COMPLIANCE INFO_PRE 2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department Hazardous Waste Generator Inspection-Compliance Certification Follow Up Auditor:Stacy Rivera In response to the Inspection Report issued by the SJ County Environmental Health Department for the November 9, 2017 inspection of the facilities at and nearby 500 E. Louise Avenue in Lathrop, Pilkington North America, Irt ("Pilkington") provides the following responses for each asserted violation: k W�^ I ;i >%' E DEC 0 6 2017 Item#102—CCR 66262/11 Failed to determine if a waste is a hazardous waste: ENVIRONMENTAL H&TWO Pilkington disputes this audit finding because: (1) Pilkington does not own or operate the s�ru PAe or soda ash within it, which was sold to a third party for potential resale over two years ago; and (2) it appears that the SJCEHD already received the allegedly missing material characterization and expressed its satisfaction with it. First, as you know, Pilkington had a prior SJCEHD audit on March 13, 2015,which was conducted by Ms. Elena Manzo. Following the inspection, Ms. Manzo issued an audit finding (#105)suggesting a potential failure to determine if certain material was hazardous. The product in question was soda ash that Pilkington purchased to manufacture glass. When the glass manufacturing facility shut down, however, much of Pilkington's Lathrop property and assets were purchased by new owners, including the soda ash in question. During this time Pilkington was working on other projects with SJCEHD and in contact with Program Coordinator Ms. Kasey Foley. Ms. Foley requested more information on item #102. Exhibit A to this response is a May 4, 2015 e-mail sent to Ms. Foley by Mr. Dana Parry on behalf of the new ownership group. In the e-mail, Mr. Parry confirmed that the new owners had already acquired the property and soda ash in question, and intended to sell it. Regardless of the new owners' follow-up, Exhibit A documents the fact that PNA does not own or control the soda ash in question, but rather sold it to the new owners well over two years ago and that the new owners considered it a useful material with commercial resale value, not a waste. Based on these circumstances,even if there was a need to conduct additional testing on the soda ash, Pilkington is not the owner or operator responsible for the soda ash and,to the extent that the soda ash constitutes a waste, Pilkington is not the generator. Second, PNA believes that the analytical data requested by SJCEHD for the soda ash was already provided and accepted. Specifically,the analytical reports attached as Exhibit B were previously sent to Ms. Foley in the spring of 2015, including the both the December 11,2014 report as well as the May 1, 2015 report. In particular,the May 1, 2015 report provided a Fish Bioassay Screen Test for Hazardous Waste that was conducted for the soda ash. Pilkington and it representatives(in addition to the new owners) had multiple conversations with the SJCEHD during this period to ensure that the department's concerns were being addressed. On June 10, 2015, Cyndi Ward spoke with Kasey Foley on the phone asking for a closure letter for the March 13, 2015 inspection. Although Ms. Foley indicated that there is no formal closure letter,she stated that she was pleased with the information provided in response to the inspection, confirmed the May 4, 2015 email that she received from Dana Parry, and—most importantly—indicated that there was no further action. Thus, Pilkington disputes this audit finding, including its mischaracterization as a repeat violation because (1)the product in question was sold to a new owner more than two years ago and (2)the requested documentation was submitted and accepted by the SJCEHD. Pilkington North America—Lathrop Page 1 of 5 12/4/17 (CERSID:10154015)