Today’s Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) pre-hearing conference, in relation to HAZCO’s proposed sulphur facility between Bruderheim and Lamont, took place at the Lamont Recreation Centre.  It was well attended by Lamont County residents and other interested parties.

The NRCB pre-hearing conference set out to identify the following:

1. a discussion of the major issues to be examined at the hearing;

2. the appropriate scope and jurisdiction of the review;

3. the location for a hearing, the appropriate timing of a hearing (the NRCB believes March 17, 2009 may be an appropriate hearing commencement date), and deadlines for filing hearing submissions;

4. a discussion of procedures to be followed at the hearing;

5. requests for advance intervener funding, and

6. other matters

(Source: [1] Notice of Pre-Hearing Conference - December 3, 2008 at NRCB website)

The NRCB panel chairman stated that a hearing location closer to or containing a business center (e. g.: with facilities for copying, printing and Internet access) will be more appropriate and suggested therefore that the NRCB hearing of the HAZCO application will take place in Fort Saskatchewan, beginning with April 9, 2009 being a proposed date for HAZCO to respond to interveners’ submissions, and with April 14, 2009 being the likely date on which the NRCB hearing will commence.

The NRCB identified all of [2] the submissions that had been made and received prior to the pre-hearing conference.  Those are shown in the following list, and each can be accessed by clicking on a given entry in that list.

1. [3] Lamont Health Care Centre

That submission states:

The Board of Management has once again debated the proposed development of a sulphur plant AST/HAZCO Environmental Services.  While it is not opposed to industrial development, it is of the opinion that such a plant will not be advantageous to our community, and therefore this application should be denied.

The reasons for that position are contained in the document accessible at the preceding link.

2. Lamont County

1. [4] Part 1 - Letter to NRCB

That letter informs the NRCB that Lamont County is continuing its review of the application by HAZCO, that the county has concerns, and that HAZCO’s application has been rejected by the County’s development authority, the Municipal Planning Commission (MPC), as per [5] the decision attached to the letter.

2. [6] Part 2 - Letter to Hazco

In that letter, the Lamont County informs HAZCO that, against “the backdrop” of the MPC’s decision to reject HAZCO’s application, “Lamont County continues to review the application information submitted by Hazco Environmental Services Ltd. (the proponent) to the NRCB,” but that the County continues to have several outstanding concerns…”, which concerns are then explained in more detail and discussed in the remainder of the letter, i. e.:

1. Risk Management and Emergency Response;
2. Ongoing Operational Impacts;
3. Cumulative Effects, and
4. Ongoing Compliance and Reclamation.

3. [7] Part 3 - Municipal Planning Commission documents

Notice (dated April 12, 2006) of Decision (dated April 11, 2006) of Municipal Planning Commission, informing HAZCO that its application has been denied, with the reasons for that decision being attached  (contained in the set of documents accessible via the preceding link)

3. [8] Town of Bruderheim

Excerpt from that letter:

….we feel it necessary to share the following issues with the Natural Resources Conservation Board for the pre-hearing conference taking place on January 27, 2009.

1. The concern is for the health and safety of the residents of the Town of Bruderheim. The proposed facility will be processing sulfur and its byproducts. Although the “Worst Case Scenario” information indicates that during an explosion residents may not be immediately exposed to lethal qualities of sulfur and its byproducts, we are concerned about the long term health risks associated with an explosion and its after effects.
2. Further, we are concerned about any long term health risks that our residents may be exposed to due to improper storage and handling of sulfur and its byproducts.

The Town of Bruderheim does not want to present itself or its residents as being anti-industry or anti-business; however, our objective is to protect the quality of life for our residents and our community.

4. [9] Leslie Jans

Leslie Jans expressed concerns that, as she stated in that letter, “have not changed since this all started”, namely concerns about: Air Quality and Public Health; Increased traffic on an already busy and overcrowded highway; Reduction of Property Values, and The Risk of Fires.

In particular to her fourth concern, Leslie Jans stated, “We also have two members of the Lamont Fire Department in our family, let alone all of the other volunteer Firefighters in our community. Risk their lives/health for a facility that employs 16 people and feeds a conglomerate giant?

