COMPLIANCE INFO_2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Alaniz, John From: Chris Young <chris@premierfinishing.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 10:47 AM To: Alaniz, John Subject: RE: RTC Hazardous Waste Good morning Steve, Is this correct and ok to send pertaining to RTC 102 item (4,5)? Good morning John This response is in regards to RTC 102 item (4,5) 4) 1 did not see a TCLP test done on barium for the burned off ash. Was TCLP testing done on the waste? 5) See 4. For the burn off ash We ran the c and then ran the stic to show its under the limits per the stic and we did not run the tclp because I was under the impression that you only had to run the tclp if the ttic is 20x the tclp From:Alaniz,John <jalanizl@sjgov.org> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 4:48 PM To: Chris Young<chris@premierfinishing.com> Cc: Craig Walters<craig@premierfinishing.com>; Backus, Garrett<gbackus@sjgov.org> Subject: RTC Hazarodus Waste Hi Chris, This first email sent out will pertain to the hazardous waste return to compliance that was reviewed. Violation 122: Failed to provide information for recyclable material-CLOSED. Violation 501: Failed to completely label stationary hazardous waste tanks-CLOSED. Violation 605: Failed to completely label containers or portable tanks of hazardous waste-CLOSED. Violation 602/603: The disposal record was not legible. The EHD needs to receive a disposal record for the metal fines and the treatment waste that was in the buckets. Violation 102: Failure to determine. 1) Waste Powder Coating: For us to accept the results of Cardinal,we need to receive more information showing the powder coatings that were tested are one of the products that the facility uses. This can be provided to us via statements and SDS sheets. 2) The oily water went off as non-RCRA hazardous waste. OK 3) It says that the three blue drums were shipped of as non-RCRA hazardous waste. What was the waste determined to be? Which manifest does the waste correspond to? 4) 1 did not see a TCLP test done on barium for the burned off ash. Was TCLP testing done on the waste? 5) See 4. 6) The incorrect TTLC testing was done on the storm drain testing. The report says that method E200.8 was used on a sample where over 1%was "sediment content." Wastewater with solids greater than 0.5% require a different testing to be done. Please see Title 22 California Code of Regulations 66261.24(a)(2)(A)for more information. 7) The captured sanding waste is being disposed of as non-RCRA hazardous waste. I did not see any TCLP test results for chromium (250 mg/kg). Was chromium tested for TCLP?