[Hydrogen]

activeday,

You still have not answered the point made by Prometheus:

you do know that storm sewers that collect street runoff (which includes melting dirty snow from streets and all kinds of salt) empty directly into our rivers and creeks without any treatment whatsoever. street runoff goes into the rivers all year long.

As andomano pointed out earlier, what's in the snow was already on the ground to begin with.


Also, the blog that you cite is not particularly illuminating - other than claiming that water run-off from snow dumping is bad.

 

[Asterix]

I'm not trying to engage in personal attacks, but I don't think you have really shown what you claim to have shown.

a/ Listed the concerns raised by the Save The Don Valley group. This group was able to have their dump closed because of the effects on the environment.

The concerns raised with respect to the Don Valley dump were very specifically due to the melt running directly into the Don, given that the river is immediately adjacent to the dump site. This is not the case with Downsview.

b/ Shown the effects of the dump in Ottawa, and how the dump there was shut down.

With respect to Ottawa, you posted their manual for the operation and maintenance of snow dump sites. They certainly aren't banning such operations and I would say the Downsview pile is constructed and contained pretty much as per the Ottawa document (although they don't spend further funds to break up the pile as it melts - it'll be gone eventually).

c/ Provided a link from the Ontario Municipal Board, which I believe actually forced the city to stop the dump they had planned.

Without going back, which city and which dump is this referring to? The Don one that had its own issues with being right next to the river?

If so, note that they are not banning all dumps, just one that feeds directly into a river. The Downsview site is a great alternative to those concerns.

d/ Shown a video that clearly shows how big this dump is ( it is, as I'm sure you will agree, by any word - huge ).

Again, I pass that location every work day on the subway. I'm well aware how big it is. Last year's pile lasted into June.

But so what? The snow has to be removed from many city streets. It has to go somewhere. While there are some negative localised impacts, I can't think of a more appropriate location. Can you?

e/ Raised this concern to the citizens in Toronto.

Yes. You've repeated your concerns many times. But as I and a few others have pointed out, you haven't really backed up those concerns with respect to the specific Downsview site.

I agree with your stance on piles next to Rivers. That is not the case with Downsview where there is much filtration before runoff makes it into a flowing watercourse.

f/ Asked for help ( through this board ) as to what the best way to approach the issue is.

You've had answers to that, even if they weren't the answers you were looking for. Some of those answers said you need more substance to your environmental damage claims. I also pointed out there exists environmental legislation so if the snow dump is as toxic as you claim (another point you haven't addressed), then there are mechanisms in place such that more provincial legislation is not needed.

One "but" .... is each time I provide clear evidence of what is happening, there seems to be a "non-technical" discussion that leads more towards a comment on personality than the actual problem.

I'm not speaking for any other board participants, but I'm not commenting on your personality beyond your apparent avoidance of answering direct questions (re: toxic waste) or providing evidence of substance to back up your claims specifically relating to the Downsview site.

That's not to say you haven't provided anything, just not enough. Those certainly are not "non-technical" points.

Putting a lot of waste over a lmited amount of space will have an immediate and direct impact on the land below it.

Yet again, the question is how much is that "immediate and direct impact"?

If you'll read my posts, I'm not saying the dump is beneficial to that sliver of land. But I don't see it as having a serious negative and long-lasting impact. All things considered (the snow has to go somewhere; clean up required at the site; etc) I don't really see a problem with the Downsview snow dump.

 

[activeday]

Hi Asterix - again, thank you.

Your coments I believe are well thought out and, even although you may disagree with some of my concerns, you are both considerate respectful of them. I sincerely appreciate that.

To answer some of the points raised, I think it would possibly be better if I was to quote directly from the City Of Toronto's Study on the Snow Dump, rather than just give some off the cuff comments. The entire report is over 100 pages, I have taken some of the points about Downsview for observation.

http://www.toronto.ca/wes/techservices/involved/transportation/snow_study/pdf/schedule-b-class-ea-study.pdf


2.5.3 Monitoring Results

" .... Based on the analytical data collected from groundwater and meltwater at the Allen Road and Bayview/Bloor sites, it has been established that environmental impacts and environmentally significant exceedances are present. The environmental impacts and environmentally significant observations at each site and their proposed source(s) are summarized below..."

