November 29, 2007 by admin.

According to the Lamont County re-zoning proposal, Bruderheim will be almost completely surrounded by heavy industry (without a doubt, most of it would be petrochemical). To a somewhat lesser extent, similar restrictions to expansion would be true of the Town of Lamont.

In the long run, Bruderheim will be able to expand only into the direction of Highway 15 (through a one-mile corridor to Highway 15.) Expansion beyond that is barred by the buffer zone surrounding the heavy-industrial zone. As of now the proposed re-zoning will permit Lamont to expand east (beyond Highway 831) and south (beyond Highway 15).

Update 2007 11 29: The map accessible to the right of this page is an excerpt from a county document that was presented by the County Office along with its re-zoning proposal on April 25, 2007.

Up to the 24th of April the map showed that the area to be rezoned was to extend all the way north from Highways 38 and 45 right up to the North Saskatchewan River.
On April 24, just a day prior to the presentation of its proposal to the Lamont County residents, the map had been redrawn to reduce the area to be rezoned, after it became known to the County Office that the Lamont County residents were going to show up in force on the Evening of the County Office’s presentation. The area to be rezoned was reduced to what is shown now on that excerpt.

Very curiously, there is now a revised version of that County Office map (dated Sep. 11, 2007). That revised version shows that the buffer zone between the eastern boundary of Bruderheim and the proposed heavy industrial zone has been expanded by half a mile to the east on the following land locations: NW10 56 20 W4; SW10 56 20 W4; NW3 56 20 W4; SW3 56 20 W4; NW27 55 20 W4, and SW3 55 20 W4. The September 11, 2007 revision of the map also shows a revision of the zoning adjacent to Lamont. While the April 24 edition of the County Office map showing the proposed rezoning showed no restriction for the land at NW20 55 19 W4, the September 11 revision indicates that that land now has become part of the buffer zone between Lamont and the area zoned heavy industrial.

The important issue in regard to those September 11, 2007 revisions is that they were not presented to the Lamont County residents nor to the residents of the Towns of Bruderheim and Lamont. Mind you, at the public hearing at which those zoning revisions were presented, 58 county residents and people other than councillors and County Office staff attended - a far cry from the many hundreds of people who attended the official announcement of the re-zoning bylaw on Aprol 25, 2007.

If you are a resident of either Bruderheim or Lamont and if you don’t agree in any way with the County’s intentions, it would be a good idea to attend the December 4 Municipal Government Board’s preliminary hearings in Lamont and in Bruderheim. (Full Story)

It appears as of now that the Lamont County’s lawyer will ask for an adjournment of the MGB hearing (with which, it appears, the Town of Bruderheim will concur), as there will be a December 11 council meeting at which the indicated revisions to the zoning changes in Lamont County will be approved.

Both, the Town of Bruderheim and the Town of Lamont, will apparently be able to live with a “moving” buffer zone as the two towns expand over the years. However, the directions those expansions will take will be forced to some extent by the locations of what heavy-industrial plants will then exist.

Posted in Community & Industry | Print | No Comments »

November 29, 2007 by admin.

Breaking News from The Globe and Mail

Japan’s Inpex gets toehold in Alberta oil sands

ROMA LUCIW

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Inpex Holdings Inc., Japan’s largest oil explorer, has bought a stake in an Alberta oil sands project from French energy giant Total SA, its first direct investment in Canada’s energy industry.

Inpex purchased a 10 per cent interest in Total’s Joslyn oil sands project, located northwest of Fort McMurray, the company said in a statement posted on its website on Tuesday. The purchase includes stakes in three oil sands leases as well as the right to participate in building a massive upgrader near Edmonton.

The price tag of the deal between Inpex’s Canadian subsidiary, Inpex Canada, and Total was not disclosed….(Full Story; related stories)

Posted in Community & Industry | Print | No Comments »

November 26, 2007 by admin.

Alberta Environment’s website moved to a new address.

At its new address, the website of Alberta Environment provides access to the latest version of its map for the Industrial Heartland (2007 11 01, 1.5MB PDF file)

Posted in Maps | Print | No Comments »

November 8, 2007 by admin.

Toronto Star

Environmental report says world’s fleet must switch to cleaner fuels and curb smokestack pollutants

Peter Gorrie
ENVIRONMENT REPORTER

International shipping companies must curb smokestack emissions that kill up to 60,000 people a year, including 9,000 in North America, warns a study released yesterday.

Unless the world’s ocean fleet switches to cleaner fuels, the annual global toll of premature deaths will hit 84,000 within five years, says the study in the American Chemical Society journal Environmental Science & Technology….

The damage comes from sulphur-laden Bunker C oil that powers the growing number of ships in trade and tourism. The sludgy fuel is “the dregs of the oil refining process,” and has nearly 3,000 times more sulphur than the diesel fuel burned in trucks in North America and Europe, Marshall said….

The annual number of premature deaths from all outdoor air pollution is estimated to be about 800,000, the study notes. Researchers estimated the marine pollution toll by measuring the emissions from the more than 55,000 ships, then, figuring out how much they add to the total pollution in the atmosphere. Finally, they calculate the expected number of deaths from that increase….

