Somewhere in the back of my mind, I believe the entity that bought the line from the Milwaukee Road was the State of South Dakota.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
schlimm jrbernier Why is city paying for this?...because the city wanted to redevelop the land and did not have the foresight? The original owner and polluter was the Milwaukee Road, now owned by CP? Why not go after them?
jrbernier Why is city paying for this?...because the city wanted to redevelop the land and did not have the foresight?
Why is city paying for this?...because the city wanted to redevelop the land and did not have the foresight?
The original owner and polluter was the Milwaukee Road, now owned by CP? Why not go after them?
Probably would not be CPRS, formerly the Soo Line.
The successor-in-interest to what remained of the Milwaukee Road after the Soo Line sale was its holding company, the Chicago Milwaukee Corporation (CMC). This Corporation's primary function was now to dispose of Milwaukee Road rolling stock and real estate not sold to the Soo Line, primarily former urban rail yard locations in cities such as Milwaukee and Minneapolis. These properties were developed into big-box retail[31] or industrial sites. The CMC itself was beset with legal and financial woes, filing for bankruptcy (under its new name CMC Heartland Partners) as a result of environmental cleanup costs and liabilities at former Milwaukee Road sites.[32]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago,_Milwaukee,_St._Paul_and_Pacific_Railroad
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20060428/NEWS12/200020407/heartland-partners-files-for-chapter-11
Jeff
7j43k Since dirty dirt and such contaminants need to be encapsulated, I wonder if the fine folks of (insert city name here) thought about encapsulating-in-place. You know, like shelter-in-place. It's a two-fer. You encapsulate the yucky stuff, and you get a 12" thick concrete slab foundation for, I don't know, an Ikea and a Starbucks and a parking garage. You know, something really useful. Might be cheaper. Ed
Since dirty dirt and such contaminants need to be encapsulated, I wonder if the fine folks of (insert city name here) thought about encapsulating-in-place. You know, like shelter-in-place.
It's a two-fer.
You encapsulate the yucky stuff, and you get a 12" thick concrete slab foundation for, I don't know, an Ikea and a Starbucks and a parking garage. You know, something really useful.
Might be cheaper.
Ed
Disclaimer - I'm not a technical expert or even a particularly well-informed amateur. However, I have had some involvement with hazardous material remediation.
I have no idea, but it could be that the contaminants can migrate in the soil or groundwater so that it couldn't be contained without putting some kind of impermeable floor under it. I'm guessing it was cheaper and easier to remove the contaminated soil from the site, or that the impermeable floor alternative wasn't technically feasible.
schlimm The EPA has been around since 1970; the Superfund has been around since 1980. Contrary to an extremist corporatist ideology, both help protect ordinary people from enveronmental damage perpetrated by organizations who put their gain before responsible ethical behavior. A potentially responsible party (PRP) is a possible polluter who may eventually be held liable under CERCLA for the contamination or misuse of a particular property or resource. Four classes of PRPs may be liable for contamination at a Superfund site: the current owner or operator of the site the owner or operator of a site at the time that disposal of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant occurred; a person who arranged for the disposal of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant at a site a person who transported a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant to a site, who also has selected that site for the disposal of the hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. Murphy's town might have at least tried alternatives.
The EPA has been around since 1970; the Superfund has been around since 1980. Contrary to an extremist corporatist ideology, both help protect ordinary people from enveronmental damage perpetrated by organizations who put their gain before responsible ethical behavior.
A potentially responsible party (PRP) is a possible polluter who may eventually be held liable under CERCLA for the contamination or misuse of a particular property or resource. Four classes of PRPs may be liable for contamination at a Superfund site:
Murphy's town might have at least tried alternatives.
US EPA has delegated some of their authority to a number of states. About 20 years ago Michigan rewrote their environmental laws (NREPA) that required to show some causation for environmental liability. For example, a flower shop that bought an old gas station, would not be liable for a gas spill later discovered, as long as they did not perform an activity such as maintaining a gas storage tank. As part of the due diligence in purchasing a property, a buyer should do a baseline environmental assesment.
Prohibition of ex post facto laws would protect from criminal prosecution for causing spills prior to a law, however, it would not necessarily mean that you avoid liability for cleaning up the spill. It was also mentioned that both the RR and junkyard contributed to the contamination. Some state environmental laws provide for joint and several liability in these situations. But as it was also mentioned, the developers may have found brownfield money or tax relief to redevelop it, rather than wait for protracted legal wranglings to force a liable party to clean up, if ever.
