COMPLIANCE INFO - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

On December 23, 2003, Ms. Le performed a routine hazardous waste generator inspection at the above facility(Attachment 13). Ms. Le performed the inspection with the temporary facility manager, Mr. Steve Crockett. Ms. Le asked Mr. Crockett where the used oil was stored. Mr. Crockett pointed to two 55- gallon drums. Mr. Crockett said that he had only arrived at the shop several days ago and that he had been closed for the past 2 days just trying to clean it up. Mr. Crockett indicated that he knew the used oil tank could not be used. Mr. Crocket opened the fill of the underground storage tank per Ms. Le's request. Ms. Le observed some liquid in the tank. According to Mr. Crocket, Evergreen Environmental emptied the tank but that the used oil clings to the side of the tank and settles on the bottom. Mr. Crocket called Evergreen to see if they could remove the excess oil. Evergreen stated that it would have to be rinsed to remove all the used oil. Ms. Le informed Mr. Crocket that the tank was out of compliance and need to be emptied. On February 3, 2004, EHD received a complete UST removal application(Attachment 14). On February 10,2004, Ms. Le approved the UST removal with conditions (Attachment 15). On April 30,2004,Ms. Le performed a hazardous waste inspection at this facility(Attachment 26). The UST had approximately 5.5 inches of oily liquid in it. According to the manager, Mr. Steve Crockett, TEC had been out there the day before and tested the tank. TEC told Mr. Crockett that everything was perfectly good. Ms. Le asked Mr. Crocket if he was using the tank and he said no. Ms. Le told Mr. Crockett that the tank was not approved for use at this time. Mr. Crockett proceeded to call the owner, Mr. Kevin Eckman. Ms. Le spoke with Mr. Eckman. According to Mr. Eckman, EconoLube and TEC said the tank was good. Ms. Le explained to Mr. Eckman that the tank had failed secondary containment testing and that EHD can not validate the test that TEC had performed the day before because; 1) EHD was not notified by TEC that they were performing a test 2) EHD is unaware of the protocol TEC followed 3)the facility had a failure and now a"pass"without a repair. Mr. Eckman stated that the site is going through escrow and that the issues with the underground tank may hold up the sale. Mr. Eckman said corporate is responsible for the tank but that his sale may be jeopardized. Mr. Eckman indicated that he would do what he could to expedite returning the UST to compliance. On May 3, 2004, Ms. Le received a permit application to retrofit the waste oil tank. The retrofit permit application is to install a new monitoring panel, double wall piping, sump and spill bucket(Attachment 16). On May 4, 2004, Ms. Le mailed a copy of the hazardous waste inspection and photos from the April 30, 2004 inspection to Mr.Kevin Eckman,Econo Lube Corporate, and the property owner. On May 7, 2004, Ms. Le faxed a deficiency letter to TEC-Acutite regarding the retrofit permit application (Attachment 17). On May 12, 2004, Ms. Le received a response to the deficiency letter (Attachment 18). Some issues remain outstanding. See file narrative for correspondence between all parties(Attachment 19). 3