Rank: Forum user 
|
On site the commissioning team where unloading diesel to storage drum, when approx 50-100 litres of diesel, escaped from feed hose and entered the soil / earth, located outside of the Bunded work area.
I am looking for any information, on what procedures are to be undertaken, in regards to the environmental impact.
The team working at unloading attempted to cover area with absorbent granules.
We have demarked the area of spillage / seepage and are discussing whether to proceed with excavating of the spillage soil area and replacing with spoil heap soil.
Any comments will be welcomed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Paul-B wrote:On site the commissioning team were unloading diesel to storage drum, when approx 50-100 litres of diesel, escaped from feed hose and entered the soil / earth, located outside of the Bunded work area.
I am looking for any information, on what procedures are to be undertaken, in regards to the environmental impact.
The team working at unloading attempted to cover area with absorbent granules.
We have demarked the area of spillage / seepage and are discussing whether to proceed with excavating of the spillage soil area and replacing with spoil heap soil.
Any comments will be welcomed
Paul, As I understand from your comments the spill went onto plant growing soil, how big an area is affected? Under recent enviro regs (see NetRegs) you are / would be reqd to pay for clean up costs with the Enviro Agency involved. If this is a regular transfer point suggest that the soil is dug up and sent for treatment (unfortunately out of my scope as to where) concrete the area with a bund around it to prevent further spillages escaping. Next question, sounds like they were working outside the bunded area - WHY? BADGER
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Badger.
The approx affected area is 1 meter to 2 meter sq.
Yes it is a regular transfer point.
Approx 2 meters below surface / soil level, is a heavy gauge polythene, extending from end of bunded area to approx 1.5 meter sq. of bunded area, this extra precaution was inputted by design management, to counter such a possible occurrence.
The reason I have learned that the release occurred, was the contractor that was delivering the diesel, was retracting the hose line to truck, when there was a malfunction (?) that caused the pump to start releasing the Diesel. This comment was provided by questioned diesel delivery company.
From eyewitness comments, it would seem that the truck operator / delivery person, made a human error and pressed the wrong button for in-take / out-take.
We are now in the process of removing contaminated soil to contacted sourced disposal company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As the spillage in that area has occured the once still suggest concreting that area - human error is repeatable which then becomes common practice. Good luck on the clear up.
Badger
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Barrie (Badger) Ette wrote:As the spillage in that area has occured the once still suggest concreting that area - human error is repeatable which then becomes common practice. Good luck on the clear up.
Badger Agreed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Barrie (Badger) Ette wrote:As the spillage in that area has occured the once still suggest concreting that area - human error is repeatable which then becomes common practice. Good luck on the clear up.
Badger Concreting would improve the area but installation of a interceptor around the site would be ideal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Concreting would improve the area but installation of a interceptor around the site would be ideal.
By interceptor I believe you me something allied to a drain which IMHO is not acceptable. Especially when the spillage qty was at max a 100litres. Better a bund around the transfer point and spill kits in abundance to catch and clean up before the spill goes too far.
With a slight twist to the subject in hand, in H&S we have RIDDOR would somthing along similar lines for enviro spills / cock ups work? What does the forum think?
Badger
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Barrie (Badger) Ette wrote: Concreting would improve the area but installation of a interceptor around the site would be ideal. By interceptor I believe you me something allied to a drain which IMHO is not acceptable. Especially when the spillage qty was at max a 100litres. Better a bund around the transfer point and spill kits in abundance to catch and clean up before the spill goes too far. With a slight twist to the subject in hand, in H&S we have RIDDOR would somthing along similar lines for enviro spills / cock ups work? What does the forum think? Badger
Badger - your opinion noted, however an interceptor is indeed very acceptable and in my experience advised by the SEPA and DEFRA where practicable. Oil intercepters are installed to surface water drainage systems to prevent pollution incidents by oils / fuels etc. They are commonly used in addition to bunds at refuelling points, oil storage areas and so on. In this instance there is not enough information provided to acertain if the area is in (relatively) close proximity to any existing drainage systems or wash down areas etc, however it is certainly worth consideration as a second line of defence. The quantity of oil mentioned is not an issue. I work in a marine enviroment where oil management control measures are more stringent, nevertheless one cannot be to to careful in regard to the uncontrolled release of pollutants.
GC
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
GaryC40 wrote:Barrie (Badger) Ette wrote: Concreting would improve the area but installation of a interceptor around the site would be ideal. By interceptor I believe you me something allied to a drain which IMHO is not acceptable. Especially when the spillage qty was at max a 100litres. Better a bund around the transfer point and spill kits in abundance to catch and clean up before the spill goes too far. With a slight twist to the subject in hand, in H&S we have RIDDOR would somthing along similar lines for enviro spills / cock ups work? What does the forum think? Badger Badger - your opinion noted, however an interceptor is indeed very acceptable and in my experience advised by the SEPA and DEFRA where practicable. Oil intercepters are installed to surface water drainage systems to prevent pollution incidents by oils / fuels etc. They are commonly used in addition to bunds at refuelling points, oil storage areas and so on. In this instance there is not enough information provided to acertain if the area is in (relatively) close proximity to any existing drainage systems or wash down areas etc, however it is certainly worth consideration as a second line of defence. The quantity of oil mentioned is not an issue. I work in a marine enviroment where oil management control measures are more stringent, nevertheless one cannot be to to careful in regard to the uncontrolled release of pollutants. GC
PS - Ports already have acts/regulations in place which insist on the reporting of all marine oil / spills. All other spillages of oil, fuel or chemicals on land should be reported to SEPA / DEFRA - Failure to report can and does result in prosecution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
PS - Ports already have acts/regulations in place which insist on the reporting of all marine oil / spills. All other spillages of oil, fuel or chemicals on land should be reported to SEPA / DEFRA - Failure to report can and does result in prosecution. Its a pity it is not more publicised like RIDDOR for those of us who only 'play' with 14001 in comparison to the ports / marine activies. Badger
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Barrie (Badger) Ette wrote:GC
PS - Ports already have acts/regulations in place which insist on the reporting of all marine oil / spills. All other spillages of oil, fuel or chemicals on land should be reported to SEPA / DEFRA - Failure to report can and does result in prosecution. Its a pity it is not more publicised like RIDDOR for those of us who only 'play' with 14001 in comparison to the ports / marine activies. Badger Yes i agree to a certain extent - perhaps a widely publised system would be better, although like everything else the fear of heavy fines will always be an issue. Thinking of the the 'polluter pays' principle currently enforced through the The European Environmental Liability Directive! GC
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.