Getting back to the original question about moving "dirt" by rail, the NYS&W has for years been transporting contaminated soil from Maywood NJ to a facility in the West (I don't know the actual facility).
The Maywood Chemical Company had for decades been generating waste streams from their production processes and dumping these wastes on the rear of the property. These wastes must have been similar in appearance to dirt, as the company allowed the neighbors to take the waste to use as fill around their houses. It was then discovered that these wastes were radioactive.
Cleanup is ongoing, with the soil around many homes removed and trucked back to the chemical company site, where it is loaded into gondolas for shipment. I've talked with a friend who was a Maywood police officer, who told me that a custom made heavy plastic liner was placed in the gondola, the waste was loaded, the liner folded over the top, and the liner was sealed.
This has been going on for many years; I thought that this would have been finished, but I still see the special gondolas on the siding.
Given how long these agencies/laws have been in existence (36-46 years, the dangers of these pollutants even longer)), ignorance is really no excuse.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmA potentially responsible party (PRP) is a possible polluter who may eventually be held liable under CERCLA for the contamination or misuse of a particular property or resource. Four classes of PRPs may be liable for contamination at a Superfund site: [1] the current owner or operator of the site
[1] the current owner or operator of the site
Note the cute little arrogant-government use of an acronym with pejorative connotation for criminals, for people who ... well, it doesn't matter if the 'current owner' knew anything about the problem, or if they owned it before the pollution became recognized or 'criminalized', they're treated exactly the same as people who knowingly, or uncaringly, or callously, caused the pollution, and everyone is thereafter treated exactly the same. And it is not a particularly caring or understanding treatment.
Granted, EPA is in the business of ameliorating "pollution" in the "public interest". Whether or not the pollution is actually dangerous to the public, or could be handled in some non-Government-approved fashion, might as well be immaterial. The problem I have with the methodology is the same, in essence, that I have with the idea of government enforcing child-support payments by revoking driver's licenses ... once you have associated people into a criminal category, whether they rightly belong there or not, you can become justified in your own mind being expedient in compelling their actions, or their future, or their fate. Note the little comment in the above about 'put their gain before responsible ethical behavior'? Where does finding out that your home was built over an abandoned canal full of toxic waste involve that? But your consequences will be just the same as if it did.
And, worse yet, it's all legal and you have limited recourse. 'Vote 'em out' is a cute excuse for an option; look at the kind of politics that goes along with candidates who have opinions on 'changing' this aspect of how EPA does its business* and you'll find all sorts of other baggage I doubt you'd want.
That's not to say I dislike the EPA in general, or disagree with its mission. I personally thought that the approach taken to reduce atmospheric CFCs was extraordinarily well thought-out and then implemented, and I'm tough to please when it comes to that sort of thing.
*'Does its business' is intended as a play on words for a different kind of potentially-toxic emission.
Murphy Siding schlimm The EPA has been around since 1970; the Superfund has been around since 1980. Contrary to an extremist corporatist ideology, both help protect ordinary people from enveronmental damage perpetrated by organizations who put their gain before responsible ethical behavior. A potentially responsible party (PRP) is a possible polluter who may eventually be held liable under CERCLA for the contamination or misuse of a particular property or resource. Four classes of PRPs may be liable for contamination at a Superfund site: the current owner or operator of the site the owner or operator of a site at the time that disposal of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant occurred; a person who arranged for the disposal of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant at a site a person who transported a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant to a site, who also has selected that site for the disposal of the hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. Murphy's town might have at least tried alternatives. I really don't know if the city did or didn't try any alternatives. The cynic in me thinks they just took the easy way out. The mayor and council were so hip and building something cool in that area that they were willing to sign just about anything. It wouldn’t surprise me if the junkyard owners simply signed over the property and walked away. The city had been trying to push them out for a long time. The key probably is how the development is panning out. The mayor built a glorious boulevard down the center of the property. One side is being developed into loft apartments. The other side I’m told can only be green grass or a parking, as no one is allowed to dig more than 12” into the ground on that side, without becoming responsible for whatever is below that. Come to think of it, that might resemble the backstory for the movie Poltergeist.