5. [10] Friends of Lamont County (FOLC) The following list (taken from the documents listed at the preceding link) will lead to documents that provide the basis of the submission by FOLC.

1. [11] FOLC - Tab 1 Contacts List
2. [12] FOLC - Tab 2 Appendix to Screening Report
3. [13] FOLC - Tab 3 Maps
4. [14] FOLC - Tab 4 Dr. Hyne CV
5. [15] FOLC - Tab 5 Dr. Hyne Budget
6. [16] FOLC - Tab 6 Dr. Batterman CV
7. [17] FOLC - Tab 7 Dr. Batterman Budget
8. [18] FOLC - Tab 8 Dr. Coppock CV
9. [19] FOLC - Tab 9 Dr. Coppock Budget
10. [20] FOLC - Tab 10 Mr. Gettel CV
11. [21] FOLC - Tab 11 Mr. Gettel Budget
12. [22] FOLC - Tab 12 Mr. Picard CV
13. [23] FOLC - Tab 13 Mr. Picard Budget
14. [24] FOLC - Tab 14 Mr. Farquharson CV
15. [25] FOLC - Tab 15 Mr. Farquaharson Budget
16. [26] FOLC - Tab 16 Secord and Chipiuk CVs
17. [27] FOLC - Tab 17 Legal Counsel Budget
18. [28] FOLC - Tab 18 AUC Rule 009
19. [29] FOLC - Tab 19 NRCB IFAAC Application Form

Mr. Secord, the lawyer acting for FOLC, presented an outline of concerns by members of FOLC at the NRCB pre-hearing conference, pointing out that sulphur processing, storage and shipping is not risk-free, that indeed sulphur-related incidents have led on some occasions to the evacuation of thousands of people, to the loss of health and lives of many, and to much damage to property, especially considerable damage to agricultural crops and life stock.

He used as an example an outline of the circumstances and consequences of a disastrous sulphur fire near Cape Town, South Africa.  That fire, produced many thousands of tonnes of sulphur dioxide gas that was blown by strong winds towards a nearby town at a distance that was greater than that separating Bruderheim and Lamont from the site of the proposed HAZCO sulphur facility.

Moreover, Mr. Secord pointed out that the sulphur storage pile that had caught on fire in South Africa in 1995 was considerably smaller in size than the sulphur storage pile envisioned by HAZCO to be in place for Phase I of their proposed facility.  HAZCO proposes that Phase I of their proposed project will require a storage pile that would be as large as 45,000 tonnes of sulphur prills, while Phase II would increase the size of the storage pile to as much as 90,000 tonnes.

Hazco’s lawyer voiced concerns over Mr. Secord’s estimate of the costs required for his involvement and over the costs of the expert witnesses that are slated to provide input at the upcoming NRCB hearing, stating in essence that the expert witnesses have overlapping fields of expertise and, moreover, have histories of having testified in the past on sulphur issues related to sulphur-forming processes that are being used by HAZCO’s competitors, for which reason it would be overkill to spend so much money (in the order of $200,000) on evidence that is already well-covered by HAZCO’s Environmental Impact Assessment study.

Mr. Secord responded by stating that, if one were to listen to HAZCO’s lawyer’s advice, it would perhaps be much better to have no NRCB hearing at all.  However, given that HAZCO had about seven years to work on what they are presenting now, it would only be reasonable to give those who oppose HAZCO’s application a little time and resources to have their say.

The pros and cons of that discussion at today’s NRCB pre-hearing conference are (as is everything that was presented and discussed) to be contained in full in a transcript at the NRCB website, most likely to be listed at [30] Alberta Sulphur Terminals Ltd./Hazco Environmental Services - Sulphur Forming and Shipping Facility.

HAZCO wanted it to be known that some members of FOLC had written (apparently after the Jan. 21, 2009 deadline for submissions) to the NRCB and that those people had expressed concerns that are not in line with the submission filed by FOLC.

Mr. Kennedy of the NRCB identified just before the closing of the NRCB pre-hearing conference that letters by two or three additional individuals had been received late and just on the morning of the day of the pre-hearing conference

None of those letters are contained as of today in the NRCB’s [31] list of pre-hearing submissions.

The decision by the NRCB in consequence of today’s prehearing conference will be made in writing and is supposed to be posted to their website.