14-hour cleanup complete after tanker spills 1,000 gallons of gas
After about 14 hours from the time the call came in, the 1,000-gallon petroleum spill from a Sloan Petroleum Transport tanker that took place early Wednesday evening, has been cleaned up.
Ypsilanti Township Fire Department Captain Larry James told AnnArbor.com in a previous report crews were dispatched at 5:18 p.m. to 3105 E. Michigan Ave., in Ypsilanti Township. The Washtenaw County Hazardous Materials Team also responded to the call.
Two tankers not attached to a tractor were propped up next to each other in the back of a parking lot when the right tanker collapsed. The right tanker knocked down the left one and caused a puncture to the right tanker.
The puncture caused 1,000 of the 9,000 gallons of gasoline the tanker contained to spill. The left tanker was unharmed.
There were no injuries and no roads were closed for cleanup. There also were no wetlands, streams, buildings, vehicles or other tankers affected by the spill.
All of the remaining fuel has been off-loaded and, according to officials with the Ypsilanti Township Fire Department, the cleanup is complete and went smoothly.
Chelsea Hoedl is an intern reporter for AnnArbor.com. She can be reached at choedl@mlive.com.
Comments
IVote
Fri, Jul 5, 2013 : 5:20 p.m.
We own a home in that area that uses a well for water. From the time Hazmat started saying right away there was nothing to be concerned about, something just didn't seem right. Ypsianti Township should ticket this company big time. If this wasn't a safety issue, nothing is. If a company doesn't know this is dangerous, they should not be in this business. They should have to pay every dime of cleanup costs.
Cindy Heflin
Fri, Jul 5, 2013 : 4:35 p.m.
The Washtenaw-Lenawee County Chapter of the American Red Cross also responded to this spill to support the firefighters and members of the hazmat team. Volunteers provided dinner to approximately 25 first responders, the Red Cross said, as well as snacks and beverages until early Thursday morning.
Carole
Fri, Jul 5, 2013 : 1:01 p.m.
Why were these tankers parked at the back of a parking lot?
IVote
Fri, Jul 5, 2013 : 5:23 p.m.
And soft muddy parking lot at that. It was just cheap, careless, and stupid.
jcwest32
Fri, Jul 5, 2013 : 8:13 a.m.
Was the ground or soil affected? Did they have to remove all the contaminated soil? Seems like there would be some more clean up left to do.
IVote
Fri, Jul 5, 2013 : 5:21 p.m.
YES!
Bonsai
Fri, Jul 5, 2013 : 1:34 a.m.
typo in headline: "14-hour cleanup complete after tanker spill 1,000 gallons of gas" don't you mean "tanker spilt"?
Cindy Heflin
Fri, Jul 5, 2013 : 4:31 p.m.
That's been corrected. Thank you.
A2comments
Thu, Jul 4, 2013 : 9:59 p.m.
"The puncture caused 1,000 of the 9,000 gallons of gasoline the tanker contained." to leak...
Cindy Heflin
Fri, Jul 5, 2013 : 4:31 p.m.
The missing words from that sentence have been added. Thank you.
Tag
Fri, Jul 5, 2013 : 2:42 a.m.
Of course they had control over where they parked their tankers. Maybe "safety" is the wrong word, but I'm certain they're in violation for allowing their tankers to not be properly stored as to cause a haz-mat situation. And of course you seem to be trolling Schultz.
Shi Schultz
Thu, Jul 4, 2013 : 11:30 p.m.
That is in no way a safety violation. They had no control over the tanker being punctured. Now, what would be a violation would that paticular property not neing zoned for that type of storage. That being said, it still wouldnt be a "safety violation"
Shi Schultz
Thu, Jul 4, 2013 : 9:58 p.m.
Tag-where is the safety violation? And the original article stated the clean up was estimated to take 6 hours, how did it more than double to 14 hours?
ThinkingOne
Fri, Jul 5, 2013 : 11:19 a.m.
It would seem that the violation would be in having the tanks of gasoline parked on a dirt lot, where rain can easily wash away the support for the front end. Since the tanks are not attached to a cab, all that front-end weight is on the dolly, not spread over several tires. That should have been stored on a concrete slab. Whether that is a code violation or a safety violation is semantics. Since it is gasoline, and the possibility exists of sparks causing a fire, I would suggest that the use of safety violation is acceptable. And you are surprised that an estimate was off, too?
Tag
Thu, Jul 4, 2013 : 9:47 p.m.
Will, or is, the company facing a fine for a safety violation? Will the company also be responsible for all clean up costs of the township and county along with any additional restoration work? Congrats to Chelsea on your AA.com summer internship.