A report on the Jan. 27, 2009 NRCB pre-hearing conference

January 27, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

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: 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 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. 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. 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 the decision attached to the letter.

2. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. FOLC - Tab 1 Contacts List
2. FOLC - Tab 2 Appendix to Screening Report
3. FOLC - Tab 3 Maps
4. FOLC - Tab 4 Dr. Hyne CV
5. FOLC - Tab 5 Dr. Hyne Budget
6. FOLC - Tab 6 Dr. Batterman CV
7. FOLC - Tab 7 Dr. Batterman Budget
8. FOLC - Tab 8 Dr. Coppock CV
9. FOLC - Tab 9 Dr. Coppock Budget
10. FOLC - Tab 10 Mr. Gettel CV
11. FOLC - Tab 11 Mr. Gettel Budget
12. FOLC - Tab 12 Mr. Picard CV
13. FOLC - Tab 13 Mr. Picard Budget
14. FOLC - Tab 14 Mr. Farquharson CV
15. FOLC - Tab 15 Mr. Farquaharson Budget
16. FOLC - Tab 16 Secord and Chipiuk CVs
17. FOLC - Tab 17 Legal Counsel Budget
18. FOLC - Tab 18 AUC Rule 009
19. 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 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 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.

Posted in Community & Industry, Town of Bruderheim, Explosions & Fires, Pollution: Health Issues, Hazco, Emission Incidents & Issues, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »

Sulphur-train crashes in Littleton, Colorado

January 25, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

Highlands Ranch Herald, Colorado, USA

Train crashes in Littleton

By Holly Cook
Published: 01.19.09

A freight train carrying molten sulfur derailed at approximately 11:30 p.m.Jan. 16 in downtown Littleton, causing a non-hazardous chemical spill and disrupting light rail service at Littleton’s downtown station.

No injuries were reported.

The derailment marks the second in Littleton in 13 months.

The train was going 44 mph in a 45 mph zone, igniting numerous small flash fires beside the tracks, Littleton police said. The fires were quickly extinguished by firefighters.

There were three locomotives pulling the 68-car freight train bound from Bonneville, Wyo., to Galveston, Texas, according to Gus Melonas, spokesman for Burlington Northern/Santa Fe.

Three of the 17 cars carrying the chemical were punctured and expelled about 100 gallons of liquid sulfur that congealed in the cold air, according to Melonas.

Molten sulfur does not pose a risk to the public, according to Littleton’s HazMat Team Coordinator, Jim Olsen.

It emits a pungent odor typically described as a “rotten egg” smell, but is not toxic….(Full Story)

______________
folc.ca: The reporter writing the article should have asked herself why, if sulphur is not dangerous and if it poses no risk to the public, a Hazmat coordinator was involved with the derailment of a sulphur train and the resulting fires.

Liquid sulphur is dangerous, so that precautions must be taken when opening the dome lids on tanker cars that carry it.  The  “pungent odor typically described as a “rotten egg” smell, but is not toxic” is in fact very toxic at relatively low concentrations.  The smell the author of the article described is not the smell of burning sulphur but the smell of hydrogensulfide, a gas that may be contained in liquid sulphur and often reaches deadly concentrations in the overhead space of enclosed sulphur-storage vessels.  That even happens in enclosed buildings used for the storage of solid sulphur, for which reason large-capacity storage spaces for solid sulphur are usually not closed off, so that the relatively small quantities of hydrogensulfide gases that tend to accumulate are less likely to reach deadly concentrations.

The gas that Holly Cook should have been concerned about is sulphur dioxide, a gas emitted by fires that burn sulphur, as surely as wood-, coal- or oil-fires emit carbon dioxide from the carbon they consume.  There is one big difference between sulphur fires and fires that consume carbon.

Carbon dioxide is relatively benign, for which reason there are no hesitations over using it in carbonated drinks, such as champaign, beer, pop or sodawater, while sulphur dioxide, even in very low concentrations, is deadly to anything living: plants, insects, animals, birds and people.  It is so deadly that burning a very small amount of sulphur (no more than what would fit into the lid of a shoe-polish tin) in a closed room will will produce enough sulphur dioxide to kill off all parasites infesting that room.  That is what sulphur once was commonly used for, after which it was necessary to thoroughly ventilate the room so that people could enter it without danger to their health and lives.

Sulphur dioxide, made by burning sulphur, is useful for fumigating buildings, holds of ships and similar places, for the destruction of mosquitoes and of insects in grain ami seed ; but the tarnishing effect of the gas on metals requires that care be exercised in using this substance in houses. Seeds for planting should not be fumigated with sulphur dioxide, as their germinating power is injured, and often in face completely destroyed, by this process.

