Laserfiche WebLink
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] PR0519480, PRO526499-3003 Navy Dr&2650 W Washington St- HMBP Compliance Info 2025 <br /> -9.30.25 <br /> Also, attached is a version of the site drawing that is in the new SPCC SMARTPLAN and that I'd like to use <br /> in CERS going forward. I thoroughly checked this earlier this year to verify that it met the requirements for <br /> CERS and I believe it does. I'd like to insert this in CERS and remove the Trinity Consultants version;we <br /> are moving away from using Trinity and instead utilize the expertise of our in house design/drawing <br /> group. I really like the attached version because it is consistent with all our drawings elsewhere in other <br /> county CERS CUPA submittals in California and also consistent with our 100 terminals nationwide for <br /> SPCC Plans and OPA'90 FRP's. I hopeyou like it, too. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks so much, <br /> Ruthanne <br /> From:Walker, Ruthanne M. <br /> Sent:Thursday, October 2, 2025 10:32 AM <br /> To: 'Sammons, Lynsey [EHD]' <Isammons@sigov.org> <br /> Cc:Suszycki, Michael [EHD] <msuszycki@sigov.org>; Rodriguez, Sal <SRodriguez3@marathonpetroleum.com>; Bruss, <br /> Paul E. <PEBruss@marathonpetroleum.com>; Mathews, Shan S. <JSMathews@marathonpetroleum.com>; Little, Nathan <br /> G. <NGLittle@ marathon petroleum.com> <br /> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] PR0519480, PR0526499 -3003 Navy Dr&2650 W Washington St- HMBP Compliance Info 2025 <br /> -9.30.25 <br /> Hi Lynsey---I know we covered a lot of detailed information from CERS on Tuesday and when I looked <br /> online at it up close this morning, I noticed that what I have entered for the gas cylinders appears to be <br /> correct/accurate. It shows under"Chemical Location"that the cylinders are stored both in the <br /> warehouse and out at the VRS and that they are indeed gas "mixtures". It mentions details in the <br /> comments section at the bottom about the span gas. They are chemically, DOT class, and hazard-wise <br /> identical. I don't believe this is a violation and it is not to necessary to split them into two entries. I would <br /> request it be removed from the report or else please mark up the below with what corrections are <br /> desired/necessary. Such violations are taken very seriously and the corporate Environmental Vice <br /> President in Findlay is very involved/concerned to assist mein addressing this. Also,we are not finding a <br /> previous violation related to this and request that you send a copy of the previous violation that is being <br /> considered a repeat. <br /> Thank you, <br /> Ruthanne <br /> 4 <br />