COMPLIANCE INFO PRE 2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

When Ms. Henry and Ms. Rivera returned to the facility later that day, they asked to speak with Mr. Hayashi to review the inspection report. Mr. Morris came to the front and explained he would take over for Mr. Hayashi and asked to walk through the facility again so he could see the violations. Ms. Henry and Ms. Rivera agreed, and reviewed the violations with Mr. Morris. The hazardous waste labeling violations had been corrected. Ms. Henry asked Mr. Morris about the discharge permits and pH logs. Mr. Morris stated that the facility was on a septic system and did not have a discharge permit with the City of Tracy. Mr. Morris showed Ms. Henry and Ms. Rivera the pH logs for 2010. The logs indicated the pH of the waste being discharged into the septic system after treatment. The pH noted on the daily logs varied but were all greater than a pH of 8. A "standard" on the log stated wastewater discharges could only be between pH values of 7 and 11.5. On several instances the discharge was above a pH of 11.5, including March 4, 2010, when the pH was 12.5. Ms. Henry asked about training procedures and actions taken when pH levels exceeded their internal policy on discharge. Mr. Morris stated there was no training, it was "second nature." He would look into why the internal policies were not being adhered to. Ms. Henry asked to see the logs from past years. Mr. Morris provided the 2007, part of 2008, and 2009 pH discharge logs. It was noted that on two previous occasions, wastewater with a pH greater than 12.5 was discharged. On April 19, 2007, wastewater was discharged with a pH of 12.9 and 13. 1, and on March 4, 2010, it was a pH of 12.5. Ms. Henry left a copy of the inspection report with Mr. Morris (Attachment 1), and explained that she would look into discharge requirements for septic systems and get back to Mr. Morris. On May 27, 2010, Ms. Henry spoke with Mr. Rodney Estrada, Lead Senior REHS, EHD, who said that the EHD only regulates domestic waste discharges, not industrial. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) would be the regulatory agency for industrial discharges. On May 27, 2010, Ms. Rivera called Mr. Morris with follow-up questions regarding wastewater disposal practices and business practices. When Ms. Rivera asked for copies of the pH logs, Mr. Morris became very angry and asked her to contact his lawyer for all further communication. On May 28, 2010, Ms. Henry wrote an addendum to the May 26, 2010, hazardous waste inspection report that added violations for disposing of a hazardous waste at an unauthorized point and failure to determine if a waste is a hazardous waste (Attachment 2). A referral was made to the CVRWQCB for discharging industrial waste with a pH range of 9 to 13.1 into a septic system (Attachment 3). On June 17, 2010, a return to compliance certification, corrective actions statement, and most of the items requested in the May 26, 2010, hazardous waste inspection report were submitted (Attachment 4). The disposal manifests for the waste photo resist and lubricating oil were not submitted, and the contingency plan indicated an incorrect phone number for the San Joaquin County Office of Emergency Services. Ms. Henry called and left a message for Mr. Morris explaining the deficiencies. On July 28, 2010, Mr. Morris submitted a corrected copy of the facility's contingency plan and disposal manifests by email (Attachment 5). Attachments 6, 7, and 8 include property owner information, facility operator information, and the hazardous waste facility file narrative, respectively. K