conundrumed Posted March 31, 2017 Report Share Posted March 31, 2017 Here's the type of tank responsible. It leaked 200 million litres. Somehow, they just let it. Even in todays prices, that's a vac truck, cleaning, inspecting, repairing and back in SAFE service for maybe $40,000. Hell, I can buy a used working one at auction for $5,000 and spend another $10,000 moving, installing and certifying it. Plus, you were prolly bringing a suck-truck in to drain it regularly...or at least I would hope. Creosote stinks, it's not like anyone can say, "I didn't know". Imho, Domtar is definitely liable. Are their lawyers too powerful? That shouldn't matter. edit sorry, pic didn"t load, it's a measly 24x8' circumference tank, maybe holds a few hundred litres. Leaked 200 million litres....why have a holding tank? sad lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted March 31, 2017 Report Share Posted March 31, 2017 1 hour ago, conundrumed said: Here's the type of tank responsible. It leaked 200 million litres. Somehow, they just let it. Even in todays prices, that's a vac truck, cleaning, inspecting, repairing and back in SAFE service for maybe $40,000. Hell, I can buy a used working one at auction for $5,000 and spend another $10,000 moving, installing and certifying it. Plus, you were prolly bringing a suck-truck in to drain it regularly...or at least I would hope. Creosote stinks, it's not like anyone can say, "I didn't know". Imho, Domtar is definitely liable. Are their lawyers too powerful? That shouldn't matter. edit sorry, pic didn"t load, it's a measly 24x8' circumference tank, maybe holds a few hundred litres. Leaked 200 million litres....why have a holding tank? sad lol. What I don't get is how is it possible to excavate the bank of the river? Or better yet, what is the best way to excavate the bank of the river? Do we install a temporary bank offset from the original bank and then backfill with clean soil after? Or pour concrete to permanently create an artificial bank which would allow excavation as deep as we want? But then that would alter the river and disrupt natural flow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted March 31, 2017 Report Share Posted March 31, 2017 57 minutes ago, The_People1 said: What I don't get is how is it possible to excavate the bank of the river? Or better yet, what is the best way to excavate the bank of the river? Do we install a temporary bank offset from the original bank and then backfill with clean soil after? Or pour concrete to permanently create an artificial bank which would allow excavation as deep as we want? But then that would alter the river and disrupt natural flow? Install sheet piling or a secant wall around the perimeter of construction site and/or contaminated area. Excavate the center, construct building, backfill, Viola. You see it downtown all the time. The tricky part I think will be the air monitoring, air quality, containing and collecting the ground water/river seepage. Typical sites produce clean ground water that is easy to collect and discharge, here it must be collected then dealt with. The contaminated soil/gravels need to be hauled and treated somewhere as well. This might take 7-8 years for a monkey contractor, but maybe a year for a good contractor. Secant Wall Sheet Piling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted March 31, 2017 Report Share Posted March 31, 2017 Is a secant wall installed "after" excavation? And sheet piling is a permanent thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob74 Posted March 31, 2017 Report Share Posted March 31, 2017 4 hours ago, travel_dude said: I don't think they can even put a price on it today. You would have to do a full assessment to know the true costs, and that is only valid for today's prices. There is no way that the current mayor wants to do anyting with it, with a potential $1b cost. Realistically, it's a cost that would have to be borne by three levels of government, though. How often are those assessments accurate as well. Although, a lot of the time, it's the contractors hired to do the job that don't get things done in time as planned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted March 31, 2017 Report Share Posted March 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, The_People1 said: Is a secant wall installed "after" excavation? And sheet piling is a permanent thing? If you go secant wall, then it is installed first. You drill the holes then pour the piles side by side, then you excavate, and they are permanent. The sheet piling is driven in, it goes in first as well, it usually stays in the ground forever but it can be removed. The entire Zoo island is presently having sheet piling installed around its entire perimeter, precautionary measures for the next flood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowtownguy Posted March 31, 2017 Report Share Posted March 31, 2017 One has to wonder how much creosote has already spilled into the river given the flooding that has happened over the last several decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted March 31, 2017 Report Share Posted March 31, 2017 52 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said: One has to wonder how much creosote has already spilled into the river given the flooding that has happened over the last several decades. I can't believe governments are messing around with this situation so close to a waterway and water table. Take some of that collected Carbon Tax and actually fix something. