As long as the spill is less than 23 gallons (100 litres) no one is required to report it, and no one is required to clean it up. Lots of spills are therefore under 100 litres.

Yes, Herbster, l
lm sure the the majority of spills are under 100 liters, what a surprise!
But,im glad they figured out exactly how much leaked, they must have done it the scientific way........Contacted the trucking company, found out when the guy last filled up, got his tank volume, counted the mileage, got the truck average consuption and worked out his fuel consumption and therefore worked out the approximate loss that way................really.

lm delighted that Mr Reinhiemer is happy that the fuel spill is nominal, and that its acceptable to him that the remainder has been soaked up by the soil. l can now open, and i know EXACTLY who to turn to if my water is tainted by fuel.

Below is the information that i suppiled in writing;

At 7.49am Tuesday 10th i called the Pollution hot line to advise them that a 18 wheeler had gone of the road and was leaking fuel approximately 200' uphill from Snowshoe Creek 160km east of Prince George. A creek that they have gone to great lengh and public expense to document along with every other creek in the Province.
At 8.30am i spoke to the contractor at the scene who assured me berms would be put up and absorbent material put down to soak up the fuel, as the fuel had migrated 20' towards the creek. At 4.00pm i returned and was told that the fuel tanks had been drained and an undetermined amount was left on the ground, fuel could then be found 50' from the truck,closer to the creek and in places puddles of fuel/contaminated water six inches deep.
On speaking to the Environment Canada rep i was told " well we asked the road maintenance crew to have a look and they seemed to think it was ok"

CCC

so, by your reports the fuel leak never got any closer than 150' from the creek?

A 3rd party, the highway maintenace crew determined the approx amount of fuel lost, they get paid to clean it up, therefor they benefit financially if the spill is greater than 100 liters. They claim 6-8 gallons?

Im sorry but from what I am reading from your the only person who will be hurt from legal action is yourself because you will have to pay all costs.

ST
Thankyou for your expertize.

All i did was report what i found, and stated what course of action i would be forced to take if my water was polluted.
Just as you or anyone else would be forced to if there livelihood was destroyed by an avoidable incident, not of there making. Simple really.

CCC,

I just think based on what you have said you may be overreacting.

You say your drinking water comes from Snow Shoe Creek. You say the leak originated 200' from the banks of the creek, you say it traveled another 50' bringing the leak to about 150' from the stream.

At that point the leak will leatch into the ground. That means go down, especially if it puddled. Creek drinking water comes from a moving source, it does not come from ground water. The chance of a leak reaching your drinking water based on the facts you have presented are very, very unlikely.

Environment Canada is very stringent with their guidelines and lets very little go, if they had any indication that it could be worse they would be on it like stink to a skunk.

I am basing my personal opinion on spill training and dealings with Environment Canada in the past, they do not turn a blind eye. They also have the training and expertise to know when a situation can be harmful and when it is best to let mother nature take care of it.

Thankyou for trivializing my concerns about water contamination. The fact that you think spillage of any kind near a water course is acceptable, speaks volumes.
l have no interest in getting into this with you, as unlike yourself i have visited the area 6 times the last time being 30 minutes ago, so 'overreacting' is a rather facile observation. And being that ive dug a 3150 foot trench 5 feet deep to put the water line in, so have arguably a slightly better idea of the soil type and what i does than you.
But a few thoughts for you for you.
1 the ground is clay.
2 there is tributary leading to the creek that revealed itself when it got warm on wens is 40 feet away from where the clean up has finished.
3 There has been a large area of topsoil/duff/contamination, removed as you would know if you had been there, i doubt it was removed for the fun of it.
4. lf push came to shove the question would arise weather the road repair crew where qualified to make that call. ln the first place!
Your opinion is yours, such as mine is my own, but to trivialize someones concerns who's position you know very little about is facile at best.

CCC


"but to trivialize someones concerns"

Dude, there is so much I could say here but I wont. Fact is you have said nothing that raises a concern from a small diesel spill.

As I said before, I have dealt with Environmental Canada before, they are the stickest group of buggers I have ever dealt with. If they dont think you have a problem, I would tend to agree with them.

I also strongly believe in a little saying. There are 3 sides to every story.

Do you or do you not derive your drinking water from a moving body of water? Do you walk the entire length of that creek daily to make sure there are no dead carcuss's in it, do you make sure that there is no animal fece's in the area? Do you know what protozoa Cryptosporidium and Giardia lamblia is?

CCC

I quote:

"3 There has been a large area of topsoil/duff/contamination, removed as you would know if you had been there, i doubt it was removed for the fun of it."

so they did cleanup work? I thought you claimed that they did not?

"4. lf push came to shove the question would arise weather the road repair crew where qualified to make that call. ln the first place!"

Every person who works for LDM must take spill training. I might suggest they would be better qualified than you to make the call.

