CO2400614 (4) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

but believed a hazmat crew had been dispatched. Information pertaining to the plan for cleanup was requested, but it was unknown at that time who the contractor would be or if they had an ETA. Jeremy was unable to contact anyone with this information due to the holiday and because statewide efforts had been diverted to another priority incident at another Union Pacific facility. Jeremy did not have information on what type of fire suppression system was on the crane. He made several phone calls and could not obtain this information but learned that the storm drain system was contained on site and that the property slopes back to a grate line that runs the length of the property to an oil-water separator south of the office building and finally to a set of retention ponds at the south end of the property.Jeremy did not have information on whether the retention ponds were dry prior to this incident. EHD called GrayMar who had recently responded to an incident at this location and confirmed that they had been dispatched and were en route with a cleanup crew. GrayMar arrived at the site at approximately 6:30pm. EHD met with Tyler who reported that he had recently been on site on December 11 to assess the oil-water separator in preparation for it to be cleaned out before the end of the year. He reported that currently approximately 15,000 gallons were contained in the unit and that the retention ponds have a steady stream of liquid due to the cranes being rinsed in that area of the facility and recent rainfall. EHD walked a portion of the grate line where the storm drain containment could be observed through the grates.An odor of diesel and burnt debris was present in the area adjacent to the incident. Significant debris was also observed inside the storm drain system including oily mud and trash debris.A site map on CERS indicated that the flow direction of the storm drain system was one way and directed all contents south toward the oil-water separator unit. Puddling was observed through the storm drain system for a portion of its length, but drier areas were visible starting around space 597, approximately 290 feet downstream from the incident according to the flow direction labeled on the map uploaded to CERS. No odor, sheen or puddling were observed in this portion of the storm drain system through the grate line. Puddling was observed sporadically further south along the grate line but no sheen was visible and no odor was observed. Chaz Mosley, Union Pacific Haz Mat Response arrived on-site and assumed command of the clean- up efforts.After debriefing with EHD and GrayMar, cleanup efforts began. EHD was informed that Union Pacific was not able to remove the burnt conex box or crane from the site until after Christmas, so the priority for the night's efforts would be to minimize the footprint of the release. Absorbent was spread across the entire large, paved area around the incident location.The cleanup crew used brooms to scrub heavily impacted spots, and then a skidster with sweeper attachment was used to contain the diesel and burn debris up to the"crane line".An attempt was made to remove excess debris from under the container, but due to safety concerns, cleanup did not occur under the container or crane, and they remain in place on-site. Eight 55-gallon drums of solid waste were generated from the paved area cleanup and will be stored on site in the hazardous waste storage area until it can be profiled and a hazardous waste determination made. Chaz was able to confirm the container number as RCLU22001 and confirmed with inventory management that the container was empty.