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted March 31, 2017 Report Share Posted March 31, 2017 50 minutes ago, CheersMan said: Install sheet piling or a secant wall around the perimeter of construction site and/or contaminated area. Excavate the center, construct building, backfill, Viola. You see it downtown all the time. The tricky part I think will be the air monitoring, air quality, containing and collecting the ground water/river seepage. Typical sites produce clean ground water that is easy to collect and discharge, here it must be collected then dealt with. The contaminated soil/gravels need to be hauled and treated somewhere as well. This might take 7-8 years for a monkey contractor, but maybe a year for a good contractor. Secant Wall Sheet Piling That's extravagant. Will it take 5 years? I'm sure the river seepage is a much smaller area based on tank size and silty/sandy morainal stoney soil which drains rapidly. For perspective, if a pipeline company did this, it would be cleaned up, like right now. At all costs. And you don't start at the middle, you contain it from the edges. Then you know what you're in for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted March 31, 2017 Report Share Posted March 31, 2017 4 hours ago, conundrumed said: Here's the type of tank responsible. It leaked 200 million litres. it's a measly 24x8' circumference tank, maybe holds a few hundred litres. Leaked 200 million litres....why have a holding tank? sad lol. A tank with a circumference of 24' that was 8' tall would hold 10380 litres... To leak 200 million litres that would be like draining a full tank 19268 times... A larger 24' diameter 8' tall tank would hold 102500 litres... To leak 200 million litres that would be like draining a full tank that size 1951 times... It would have been cheaper to weld up the tank or buy a new one than to bleed out the creosote all over the ground... It makes you wonder what they were thinking... Of course the environmental damage is the true concern, and will cost a lot more to clean up the damage than the value of the creosote... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyromancer Posted March 31, 2017 Report Share Posted March 31, 2017 Here is a technical report that may answer many questions that this discussion regarding the creosote contamination glosses over. Read it & weep..... Site Characterization & Conceptual Site Model - Proposed;West Village Development;Area, Calgary, Alberta - Calgary Municipal Land Corporation In my opinion, the province should have cleaned it up when they built the containment wall in the mid-90's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted March 31, 2017 Report Share Posted March 31, 2017 Another thing, pull a bunch of soil plugs to see the containment extent and depths. It takes a day or two, there's your research... Just now, Carty said: A tank with a circumference of 24' that was 8' tall would hold 10380 litres... To leak 200 million litres that would be like draining a full tank 19268 times... A larger 24' diameter 8' tall tank would hold 102500 litres... To leak 200 million litres that would be like draining a full tank that size 1951 times... It would have been cheaper to weld up the tank or buy a new one than to bleed out the creosote all over the ground... It makes you wonder what they were thinking... Of course the environmental damage is the true concern, and will cost a lot more to clean up the damage than the value of the creosote... Yay, I'm poor at head math lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 12 minutes ago, Pyromancer said: Here is a technical report that may answer many questions that this discussion regarding the creosote contamination glosses over. Read it & weep..... Site Characterization & Conceptual Site Model - Proposed;West Village Development;Area, Calgary, Alberta - Calgary Municipal Land Corporation In my opinion, the province should have cleaned it up when they built the containment wall in the mid-90's. Domtar's gotta be on the hook for it, and in the end, they don't want this going too public, I'd think. They're a massive entity, can't see them wanting all of their communities with follow up questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
420since1974 Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 From what I recall reading in the newspapers, from 1924 - 1964 Creosote Canada (later renamed Domtar) correctly followed the rules that were in place while they owned and operated the creosote plant. They broke no laws or regulations that were in place at that time and eventually sold the property to the City after they ceased operations. That company has long since folded, and no longer exists as an entity in Alberta, so there is no one to serve a lawsuit against. Obviously, under current environmental regulations, that plant would never have been allowed to operate at that location in the first place. Every province in Canada except for P.E.I. has at least one of these contaminated sites to clean up. This pollution/toxic waste is not new, neither is the reluctance to clean it up. I've lived in Calgary since 1977, and no mayor or city council has ever made a serious effort to get the cleanup started. Testing the contamination didn't even begin until 1994, by then it had already migrated under the river to 19th Street N.W. A containment wall was built in 1996, and 30 monitoring wells have been dug in Hillhurst. Bottom line, the City of Calgary now owns that property, and the responsibility to clean up the estimated 2 million litres of creosote, components, and waste is theirs. However, as the Bow River is a major waterway which supplies both drinking water and crop irrigation, I would wager that both the province and the feds would contribute some monies to the cleanup. