COMPLIANCE INFO_1996 - 2016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

These are repeat violations from the last two years. Additionally,mop water contaminated with antifreeze and sanding waste from the body shop were not characterized for hazardous properties and disposed of as non-hazardous. The code section for this violation was incorrectly noted on the inspection report as violation#12,but should have been marked as violation #10. A State copy of a manifest dated March 30, 2005, was found and not submitted to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) within 30 days, and several signed copies of manifests were either not retained for at least three years or exception reports were not filed with DTSC when they were not received after 45 days. Universal Waste disposal records were not retained for the management of fluorescent tubes, used alkaline batteries, and non-empty aerosol cans. The code section for this violation was incorrectly noted on the inspection report as violation #75, but should have been noted as a violation of Title 22, California Code of Regulations, Section 66273.19. An inspection report was issued to Mr. Joe Wang, Parts and Service Director(Attachment 5). On August 16, 2005,Mr.Wang submitted a statement of corrective actions and a return to compliance certification (Attachment 6). Mr. Wang stated that they had a consultant, Kip Prahl Associates, conduct a complete inspection and action plan review, as well as assistance with obtaining analytical tests on sanding waste from the Body Shop. On April 7, 2006, Ms. Le conducted a routine hazardous waste inspection at this facility. Oily fluids were found in a drain that leads to an unknown location, several containers of hazardous waste were held onsite for longer than 90 days, and an unattended transmission was on the ground leaking transmission fluid onto the floor. Spent absorbent was observed left on the ground, and this violation was incorrectly noted as a repeat violation due to an incorrect code citation on the previous inspection report. This facility can store over 2500 gallons of petroleum-based products and a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan had not been developed, which is required for facilities that store over 1320 gallons of petroleum based products. Repeat violations from previous inspections were also found that include disposal of sanding waste into the garbage without a hazardous waste determination, numerous hazardous waste containers not labeled properly, four 5- gallon containers of hazardous waste that were not closed and not in use at the time of inspection, and failure to file exception reports for signed off copies of manifests not received within 45 days of disposal. On April 10, 2006, Ms. Le gave a copy of the inspection report and photos taken at the time of inspection (Attachment 7) to Mr. Wang and also informed him that she will be back with Mr. Leo Valdez, Hazardous Substances Scientist, Department of Toxic Substances Control on April 13, 2006, to conduct sampling. On April 17, 2006, Mr. Wang submitted a statement of corrective actions, a return to compliance certification, photos, and copies of manifests (Attachment 8). On April 13, 2006, Ms. Le returned to the facility with Mr. Valdez to conduct sampling of sanding and paint waste. Samples were taken from a container of paint sanding waste that was collected from the floor drains and the floor of body shop (labeled "floor drains"), sanding waste that was generated in the presence of Ms. Le and Mr. Valdez (labeled "paint'), and a piece of used sandpaper that the body shop manager said would have been placed into the hazardous waste drum (labeled "sandpaper"). A split sample of the waste from the container was provided; however, there was not enough of the sanding waste generated at the time of sampling for a split. On May 9, 2006, the analytical results for the 2