Well was being drilled. Two unreported spills were discovered. The first spill site was approximately 36 feet X 24 feet just east of the Baker tanks. This spill had a strong scent of petroleum. Soil/gravel from this site field tested positive for possible petroleum products. The second spill was located on the west side of the containment. A dark wet area of approximately 50 feet X 20 feet emanated from the containment. Soil in this area did not have a petroleum odor. The corner of the containment just south of the western most Baker tank had been sealed with tape which did not hold and allowed fluids/residual waste to escape the containment. A second area about 15 feet further south also appeared to have a leak. The above issues were discussed with the company man on site, Mr. Frasier. The Department recommends both spill areas be excavated to remove all contaminated soil, containment be replaced/repaired to ensure no leaks to the environment, and measures be taken to ensure the Department receives timely notification of spills for site 1 also violation of 78.54,78.57, and SWMA

http://alerts.skytruth.org/report/eea63708-a2da-3010-a32e-1175a0494...

Views: 614

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Frank, you could use better Discussion titles. It isn't the spill event that should give them a bad name, but the fact that it wasn't reported.  Not good, but this is a minor problem, easily cleaned up which is why there was a discussion with the company man and not a full blown write up/fine. I've seen reports that were triggered by a diesel engine that broke down and leaked less than one gallon of oil onto the ground. Gimme a break.

 I agree that it should have been reported to the DEP though, at least after all the rain stopped a couple of days before this inspection. I suspect they didn't know it was leaking until the ground dried up some. 

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service