2.1.1 Narrative
U.S. EPA responded and mobilized START to conduct air monitoring and sampling activities.

U.S. EPA arrived on scene at approximately 13:15 with START. U.S. EPA observed smoke coming from the destroyed building, contaminated fire-suppression water located within the building footprint, and a room on the west side of the building contains approximately fifty small containers labeled as "corrosive" or "oxidizer".

The PRP mobilized a cleanup contractor who is currently on-scene and will begin stabilizing containers and removing contaminated fire-suppression water in the morning when the building has been made safe for entry.

2.1.2 Response Actions to Date
On 8/27/2011, PRP contractor (K&D Industries) to began the pumping of all remaining water on site which was a result of fire suppression efforts by the Bangor Fire Department.  K&D mobilized a 20,000 frac tank and a 6,000 gallon vac truck.

Continual smoldering of the fire onsite began producing large plumes of black smoke.  The Bangor Fire Department needed to spray additional water on the smoldering areas.  K&D continued dewatering the site with a vacuum truck throughout the day and estimated that 11,000 gallons were pumped into the 20,000 gallon frac tank.

At approximately 13:00, a large pool of antifreeze appeared near the loading dock area.  PRP notified those onsite that there was a large container of antifreeze located there, and it had likely ruptured.  Immediate action was taken by K&D to dewater the discharge.

MDEQ's Laboratory Services Section staff reported verbal, unconfirmed analytical results for samples collected mid-day on Friday 8/26 from the storm sewer outfall and further downstream of that location for volatile organics, base neutral acids, and Michigan 10 heavy metals. The number and concentrations of analytes reported at the outfall were higher than those reported for the downstream location. At the outfall, all concentrations in the storm water discharge were either below the method detection limit or below all Part 201 generic residential criteria, except for a few compounds that were either at or slightly above the generic groundwater surface water criteria. 
 

According to MDEQ .“Although it may be inappropriate to compare surface water results to some of Part 201 criteria, it appears to indicate there are no known imminent human health or surface water risks in the storm discharge.”