The solution, is simple, although expensive, Marshall said: Ships, too, should be required to burn low-sulphur fuel and install scrubbing devices. Emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide from new and existing ships must be cut by as much as 90 per cent, no later than 2015, the study states…. (Full Toronto Star Story)
_________________
Note by folc.ca

See also:

• Death from Shipping : New models estimate premature mortality from shipping emissions on a global scale. (Environmental Science & Technology, 2007 11 07)
• Related stories listed in the category Bunker Fuel at the LCE blog

Posted in Bunker Fuel, Pollution: Health Issues, Nitrogen-Oxides, Emission Incidents & Issues, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »

November 8, 2007 by admin.

Eastman, 2007 11 08

Eastman Proposes to Invest $200 Million in Equipment to Reduce Air Emissions

Company’s Effort is Part of $1.3 Billion “Project Reinvest” Announced Earlier this Year

KINGSPORT, Tenn.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Eastman Chemical Company has proposed to install additional air pollution control equipment on five industrial boilers at its Tennessee operations in Kingsport, Tenn. The company is in the process of selecting an engineering firm and construction should take place during 2009 to 2013. The $200 million capital project is part of the $1.3 billion dollar reinvestment plan, called “Project Reinvest” announced earlier this year for the Kingsport site….

“This will be the largest single air pollution control project ever undertaken at Eastman’s Tennessee operations,” said Parker Smith, vice president and general manager of Worldwide Manufacturing Support for Eastman. “We estimate an overall 60 percent reduction in emissions of sulfur dioxide from our facility. We are hopeful this project will not only assist Tennessee in meeting its regional haze goals under the Clean Air Act, but will also help our area here in Northeast Tennessee stay ‘ahead of the curve’ and remain in attainment of all relevant air quality standards.

Eastman’s plans are to install technology that will remove an estimated 90 percent of the sulfur dioxide emitted as a by-product from the burning of coal in the five boilers. The technology includes installing spray dryer absorbers, along with replacing electrostatic precipitators with fabric filters. Spray dryer absorbers use hydrated lime to neutralize sulfur dioxide emissions. They are also effective in removing emissions of hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, sulfuric acid, and mercury…. (Full Story)

____________
Note by folc.ca: What will they do with all of that polluted gypsum that they will produce when neutralizing their emissions? Oh well, it’s better than putting all of the SO2 and the other pollutants into the air.

Posted in Heavy-Metal Poisoning & Pollution, Nitrogen-Oxides, Emission Incidents & Issues, Sulphur-Related Construction Costs, Hydrogen-Sulphide, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »

November 2, 2007 by admin.

[for a substantial SO2 release caused by “an unexpected chemical reaction”]

Calgary Company Handed Huge Fine 

2007 11 01

CALGARY/AM770CHQR - A Calgary company has been fined $280,000 after sulphur dioxide was released from their plant in the Foothills Industrial Park in January 2005.
A huge conti[n]gency of city emergency workers responded, and several of them reported adverse health effects because of the exposure.
Tiger Industries Limited pleaded guilty to one charge under the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act.
The facility has since been sold and the company has until February 2008 to pay the fine. (Link to Story)

The Edmonton Journal carried a related story (2007 11 02; p. B10) that identified that the incident caused a large response by emergency crews, that a two-block area had been closed for most of the day, that a police officer had been taken to hospital with minor respiratory problems, and that several emergency workers Tiger employees complained of adverse health effects.

Interestingly, the Journal story, too, called the problem a sulphur-dioxide release, but it identified the cause of that as “an unexpected chemical reaction during a production run of a fertilizer blend.”

Tiger Industries Ltd. (a.k.a. Tigersul) in Calgary formed sulphur into prills or pellets for adding those prills to various fertilizer blends.

What was the “unexpected chemical reaction” that produced the SO₂ release? Was it an explosion and fire? Burning sulphur produces SO₂. The bigger the sulphur fire, the more SO₂ will be released. Unless sufficiently heated, SO₂ is heavier than air.

An unexpected chemical reaction? According to Tiger Sulphur’s very own material safety data sheet for sulphur (January 2004):

SECTION IV HAZARDS INFORMATION

Unusual Fire and Explosion Hazards:

Dust suspended in air is readily ignited by flame, static electricity or friction spark. Every reasonable step must be taken to minimize dust formation. Dust tight casings should be equipped with explosion relief vents. Sparkless electrical equipment is recommended. Handling equipment must be grounded or bonded to avoid static electricity. Keep away from sources of flame or sparks. Detailed recommendations in Manufacturing Chemists Association SD-74 and National Safety Council 612 Bulletins covering “Sulphur” should be followed when handling Sulphur.

SECTION IX HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS (Mixtures Only)

Material or Components:

Mixtures with chlorates, nitrates or other oxidizing agents may be explosive.

As of the January 28, 2006 issue of the EUB’s Identification Code Licence Eligibility Report, Tiger Industries Limited no longer qualified for licence eligibility.

The source of the two news items is an Alberta Government information bulletin. The bulletin contains information important to anyone living close to a sulphur processing facility

Investigation after the incident determined that the release was the result of an unexpected chemical reaction during a production run of a sulphur-based fertilizer blend. The combination of un-degassed sulphur [that would have to be hydrogen sulfide?] and an impurity in a copper micronutrient [any guesses as to what that may have been?] resulted in a chemical reaction that produced significant quantities of sulphur dioxide.

It is odd that the chemical reaction is not described in the bulletin. Was it an explosion, perhaps a fire? More information can be obtained by writing to Josh Stewart, whose contact details are shown at the end of the Alberta Government information bulletin.

Posted in Fines & Penalties, Community & Industry, Explosions & Fires, Pollution: Health Issues | Print | No Comments »