Laserfiche WebLink
inspection, a white bag containing hazardous waste was leaking a white <br />substance onto the ground. <br />5. Section 66262.34 (a), California Code of Regulations (CCR). At the time of <br />inspection, several 55 -gallon drums containing hazardous waste were <br />unlabelled. <br />6. Section 66265.173 (a), CCR. At the time of inspection, two 5 -gallon <br />buckets, one white bag, two 55 -gallon drums and one vat of hazardous <br />waste were not closed. <br />7. Section 66262.34 (f), CCR. At theltime of inspection, several drums <br />containing hazardous waste had an unreadable, or no "date of <br />accumulation". <br />8. Section 66262.34 (c), CCR. At the time of inspection, several drums <br />containing hazardous waste had been stored beyond 90 days without an <br />interim status permit. <br />9. Section 66265.171, CCR. At the time of inspection, bags containing <br />hazardous waste were in poor condition and not transferred to sound <br />containers. <br />10. Section 66265.177 (c), CCR. At the time of inspection, containers of <br />hazardous waste were stored nearby incompatible hazardous wastes <br />containers and not separated by dikes, berms, walls or other devices. <br />I checked with Alan Ito of DTSC to find out if Circuit Works had any permits or variances <br />which would allow them to treat their hazardous waste. Alan checked and said that he <br />could not find anything on file indicating a permit or variance had been issued to the <br />facility, nor had they applied for PBR. <br />* All of the samples were labelled with letters indicating the facility name (CW), date (9- <br />25-92) and sample number (1,2,etc.), however, I thought the date was 9-25-92 but it was <br />actually 9-24-92, this should explain the apparent incorrect date of the sampling activities. <br />This report was prepared on Noveber 2, 1992, by Kasey Foley, Senior Registered <br />Environmental Health Specialist. <br />