requested at such time the <br /> information was requested. FXG believes we have, in good faith, submitted written responses within 30 days of <br /> receiving the inspection report and continued to provide all information that San Joaquin requested in a timely <br /> manner. Earlier today, I have sent pertinent emails supporting the above to Elena for her review. We request that these <br /> documents are reviewed and this violation is removed from the inspection report." <br /> -Failure to maintain monitoring,maintenance,and follow up action records. A list of the alarms was send in an excel sheet and it list the work <br /> orders addressing the alarms. Please provide the work orders themselves. When we are on site we review work orders <br /> (maintenance, follow up action records) we were not able to do so at your site when I was there on 7/17/18. Please <br /> provide the maintenance records if you have them available. I have attached the work orders as requested for your <br /> review. <br /> -Current monitoring plan approved by the EHD not found on site. In the return to compliance submitted it states"fedEx Ground to respond" <br /> what does that mean exactly? I would need a more specific statement explaining how the violation has or will be <br /> corrected. Per clarification from Elena, we were to respond with how the issue was resolved moving forward. My <br /> response on July 17, 2018 read: "At the time of the unannounced inspection, the Facility Maintenance Manager that <br /> oversees this system was traveling and the staff member that was assisting the inspector was unaware of where this <br /> documentation is stored. FXG will work with station personnel to ensure employees are aware of who to contact to <br /> obtain appropriate documentation." The form was onsite, however, the station staff that met with you was unaware of <br /> the location. Per my response, that issue has been resolved. I have attached copies of these documents for your <br /> reference. <br /> -Designated operator did not inspect all required items and/or the inspection reports not completed. In the return to compliance submitted It states <br /> "certification and test date requirements were reviewed with the designated operator and corrected.April 2018 to <br /> present reflect these corrections" what did you do in regards to the alarms that were not mentioned in the reports? Did <br /> you addressed them with the designated operator? If so please provide a statement on what was done. Per my previous <br /> response, certification and test date requirements were reviewed with the designated operator and were corrected <br /> moving forward after April 2018. <br /> -VPH monitoring of the interstitial spaces of the UST system is not maintained.Ana ppointment was scheduled for 8/29/18 at 9am however It <br /> was cancelled on 8/29/18. It has been rescheduled for 9/6/18 at 1:30pm. I will be closing this violation once I witness <br /> the communication on UDC 6. Thank you. <br /> Please do not hesitate to give me a call or email me if you have any questions. <br /> Best regards, <br /> Zuna Marker Portillo <br /> EnvironmciiW Health Specialist <br /> Swi Joaquin County Environmental HeAdi Dcjmrtmcnt <br /> 1868 E Mu_elton Ave <br /> Stockton, CA 95205 <br /> Tel (209)953-7311 <br /> From: Debra Gehm <debra.gehm@fedex.com> <br /> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 8:55 AM <br /> 2 <br />