The monitoring study carried out during the winter of 2004-05 indicated that there is a high potential for the meltwater from snow disposal sites to contain heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, chloride and sodium. The study also indicated that the constituents contained in the meltwater may be migrating into the local groundwater as a result of infiltration.[/B]


2.5.3.1 Allen Road Environmental Impacts

Copper was identified as an environmental impact in the groundwater of the site. A potential source of this impact is meltwater originating from the snow stockpile.

Various heavy metals (aluminium, antimony, boron, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, vanadium and zinc), petroleum hydrocarbons, phenols, ammonia and total phosphorous were identified as environmental impacts in the meltwater at the site. The source of these environmental impacts can be attributed to snow stockpiling activities, runoff from Allen Road and/or surface water drainage from north of the site.

Environmentally Significant
Petroleum hydrocarbons, chloride and sodium were identified as environmentally significant parameters in the groundwater at the site. The source of these environmentally significant parameters can be attributed to snow stockpiling activities and/or runoff from Allen Road.

Petroleum hydrocarbons and chloride were identified as an environmentally significant parameter in the meltwater at the site. The source of this environmentally significant parameter can be attributed to snow stockpiling activities and/or runoff from Allen Road.

7.1 Conclusions
" ..... The monitoring study carried out during the winter of 2004-05 indicated that there is a high potential for the meltwater from snow disposal sites to contain heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, chloride and sodium. The study also indicated that the constituents contained in the meltwater may be migrating into the local groundwater as a result of infiltration ..."


" .... The City proceed with the detailed design and construction of the conceptual either at North Keelesdale or Allen Road North of Transit Road to assess the operational performance of the facility before proceeding with the construction of other facilities at other sites .... "

If this is not enough information, by all means I will gladly obtain other reports from other municipalities who are trying to deal with the same environmental concerns these massive dumps pose.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Various heavy metals (aluminium, antimony, boron, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, vanadium and zinc), petroleum hydrocarbons, phenols, ammonia and total phosphorous

if these are detected in the snow pile, they most likely exist in all the snow at the edges of all major roads in the GTA and on the road surfaces. also, i think the heavy metal contamination comes from the road salt and since rock salt is mined, it's not pure and most likely contains trace amounts of other elements and compounds. rock salt isn't just sodium chloride.

the petroleum hydrocarbons are mostly from the particles of road asphalt scraped up from the road surface from plow blades. all the black roads in our city contain petroleum hydrocarbons. erosion of the road surface followed by precipitation washes particles of asphalt containing the petroleum hydrocarbons into the storm sewers and directly into the rivers and creeks in the GTA. the rivers empty into lake ontario.


getting rid of the snow dump at downsview will only mean it's going somewhere else. the metal contaminants most likely come from the salt and moving a snow pile or even processing a snow pile at a purpose built facility doesn't solve the cause of the problem.


also, even though there are trace amounts of metals in the melt runoff, there are trace amounts of metals occurring naturally in the soil, just how they occur naturally in the rock salt.


so in conclusion, eliminating the downsview pile will not stop river/creek/lake contamination, it will not stop widespread contamination around the GTA and it will not stop groundwater contamination around the GTA. even if salt use was eliminated, every asphalt road in the GTA contains petroleum hydrocarbons. if you eliminated asphalt roads you would have to use concrete. this would use more energy to construct and cause worse pollution and environmental damage.

like i said, it's like going into the chernobyl nuke plant but worrying about the radiation you got exposed to last week when you got an x-ray at a ontario hospital.


the ground water at downsview park will still get contaminated from runoff in the area and being that this is a former military base and the surrounding area is very industrial, i bet there's quite a bit of groundwater contamination there already, regardless of the snow dump. i think it's one of the reasons why you're not supposed to use well water in the city.


p.s, does anyone know if they salt the landing strip at downsview?