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 4 minutes ago, 420since1974 said: From what I recall reading in the newspapers, from 1924 - 1964 Creosote Canada (later renamed Domtar) correctly followed the rules that were in place while they owned and operated the creosote plant. They broke no laws or regulations that were in place at that time and eventually sold the property to the City after they ceased operations. That company has long since folded, and no longer exists as an entity in Alberta, so there is no one to serve a lawsuit against. Obviously, under current environmental regulations, that plant would never have been allowed to operate at that location in the first place. Every province in Canada except for P.E.I. has at least one of these contaminated sites to clean up. This pollution/toxic waste is not new, neither is the reluctance to clean it up. I've lived in Calgary since 1977, and no mayor or city council has ever made a serious effort to get the cleanup started. Testing the contamination didn't even begin until 1994, by then it had already migrated under the river to 19th Street N.W. A containment wall was built in 1996, and 30 monitoring wells have been dug in Hillhurst. Bottom line, the City of Calgary now owns that property, and the responsibility to clean up the approximate 2 million litres of creosote, components, and waste is theirs. However, as the Bow River is a major waterway which supplies both drinking water and crop irrigation, I would wager that both the province and the feds would contribute some monies to the cleanup. Just for clarification, Domtar is alive and kicking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
420since1974 Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 Just not in the Creosote business in Alberta. Separate legal entities. I don't like that Domtar will legally slide on this one, but it appears to me that it was the 1964 Calgary municipal government that did not do their due diligence prior to purchasing the property from Domtar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowtownguy Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 1 hour ago, MAC331 said: I can't believe governments are messing around with this situation so close to a waterway and water table. Take some of that collected Carbon Tax and actually fix something. Actually, that is a good point. Instead of redistributing the money, maybe some cleanup is more effective. Having said that, I suppose that they would argue that carbon and creosote cleanup are quite different things. Regardless, it really needs to be cleaned up one way or the other. 8 minutes ago, 420since1974 said: Just not in the Creosote business in Alberta. Separate legal entities. I don't like that Domtar will legally slide on this one, but it appears to me that it was the 1964 Calgary municipal government that did not do their due diligence prior to purchasing the property from Domtar. I suspect that someone paid someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowtownguy Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 BTW, that picture of the sheet piling posted by conundrumed would likely make Trump even happier than winning the erection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 15 minutes ago, 420since1974 said: Just not in the Creosote business in Alberta. Separate legal entities. I don't like that Domtar will legally slide on this one, but it appears to me that it was the 1964 Calgary municipal government that did not do their due diligence prior to purchasing the property from Domtar. It is still a story I'm sure they would rather suppress. I'm sure I can find industry codes from 1964 that say it's okay to lie about performance, lol, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said: BTW, that picture of the sheet piling posted by conundrumed would likely make Trump even happier than winning the erection. Are you SURE that was me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowtownguy Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 5 minutes ago, conundrumed said: Are you SURE that was me? Pardon me, it was originally CheersMan and then reposted by you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 1 hour ago, conundrumed said: Yay, I'm poor at head math lol Sorry, couldn't help myself... Spent too many years as an engineer in the oil patch, so when you mentioned it I was compelled to figure it out... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 1 minute ago, Cowtownguy said: Pardon me, it was originally CheersMan and then reposted by you. You mean I quoted him to respond. "Reposted" has that, "so you're saying that too" connotation. Just to be clear, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 34 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said: Actually, that is a good point. Instead of redistributing the money, maybe some cleanup is more effective. Having said that, I suppose that they would argue that carbon and creosote cleanup are quite different things. The NDP would rather spend the money hiring a company from Ontario to come and screw in light bulbs and shower heads in peoples houses in Alberta... I don't understand why they would hire out to have that done anyway, when the NDP could have actually done something useful for a change and go out and screw themselves instead of spending their time tying to figure out how to waste more of our tax money... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 1 minute ago, Carty said: The NDP would rather spend the money hiring a company from Ontario to come and screw in light bulbs and shower heads in peoples houses in Alberta... I don't understand why they would hire out to have that done anyway, when the NDP could have actually done something useful for a change and gone and screwed themselves... Bwahaha, I've seen it a few times. Hotel renos anyone, bwahaha, so funny you said that, and I don't know you from Adam.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now