I really don't know if the city did or didn't try any alternatives. The cynic in me thinks they just took the easy way out. The mayor and council were so hip and building something cool in that area that they were willing to sign just about anything. It wouldn’t surprise me if the junkyard owners simply signed over the property and walked away. The city had been trying to push them out for a long time. The key probably is how the development is panning out. The mayor built a glorious boulevard down the center of the property. One side is being developed into loft apartments. The other side I’m told can only be green grass or a parking, as no one is allowed to dig more than 12” into the ground on that side, without becoming responsible for whatever is below that. Come to think of it, that might resemble the backstory for the movie Poltergeist.
Sounds like maybe the issue was considered and containment from above was a satisfactory solution on one side of the street. The other side was OK to dig for developing. And what the city gets is an attractive development generating tax revenues rather than an empty eyesore.
tree68 Is that Boulevard named "Love Canal Blvd?
Is that Boulevard named "Love Canal Blvd?
Murphy SidingThe mayor built a glorious boulevard down the center of the property. One side is being developed into loft apartments. The other side I’m told can only be green grass or a parking, as no one is allowed to dig more than 12” into the ground on that side, without becoming responsible for whatever is below that.
We're going through that whole remediation thing here - a creek picked up contaminants from an industrial dump (NY Air Brake - there's the railroad connection). A lengthy portion of both banks and the streambed were cleaned down to bedrock.
A downstream neighbor has now realized that said stream runs through her property, too. The story is apparently far from over... In fact, she made the front page of today's local paper.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Enough about law...back to trains.
When the Hudson River PCB removal and dredging was taking place, barges with the contaminated river sediment where brought through the Champlain Canal to a processing site at Fort Edwards, New York.
The contaminated sediments were de-watered and loaded onto rail cars. General Electric laid seven miles of track at the transload site and there was enough capacity for 81 car unit trains.
The original plan was that the transload facilty could be converted into a intermodal hub once the PCB dredging was completed.
Whether the intermodal hub will be created or the tracks get removed remains to be seen.
Kevin
As a chemist and a railfan, I cannot resist chiming in.
"...Probably because a good part of the pollution happened before there was a law? It's an old principle of American justice that you don't go after people who "broke the law" before there was one...."
The way that environmental law works is that the property owner owns the responsibility for a clean up. (any lawyers on the discussion thread can jump in here)
If Stink-and-Bang Chemical company legally dumped contaminated material out the back door, they still own the mess. It was legal at the time, so they will not be held responsible, right?
Wrong.
They still are allowed to keep the money that they made. If they are allowed to keep the money, then they also keep the liability.
If Molecular Physics International buys out Stink-and-Bang, then the new owner not only buys the assets of the original company, they also buy the liabilities. You cannot erase debt by selling your company.
If Molecular Physics International sells the property to Nouveau Riche McMansions Ltd, then the new owner also owns the liabilities. After all, Nouveau Riche McMansions Ltd bought the money-making assets, they also bought the risk.
This is why the vast majority of properties get cleaned up when the sale is made and not before.
If Stink-and-Bang goes bankrupt and the property ends up abandoned, then the property can be remediated under either the federal or state superfund programs.
Because of the long timelines and the legal expenses, it is often preferable to try to remediate a property without resorting to superfund.
Whether a property is remediated through capping or through a mass removal of contaminated material depends on a lot of factors. The frost line is just one of them. The first and most important question is "Does the contamination have the potential to move?" If yes, then the next question is "where?"
If the contamination can migrate into groundwater, a residential area, or a "sensative ecological receptor" (aka a wetland, park, drinking water supply, or wildlife management area) then a compelling case can be made for mass removal and hopefully, shipment by rail.
On the other hand, a cap might be appropriate if the risk of migration is low.
It must be noted that when a cap is used, the cap is not applied and the owner walks away. The area must be continually monitored and the cap must be maintained.
Anyone who is really interested in this particular case can contact the site manager. Every site is assigned a case officer and one of his or her jobs is to provide information to the public.