 

[activeday]

"getting rid of the snow dump at downsview will only mean it's going somewhere else"

Perhaps, not necessarily - I believe that these dumps are Toronto's "Dirty Little Secret" . Various local groups have tried to get the issue addressed in an environmentally friendly way - but to no real avail.

http://www.toronto.ca/wes/techservices/involved/transportation/snow_study/pdf/schedule-b-class-ea-study.pdf

There are serious and long term environmental concerns created by these dumps. They aren't "snow piles" - they are, essentially 'waste sites' - please let's agree on the wording if nothing else.

The last reported public consulation process resulted in 26 people coming out to the meeting - was this due to a lack of concern from the public, or that people were not really aware of the environmtal impact. Do only 26 people in Toronto care? Is is possible that the agencies involved did not proactively properly consult the community?

Let's get the communities involved - please please please spread the word. This is a bigger issue than we realized, and it will get worse if we don't act now.

"Prometheus", I thank you in that your concerns made me dig a little deeper. When I dug, I actually found that the environmental effects these dumps pose is greater than I ever every ever imagined - thank you, sincerely.

These dumps are a massive issue that the publicly funded and paid for agencies Toronto do not appear to be facing very well. As much as we talk about being "green", these dumps show us how much more work we need to do with each other - in an open and balanced way.

Let's have Toronto, once again , be leaders in Ontario.

No More Dumps.

We have the power as voters to change how the system works - please, call your elected leader if your area has one of these dumps and ask one question:


"What are YOU doing to PROTECT our Community"

 

[Asterix]

"getting rid of the snow dump at downsview will only mean it's going somewhere else"

Perhaps, not necessarily - I believe that these dumps are Toronto's "Dirty Little Secret" .

What do you mean by 'not necessarily'?

If the snow dumps are closed, will the snow just not fall in the central part of the city, necessitating removal?

Several posters have responded, questioning the severity of your extreme environmental impact claims and you haven't really addressed those points. More importantly, while denigrating the current system, you have yet to suggest any possible alternative.

A few points that haven't been dealt with:

- there is nothing in the snow piles that wasn't already on the streets, where it would have run from the city sewers directly into the rivers and lake (closing the dumps is not going to remove those contaminants from the environment);
- if snow is not removed from city streets, millions of dollars will be spent/lost due to lack of vehicular and pedestrian mobility;
- huge amounts of additional pollution will result from people driving endlessly searching for non-existent parking, from sliding back and forward trying to inch their way between snow mounds, from spinning their tires (rubber particles now added to the runoff) as they try to get un-stuck from a snowbank. Ever seen the black smoke from the tail pipe when someone floors the gas when stuck?

These are all non-zero costs to time, money and the environment. Unless you have a radical solution no one else has thought of, removal of the snow to a handful of dump locations is the cheapest, most effective and most environmentally friendly way of dealing with the problem.

You have made valid points that care and management of the runoff from these sites is important and I don't think many will disagree that placing of these sites immediately adjacent to the Don River (or other open waterway) is the most suitable solution, even if they are convenient and cost-effective.

But the fact remains, which you don't seem to be acknowledging, is that the snow has to go somewhere. Given all the facts and issues you've raised, I continue to see the Downsview location as one of the best possible sites within the city of Toronto. Maybe you've got a better place further out in the country, but that will mean millions more in transportation costs (and the resulting emission of greenhouse gases).

A further advantage to piling the snow in large sites is that runoff management can be implemented - melt ponds, containment, filtration - all of which would not be done if the snow were to be left to melt on city streets.

And the resulting debris pile once the snow has melted? A couple of hours for a front-end loader to scoop up and dump in a truck instead of littering city streets (and clogging the sewer system).

Instead of repeating the same lines you've used throughout this thread (making them bold or red highlight doesn't change any of the points previously brought up to rebut them), how about presenting your viable alternative? Simply saying 'no' to snow dumps does nothing to address any of the problems and leaves the city (and its inhabitants) worse off both financially and environmentally, completely contrary to your stated goals.

