CORKVD2LW (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

From: Paul Holt<pholt@up.com> Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 12:39 PM To:Steven Chaney<steven.chanev@fedex.com>; Lane A. Sekavec<LANEASE KAVEC@UP.COM> Cc: Benjamin Seymore<ben.seymore@fedex.com>; Muro, Claudia [EHD]<cmuro@sigov.org>; dsmith@patriotenvironmental.com; Gaitan,Jason [EHD] <igaitan@sigov.org>;Joe Hayes<ioe.haves@fedex.com>; Kailee Willis<kailee.willis@fedex.com>; Keith Winter<keith.winter@fedex.com>; Matthew Schaffer <matthew.schaffer@fedex.com>; Michael J. Algots<mialgots@up.com>; Michael J. Hykes<mihykes@up.com>; Paul Leonard <paul.leonard@fedex.com>; Terry Crow<terry.crow@fedex.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] UMXU 257619 Leaking at UPRR Lathrop Ramp 11-23-2020 San Joaquin County Mr. Chaney, You state, "UP's acceptance and movement of the shipment and handling of a detected release at its own facility makes it a generator." This is not correct. UP has addressed this issue with Fed Ex previously for another container in an email dated 12-02-2020 for container UMXU 247337. Lane Sekavec with Union Pacific responded to Keith Winter, and you were copied on that email as well. Under the Union Pacific Master Internodal Transportation Agreement, the shipper of record (Fed Ex) is responsible for the entire incident including any fines, costs, penalties etc. Under section 530 C of the MITA it also states that the shipper of record is also responsible for the ultimate disposal and shall hold Union Pacific harmless. If Union Pacific had caused the damage, then we would be responsible for the waste. This incident was not caused by Union Pacific and was caused by improper loading and a punctured drum. Union Pacific will not accept generator status. I have included the previous response below for your review. Please handle this in an expedited manner. "Keith, The generator of a waste is the defined as the person who caused the material to become a waste, i.e. the person whose act or process first causes a waste to become subject to regulation. You wrote"FedEx Freight does not give UP authorization to generate waste in our name or on our behalf." The waste was not generated on Fed Ex's behalf; the generation of the waste was a result of clean-up and remediation of a release caused by improper loading, securement and/or packing of freight being in a container offered for transportation by FedEx. Nor did UPRR generate the waste; the generation of waste was a "by-product" of the clean-up necessitated by a release from a drum in that had been punctured by a nail from a pallet. You also stated the"...the team that did the cleanup should have transported the waste." Since the waste had/has not been properly characterized nor profiled for transport and disposal, the response contractor could not legally transport the waste. A manifest(potentially a haz waste manifest depending on characterization) is required to transport any waste and this material is no different. In addition, to where would they have legally transported the waste?? Depending on location, the transport/storage/disposal of this waste may be subject to local, county, state and/or federal regulations. For one of UPRR's response contractors to have just taken control and custody of this waste would have been foolhardy at best and illegal at worst. If UPRR mishandled the container, causing the release, this would be UPRR's waste to manage. However, I didn't see anything that would indicate any mishandling by UPRR since the release was due to a punctured drum.. If you have documentation or specific regulatory citations that support your position allowing this waste to be transported as you suggest, please provide them for our reference and handling." Lane A. Sekavec, CHMM Sr. Manager Hazardous Materials Hazardous Materials Management- Response Union Pacific Railroad 600 Broadway, Suite 500 Kansas City, MO 64105 2