Hope this helps.
erikem dakotafred Probably because a good part of the pollution happened before there was a law? It's an old principle of American justice that you don't go after people who "broke the law" before there was one. It is specifically written in the main part of the US Constitution that "ex post facto" laws are prohibited. That's something that came to mind with regards to this thread. IANAL, so I don't know if the ex post facto provisions apply to civil cases as opposed to criminal cases. On the other hand, I do remember reading with disgust about the redevelopment agency involved with the downtown baseball stadium saying that landowners facing eminent domain taking of the land would be financially responsible for underground gasolene plumes even if they were unaware of the plumes AND had no part in the plume being there in the first place.
dakotafred Probably because a good part of the pollution happened before there was a law? It's an old principle of American justice that you don't go after people who "broke the law" before there was one.
Probably because a good part of the pollution happened before there was a law? It's an old principle of American justice that you don't go after people who "broke the law" before there was one.
It is specifically written in the main part of the US Constitution that "ex post facto" laws are prohibited. That's something that came to mind with regards to this thread. IANAL, so I don't know if the ex post facto provisions apply to civil cases as opposed to criminal cases.
On the other hand, I do remember reading with disgust about the redevelopment agency involved with the downtown baseball stadium saying that landowners facing eminent domain taking of the land would be financially responsible for underground gasolene plumes even if they were unaware of the plumes AND had no part in the plume being there in the first place.
Sounds like something one of our increasingly aggressive and citizen-hostile units of government would do. And, of course, they've already got the lawyers and the deep taxpayer pockets to carry the day with the right kind of judge.
Rule of law? A quaint abstraction in too many cases.
Murphy SidingHow well does that septic system drain into the bedrock?
They didn't - so a community system was installed. Each house has a septic tank, but instead of draining to a leach field, they drain into a collector system that deals with it.
On top of the bedrock is clay. Which just makes things worse.
Mookie Information appreciated. Murphy - I tried to find out Lincoln's frost line and kept coming up with 42", same as your area. Since all our winter cold comes from your area, that might be right. We have pretty much clay soil - are you the same? And they tell me that our water table is fairly deep. Sam - in KS - however always seems to be warmer than us. Kind of like we are the end of the line for seriously stupid weather in winter. Anyway - I always learn something on the forum.
Information appreciated.
Murphy - I tried to find out Lincoln's frost line and kept coming up with 42", same as your area. Since all our winter cold comes from your area, that might be right. We have pretty much clay soil - are you the same? And they tell me that our water table is fairly deep. Sam - in KS - however always seems to be warmer than us. Kind of like we are the end of the line for seriously stupid weather in winter.
Anyway - I always learn something on the forum.
tree68 I'm sure our frost line is at least 42" down - although at my house, it's a moot point as the bedrock isn't all that deep. In fact, I suspect my foundation is on bedrock. They had to blast to install a new 1000 gallon septic tank a few years ago.
I'm sure our frost line is at least 42" down - although at my house, it's a moot point as the bedrock isn't all that deep. In fact, I suspect my foundation is on bedrock. They had to blast to install a new 1000 gallon septic tank a few years ago.
Johnny
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
You may also need to mitigate any further leakage BELOW the contaminated soil, which might be hundreds of feet down... i.e.: dig it all out, line the pit with clay or some other (considered) inpermeable layer, then put it all back, tamp it down, cover it and then build on top of it. Granted, the water table might already be contaminated due to leakage up to the date when it is decided that it is not supposed to happen, but present ideology is to arrest any further contamination.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Mookie Murphy Siding Frost line in our area is 42" down. Pouring a 12" slab foundation on top is not an option. Why?
Murphy Siding Frost line in our area is 42" down. Pouring a 12" slab foundation on top is not an option.
Why?
edblysard Yup...NOS class 9....we have a PTRA customer that handles dirty dirt all the time, they burn it up! The dirt arrives in what looks like smallish dumpsters that fit on a spine car, one designed just for these containers/dumpsters, they stack like intermodal boxes, and have tarps on top to keep the dirt in.
Yup...NOS class 9....we have a PTRA customer that handles dirty dirt all the time, they burn it up!
The dirt arrives in what looks like smallish dumpsters that fit on a spine car, one designed just for these containers/dumpsters, they stack like intermodal boxes, and have tarps on top to keep the dirt in.
Mookie Murphy Siding Why?
Murphy Siding
For one thing, because freeze-thaw cycling would break down the encapsulation and possibly heave the concrete. You'd need a cap structure that would ensure stability reasonably below that frost line ... a relatively thin concrete layer, even if tendon-reinforced, won't assure you that.
Murphy SidingFrost line in our area is 42" down. Pouring a 12" slab foundation on top is not an option.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.