 

[activeday]

Hi Asterix and thanks for the feedback and your thoughts.

Let's get the focus back on the main concern - there are dumps ( not only next to Downsview Park ) but also throughout the city that are possibly causing long term damage to the environment. Based on the report provided to the city, there are more questions than answers about what these dumps are doing to the environment - both long term and short.

If I provide an alternative, I know in my heart that it will be fruitless to this discussion. Why? Because as soon as I do, based on my experience thus far there are more "armchair experts" than I could possibly reply to.

Let's agree these dumps are massive, and they will have long term and long reaching impacts on the city and the communities.

Let's agree that we can do better than resort to personal attacks and lines such as ".... you still haven't done this .... " or "... you didn't do that...."

Let's agree that the city needs to re-address these dumps with the needs of the community in mind.

Let's agree that waste going into the ground is just as bad as going into the lake.

Let's focus on our similarities, rather than the minor things we seem to have a different opinion on.

These dumps are _not good_ .

Let's start to work together - please!

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Although I'm a bit late in this discussion I think that most people are becoming aggrivated at your (activeday's) apparent lack of understanding that any contamination that exists at/in the dump site would exist in the same snow that would line our city streets if the snow weren't picked up and taken to a site like this. So perhaps your concern is misdirected, the dump is not the cause for all the contaminants it is simply a container that the contaminants attach themselves to. The environmental damage will come whether we choose to leave the snow in the streets or truck it to a central site.

If we are looking for alternatives. Might I suggest a central melting/treatment station? Snow could be trucked to the site (a large treatment type site, concrete construction etc.), melted down by melters and the water could flow into a treatment area to have as many contaminants removed before going back into the water system. The question is would the cost and environmental impact of this construction mitigate the damage that simply using a dump site like we are doing causes?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Although I'm a bit late in this discussion I think that most people are becoming aggrivated at your (activeday's) apparent lack of understanding that any contamination that exists at/in the dump site would exist in the same snow that would line our city streets if the snow weren't picked up and taken to a site like this.

Not *quite* true since the pollutants will essentially be concentrated at one locale.

That said, it doens't mean snow dumps can't be made environmentally friendlier - I am thinking of lining the site with some sort of plastic to prevent groundwater intrusion, and perhaps settling tanks/ponds, oil skimmers and biofilters are also possible.

AoD

 

[Asterix]

If I provide an alternative, I know in my heart that it will be fruitless to this discussion. Why? Because as soon as I do, based on my experience thus far there are more "armchair experts" than I could possibly reply to.

Which is a rather meaningless response when you raised the issue and demanded that "something" be done.

Say someone started a thread in February calling on people to demand their city councillors do something about all the snow that was clogging city streets? What would you tell them?

Let's agree these dumps are massive, and they will have long term and long reaching impacts on the city and the communities.

Yes they are massive. No, there are not yet proven long reaching impacts on the city and the communities. That big report you cited says on page 2-4:

"Overall, the environmental impact of snow piles on soil quality does not appear to be of significant concern based on limited sampling data."

The report then goes on to present several pile and melt management techniques that would greatly reduce any local impacts.

Let's agree that we can do better than resort to personal attacks and lines such as ".... you still haven't done this .... " or "... you didn't do that...."

It is not a personal attack to point out that questions you asked were answered while questions asked of you were not or that you continued to repeat statements that had previously been addressed or discredited.

Let's agree that the city needs to re-address these dumps with the needs of the community in mind.

What are the "needs of the community"? To have large quantities of snow removed from city streets? Well, that snow has to go somewhere.

The description of the Downsview site does mention its relative isolation from the immediate community as well.

Let's agree that waste going into the ground is just as bad as going into the lake.

So saying 'no' to the dumps and leaving the snow to melt on the street is not going to do a single thing to stop that. As the previously cited report talks about, having central dump locations does allow good management setups to be implemented so that less waste is going into the ground than by saying 'no' to the dumps.

