Hey. This is a post for my online class where we have to take a local environmental issue and run it through and Issue Attention Cycle of the problem, associated costs, and how people and media react to it. So here is one story that really caught my eye. I did my research and have included links below.
Issue Attention Cycle: Leaks in London
Problem Stage:
Leaks in local Shell Gas Station gasoline on two neighboring properties with historical buildings. This leak occurred in 2005, it could also be considered a post problem stage. But, the problem is that the soil and groundwater may still be contaminated. Shell bought these properties and boarded up one of the buildings. This is part of a larger problem of gasoline leaks from new or old service stations.
This is a problem because, leakage of petroleum or other products from underground storage tanks is a common cause of soil and ground water contamination (1). Contaminated sites are very often found near operating gas stations, former gas stations and other locations that store fuels in underground storage tanks (1). Between 7,500 and 20,000 underground storage tanks across Canada are thought to be leaking. Older tanks leak due to corrosion (1). The health and safety of people who live or work on or close to a contaminated site are directly at risk (1). The local natural environment is also at risk due to soil and groundwater contamination (1). Alarmed Discovery and Euphoric Enthusiasm:
The story was broke by a member of the community on his website (2), and was released by London Community News (3). The London Free Press did their own story, but it was really more of a Shell endorsement, in accordance with Ministry of Environment and the City of London (4). If the story had not broke, I wonder if they would have ever reported it to the public.
Shell has bought both properties from Murphy and Murphy Architects, in efforts to control the clean up process (4). Residents are alarmed that the sites could still be contaminated in the soil and groundwater (2). The heritage home at 777 Waterloo has been boarded up. Murphy and Murphy Architects at 775 will have to be evacuated by the end of February 2012 (3). They will be forced out of an office built in 1962, with a beautiful nature mural painted on the side (3).
Residents of the Heritage Community are concerned what effects of the soil and water means for neighboring properties, and even a school only 50 feet away. Here is a comment from the Bishop Hellmuth Community Association Facebook Page (5):
“The real order of business needs to be getting a copy of the environmental assessment to find out just how wide-spread the contamination is, what the contaminants are and what the effect will be on the kids that go to school 50 feet from the site. The health and well being of the neighbours and kids adjacent to this site is several orders of magnitude more important than building preservation issues."
The environmental concern is soil and groundwater contamination (from aquifers). Municipal, irrigation, and industrial water supplies are provided through large wells, which may withdraw water from confined or unconfined aquifers. This contamination could affect the local groundwater, London drinking water comes from Lake Huron and Erie, so that may not be a concern. Shell did tests on boreholes, which presume that aquifer contamination has occurred.
The other issue is that these are historical buildings, and once Shell puts the properties up for sale they will be at risk for demolition. Even before the sale, they are still at risk.
Residents have created a website (6) and Facebook page (5) to post news and encouraging the community to go look at the file from the London Ministry of Environment office.
Realizing the costs of significant progress:
The cost of the environmental assessment is being covered by Shell. What is unknown is what the future costs will be. Will the buyer have to maintain the site and pay for environmental assessments? These buildings are regulated under heritage permits, which allows the quality of changes made in neighbouring properties, and thus serves to protect each owner’s investment in his property. The community is really concerned. The cost of the loss of a heritage building is irreplaceable, and cause a threat to the whole heritage community.
The costs of a cleanup exceed the property’s value (1). If a site is contaminated, authorities could order anyone who has any control of the property or business to clean it up, whether or not they were responsible for the contamination (1). Anyone who has ever owned or leased the property may be ordered to participate in the cleanup, even creditors who gained possession of a contaminated property, may be required to cover some or all of the cleanup costs (1). It can be expensive and difficult to monitor the compliance of these activities. The current property owners and occupants affected by nearby contaminated sites may sue those responsible, or sue current owners who may not even have caused the contamination.
Gradual Decline of Public Interest:
Even though this leak occurred over 6 years ago, I had never head of it until now. Shell has done a pretty good job of hiding it. It has recently been getting a lot of attention due to Shell buying the properties and doing clean up. The public needs to be more informed about this issue. With the actions of the Bishop Hellmuth Heritage Community Association, I see them continuing to follow this issue and hopefully get other Londoners involved. Action from the City of London should be taken as well. I plan myself to follow this issue.
My speculation based on previous gasoline leaks across Canada. Petroleum leakages pose a threat of soil and groundwater contamination. Due to groundwater contamination, the contamination can actually spread beyond the site itself (1). This would put more properties in the area at risk, up to many city blocks to contamination (1). Leaking storage tanks at gas stations are a major source of environmental contamination (1). Environmental site assessments, the type and age of underground fuel storage tanks, leak detection and liability insurance could negatively impact the property’s environmental and economic value (1).
Due to increased awareness environmental issues, related laws and liability, if someone wants to buy these property they would require a recently completed Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments (1). Buyers will also require an accredited commercial property appraisal, a valid contamination insurance policy, and a recent tank test report (1). If contamination is detected, further levels of testing may also be required, in addition to the work being done (1).
A related story in BC explains Shell’s efforts and agreements to help buyers through the process (7). It also states that there are 20,823 sites are currently contaminated and can be found through Environment Canada’s database.
Unfortunately, like most gas leaks this will probably be added to the growing leaks list afterwards. Not sure what further action will be taken place. MOE is not required to report these. There definitely needs to be some preventative action for gas stations, rather than just a clean up the mess attitude. How do we prevent this? What sort of proactive suggestions do you have?
Links
4. http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2012/01/08/19216491.html#/news/london/2012/01/08/pf-19216491.html
No comments:
Post a Comment