Your losing your credibility here.

again your eloquent opinions observed from a distance and or 3rd hand.
l do not have the time to debate with someone who has an opinion or six on just about every news story ever posted, yet finds it necessary to lurk behind an indecipherable "Nomme de gaurre"

....and you talk of crebablity?

lm done

lol ........guerre even!

In a situation like this, I would be inclined to err on the side of caution. What comes to mind is rain or melting snow washing the diesel fuel down slope and into the creek. Having said that, the concept of dilution by continuously flowing water bears some consideration, and the questionable purity of the water vis a vi the possibility of a carcass lying in the stream bears some thought as well. Although the environment ministry is reputedly very stringent about issues such as pollutants reaching streams, they are made up of a random sampling of human beings, which species is subject to changing priorities or distractions in their personal lives and just may drop the ball once in a while. Besides, they are an arm of the government, an entity which should never be trusted to do the right thing in any given situation.
metalman.

Thank you CCC for taking water contamination seriously. I suppose some like Stompin Tom have no problem with diesel in their potable water table. I suppose that the amount of contamination is the issue for stompin tom whereas for others it is the fact there was contamination period! (spillage that needed to be taken of regardless)

I really admire CCC for being an environmentally responsible business person! Others would do well to learn from that kind of care and attention.

Well done CCC.

CCC

run and hide, did they or did they not take away the contaminated soil?

One post you say no, the next you describe the hole they made.

Strikes me that you are a handful for all public services and that is why you now live in the outback.

By the way, if your so worried about your water supply, why didnt you dig a well rather than draw from a creek? Couldnt get a government grant? You boil your water?

commoner

some people like Stompin Tom realize that there are times when you have to have some confidence in groups like Environmental Canada and the work they do.

They spend countless hours and huge amounts of our public money determining how much damage is to much, when to take which action. We can all cry a river that there was some enviromental damage done, but we cant run out and spend millions of dollars everytime a person cries.

Yes Stompin Tom, there is a time to have confidence in the powers that be. However, they are only human and like the rest us have occasions where they don't feel like dealing with it.

I would like to see how you arrived at the conclusion that it costs millions of dollars per call out. It is indeed the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment to ensure clean up is done. I could care less what magic number they use to decide if it's worth they're time. Their salaries come from the taxpayer and therefore they should continue to do their jobs conscientiously. 100 liters of spillage is a lot of contamination. Again I ask, how much is too much? It is responsible citizenship to clean up your messes. Environment Canada is the enforcer. As far as I am concerned, CCC had a valid reason to see action was taken. Just as we all at one time or another complain about litter strewn in town or cigarette butts tossed about.
You might be able to turn a blind eye, but some of us care enough not to.

The business was completely closed because 8 gallons was spilled 200 feet from a creek? To err on the side of caution is a good idea, but come on. They couldnt boil their water for a couple of days, or perhaps haul some in? I suspect that there were no customers and the business was basically closed already and this is just a shot at grabbing some governement money.

interceptor


I didnt want to say it out loud but ........

commoner

I have dealt with Environment Canada in the past, they take their stuff very serious. They set their guidelines from many tests and allot of experience.

I dont turn a blind eye, but I can also smell out a career whiner when I see one.

Obviously, from the article:
1. 18 wheeler overturns
2. Diesel leak
3. Hwy crew drains tank and removes truck
4. puddles of diesel left
5. Call made to ministry
6. Ministry comes back cleans up puddles amounting to 6-8 gallons excluding seepage into ground.

I fail to see how this person was whining Stompin Tom. In the end it the surface was cleaned up. The amount of seepage was not reported. If that number is known the powers that be certainly aren't saying.

commoner

not sure which article you were reading:

1) "the total amount of diesel that was spilled near Snow Shoe Creek earlier this week is between 6 to 8 gallons"

nothing about excluding seepage, that is the amount reported by the officals at the site of the incident.

2) "He was speaking in reference to comments from a resident of Crescent Spur, Mark Webb, who said Wednesday that an 18 wheeler that had rolled off highway 16 east , spilling a considerable amount of diesel fuel , and it was leaking into the creek which runs into the Fraser River."

Funny how the local, ccc, claims at first there is considerable amount of fuel and its leaking into the creek, then he backtrack to agreeing it was a much lesser amount and it was 200' from the creek, with possible migration to about 100'. That is a HUGE differance.

There is no comfirmation from anybody that the ministy returned to clean up the scene, I pointed out in from a comment from CCC that it had been done, but has nowhere confirmed that nor has he backed off from his claims.


My whole point is his story is rather exagerated and definetly biased in his favor. When one goes that far over what the witness reports are, one must examine that persons motives. Its an absolute that his credabilty is in question.

correction, possible migration to 150' of the creek

Throw a match on the spill and it will burn off. Problem solved.