Laserfiche WebLink
We contacted the lab and ask them to run the TCLP testing on the burn off ash. Here is the tclp test results. All results <br /> are well below the limits. <br /> If you have any question please contact me. <br /> Have a great day <br /> From:Alaniz,John <jalanizl@sigov.org> <br /> Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 4:01 PM <br /> To: Chris Young<chris@premierfinishing.com> <br /> Cc: Backus, Garrett<gbackus@sigov.org> <br /> Subject: FW: RTC violations <br /> HI Chris, <br /> Thank you for the response. The Storm Drain Waste is OK. <br /> Although a TCLP was not needed on the second sample, a TCLP was needed for the first sample. We still have a <br /> concern, especially with the way the waste is generated (burned),that a TCLP could fail. <br /> There are three ways to get this resolved: <br /> 1) If barium sulfate does not degrade in the burning process (provide evidence), provide a statement from DTSC <br /> saying a TCLP would not be required. DTSC has a Regulatory Assistance Office that can be contacted at <br /> RAO@dtsc.ca.gov or 1-800-728-6942. <br /> 2) Run a TCLP analysis on the ash waste. <br /> 3) Provide a statement that the facility does not intend to do anything else. <br /> Thank You, <br /> John Alaniz <br /> From: Chris Young [mailto:chris@premierfinishing.com] <br /> Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 2:38 PM <br /> To:Alaniz,John <ialanizl@slgov.org> <br /> Subject: RE: RTC violations <br /> The sanders dust that contaminated the paint booth filters is a hazardous waste you have a manifest in your possession <br /> already, showing the sanding dust going out as haz-waste. <br /> 4/5) Burned off ash/4x4 area: We still have concern that a TCLP test (federal) was not run on the burned off ash. <br /> This was not ran because it is not required.All results are under the limits for having to run the TCLP <br /> From:Alaniz,John <jalanizl@sigov.org> <br /> Sent:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 2:07 PM <br /> To: Chris Young<chris@premierfinishing.com> <br /> Subject: RE: RTC violations <br /> Hi Chris, <br /> Thank you for the reply. Here is an update response: <br /> Violation 102: <br /> z <br />