Let's focus on our similarities, rather than the minor things we seem to have a different opinion on.

"Minor things"? You explicitly demanded we say 'no' to the snow dumps. I would not describe saying 'yes' to snow dumps as a minor difference of opinion given that is the subject of this thread.

These dumps are _not good_ .

But they are a heck of a lot better than doing nothing or any other alternative you have suggested. That is the major point to this discussion.

Let's start to work together - please!

To do what? You have denigrated the dumps and have not presented any alternative solution for which anyone can work with you on. Simply demanding 'no dumps' without suggesting how the city deal with massive amounts of snow clogging central streets is not working with anyone.

If you can present a reasonable, plausible, viable alternative to the snow dumps, then I (and presumably others) may be convinced and decide to work with you to have the dumps closed and the other option implemented. Given the lack of that other option from you or anyone else, it is simply impossible for people to work with you.

 

[activeday]

Hi Asterix -

I sincerely thank you for your thoughts and insights into the matter - I also believe we both mean well for Toronto, which I think is wonderful to see. Let's hope ( between us ! ) that other Torontonians are as devoted to improving the city as we are.

Having said that, my one question surrounding a possible and viable solution:

-> Is anyone aware of any restriction as to the height of these dumps. That is to say, is there an actual limit that can be imposed on the city to not exceed a pre-defined level.<-

I believe that environmental controls on the height of these dumps would be a good first step. At present the City Of Toronto does not seem to be following any type of restriction in regards to how much snow can be dumped at any of the facilities.

The city report talks about barriers to the dumps to make them visually appealing. The trees that have been put up around Downsview look more like peanuts next to an elephant. Are there any requirements that are in place to "force" the city to make the barriers "at least" as high as the dumps are? I understand, with Downsview, the barriers though would be in the hundred of feet high ( maybe in a cash strapped city such as Toronto we could put some advertising on them ).

P.S. I apologize if others were getting frustrated - I guess my "problem" is I'm pretty open minded with regards to solutions, hearing from others, and getting a wide array of opinions and ideas.

 

[Asterix]

Hi Asterix -

Having said that, my one question surrounding a possible and viable solution:

-> Is anyone aware of any restriction as to the height of these dumps. That is to say, is there an actual limit that can be imposed on the city to not exceed a pre-defined level.<-

The report you cited does refer to volume limits at each dump site, which vary from site to site. (I believe the city was looking at 150,000 truck loads of snow over two weeks distributed amongst all sites. Given that some sites were slated to be closed (Skagway site), that left a capacity reduced by a known amount.)

As far as height restrictions, I don't know but would guess they are related to safety. When building the Downsview pile, they had three digger machines working together to pass the snow higher up. At some point, it would probably be too dangerous for the highest most machine.

I don't see how a defined height restriction though is a 'possible and viable solution'. Could you elaborate on that concept?

Since you mentioned it, what are some of your other open-minded solutions?

 

[activeday]

Height restrictions on these dumps would:

a/ Let us know that there would be a "limit" to the environmental damage they could be causing. If there is no limit, the city can keep adding to the dump without concern for the long term effects of adding more and more material. The height of the snow dump at Downsview is massive - without a defined limit, there is no reason for the city to stop adding to it.

b/ A height restriction would be better aestherically in that barriers could be put in place to help minimze the visual effects they pose, and also would "keep in" all the garbage that is freed up when the melting starts.

c/ We have height restrictions on all buildings, houses, towers, bridges.

d/ At least in Downsview, there is an airport right next to this dump. I pray that an airplane never has to make an emergency landing at night - there are warning lights on almost every building in the area _except_ for the dump.

Or ... should we just go as high as we can - and when we need to go higher, bring in a crane and leave it there all year?

I also think the idea of protecting the land "below" these dumps is great and should be required. If we are going to pick places to create the dump, why not protect the land underneath first?

How much would it cost to put these dumps over concrete, and then properly clean the run off as it was melting???

Last year we had a massive propane explosion - let's stop waiting for something bad to happen before we act.

P.S. "Open minded" meant being open to the suggestion of others - saying things like " it has to go somewhere " is not often a very helpful suggestion.

 

[digi]

I guess my "problem" is I'm pretty open minded with regards to solutions, hearing from others, and getting a wide array of opinions and ideas.

You were asked for solutions as far back as page one...you haven't presented any, just demands.

c/ We have height restrictions on all buildings, houses, towers, bridges.

None of these things melt in the spring.

d/ At least in Downsview, there is an airport right next to this dump. I pray that an airplane never has to make an emergency landing at night - there are warning lights on almost every building in the area _except_ for the dump.

there's an entire sity surrounding the airport, but not every house needs to have warning lights.

P.S. "Open minded" meant being open to the suggestion of others - saying things like " it has to go somewhere " is not often a very helpful suggestion.

Conversly, saying that we cant remove snow during the winter is not very helpful.

 

[Asterix]

Height restrictions on these dumps would:

a/ Let us know that there would be a "limit" to the environmental damage they could be causing. If there is no limit, the city can keep adding to the dump without concern for the long term effects of adding more and more material. The height of the snow dump at Downsview is massive - without a defined limit, there is no reason for the city to stop adding to it.

But there is a limit. In the report you cited there are limits to the volume (not necessarily the height) of snow that each site can handle.

Please see section 2.2 for system-wide capacity and sections 3.X.1 for the capacity of each individual site (Downsview site can store 8,500 loads per 2 week period or 10,000 loads per annum).

b/ A height restriction would be better aestherically in that barriers could be put in place to help minimze the visual effects they pose, and also would "keep in" all the garbage that is freed up when the melting starts.

I would think a visual barrier is of a more minor concern. Drivers down the Allen have probably seen worse at the side of the road. In the years I've seen the Downsview pile, I don't recall seeing much garbage being blown around - it is usually sitting still in piles on the ground (easy collection).

d/ At least in Downsview, there is an airport right next to this dump. I pray that an airplane never has to make an emergency landing at night - there are warning lights on almost every building in the area _except_ for the dump.

Now this is getting just a tad alarmist. The pile is not THAT big, the airport not THAT busy and any plane trying to land at night that is at all threatened by the pile has similarly serious concerns about other buildings, the snow plows parked just to its south and the open subway trench between it and the runway.

Or ... should we just go as high as we can - and when we need to go higher, bring in a crane and leave it there all year?

Just curious, how do you think they came up with the explicit volume limits if they didn't account for how high they would pile the snow?

Further, you can't go higher indefinitely. There are basic physics involved in pyramid construction with a loose material. At some point you'd require a base wider than the entire city.

How much would it cost to put these dumps over concrete, and then properly clean the run off as it was melting???

Read the report you cited. They have costed several management techniques including paving the site. For some reason though, that seems to rate an environmental improvement, although I don't think they accounted for the degradation resulting from the construction and the asphalt itself (plenty of hydrocarbons and nasty substances in there).

Last year we had a massive propane explosion - let's stop waiting for something bad to happen before we act.

What possible 'bad' things do you think might happen? The pile isn't going to explode. It isn't going to fall over and bury a house (or a random pedestrian). Its weight isn't going to cause earthquakes, nor will its size block out the sun. Unless you know of people leaving containers of toxic waste on the street during the winter, there isn't likely to be anything in the pile that you aren't exposed to walking down the street.

P.S. "Open minded" meant being open to the suggestion of others - saying things like " it has to go somewhere " is not often a very helpful suggestion.

You aren't looking at the real issue. The snow has to be removed from many city streets. It doesn't disappear so it has to go somewhere else. The city decided that one of the places for it to go would be the site at Downsview. That is a solution that seems to be working with more positives than negatives.

You seem to think otherwise, but haven't presented any alternative to what is currently a functioning snow management system. Saying 'no' to the dumps is definitely not helpful if you don't say where that removed snow should go.