Source: Insect pests of the Lesser Antilles (1912)

Author: Ballou, H. A. (Henry Arthur), 1872-1937
Subject: Insect pests — Antilles, Lesser
Publisher: Bridgetown, Barbados : Commissioner of Agriculture
Year: 1912
Possible copyright status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT

The quoted excerpt is from a text file of that book that is available online.

________________

Sulfur dioxide.  This gas holds first place for killing insects and vermin.

Source: The Chemistry of Cooking and Cleaning: A Manual for Housekeepers by Ellen H. & S. Maria Elliott Richards (Hardcover - 1897), p. 178

Industrial sulphur fires are so dangerous that fire-fighting safety-regulations call for a minimum of one two-man fire team (equipped with self-contained breathing gear) at the face of the fire, while another two-man team (also equipped with self-contained breathing gear) needs to stand by to drag back to safety any of the fire fighters at the face of the fire that should fall into any sort of trouble and need to be rescued.

There was a good reason why “Littleton’s HazMat Team Coordinator, Jim Olsen” was on the scene, and a good things that all of the sulphur fires that flared up were quickly put out.  If not, probably at least the centre of Littleton would have had to be evacuated.

(More at http://folc.ca/sulphur_storage/sulphur_poisoning.htm)

It appears that Holly Cook, the author of the Jan. 19, 2009 article on the Littleton train crash, has been had.

Posted in Derailments, Community & Industry, Explosions & Fires, Emission Incidents & Issues, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »

For Lamont County residents: Jan. 27 NRCB conference

January 23, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

Your attendance is needed!

This is for anyone who is concerned about the possible consequences and risks posed by the proposed sulphur-forming, -storage and -shipping facility intended to be built by Alberta Sulphur Terminals Ltd. (HAZCO) 2.2 km east from Bruderheim and NW from Lamont, at the junction of Highway 45 and Range Road 202.

The Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) will be holding a pre-hearing conference regarding HAZCO’s application to construct and operate a sulphur-forming and -shipping facility.  A plan for a buffer storage pile that will be out in the open, exposed to the elements and is intended to contain up to 100,000 tonnes of formed sulphur prills is part of HAZCO’s proposal.

NRCB Pre-Hearing Conference

Date and Time:    January 27, 2009 at 10 a.m.
Location:            Lamont Hall / Recreation Centre
4848 - 49th Street, Lamont, Alberta

You do not need to make a presentation, but your presence at the pre-hearing conference will have an impact.  It will help even more if you forward this message to your friends and neighbours before the NRCB pre-hearing conference takes place.

Print this message and pass it on to those of your friends who don’t have e-mail or Internet access.

Information on the consequences of some sulphur fires and other sulphur-related incidents throughout the world and Alberta is accessible through the following links:

• http://folc.ca/sulphur_storage/fires.htm
• http://folc.ca/sulphur_storage/evacuations.htm
• http://lce.folc.ca/category/explosions-fires/

(Note: The websites indicated by the preceding links are not affiliated with The Friends of Lamont County (FOLC), but they do support the work done by FOLC.

Looking forward to seeing you at the NRCB pre-hearing conference,

Walter and Ruth Schneider

Posted in Explosions & Fires, Community & Industry, Pollution: Health Issues, Hazco, Sulphur Logistics, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »

Colorado Firefighters Battle Sulfur Fire

January 7, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

Near Louviers, Douglas Counties, CO, USA

2002 12 18

A derelict tanker car that was being cut up for scrap metal still contained a large amount of sulfur [still about one-quarter full with an estimated 30 tons of sulphur] and the cutting torches ignited the material, according to Andy Lyon, public information officer with South Metro.

Fire fighter had been on site once before they started to fight the fire, but at that time they had seen no burning sulfur (flames of burning sulphur are invisible in sunlight) and had left again.

The fire proved to be difficult to put out. Whenever fire was put out, it reignited.

A small area (of unspecified size) around the fire was evacuated. Other than to say that a number of people experienced breathing difficulties, the article does not state how many people were affected.  However, the story also stated that no one was hospitalized….(Full Story - with photos)

Posted in Explosions & Fires | Print | No Comments »

Front-end loader caused sulphur fire

December 10, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

KNDO/KNDU - Yakima, WA, USA

2008 12 09

Sulfur Fire at Fertilizer Plant in Pasco

PASCO, Wash– A hazardous material fire breaks out in Pasco. Firefighters were forced to change their normal methods of attacking the flames, because a potentially dangerous chemical was burning.

Around 11 am Tuesday a fire broke out inside a sulfur bin at the Wilbur Ellis fertilizer plant on Burlington St. in Pasco.  Surrounding businesses were evacuated because sulfur is such a dangerous toxin.

Pasco firefighters didn’t know what to expect when they arrived on scene, but they prepared for the worst.

“It’s one of those rare examples where friction with a bucket and dust product ignited a fire,” said Jerry Voss, Wilbur-Ellis Regulatory.

The fire started when a front end loader bucket scrapped against a wall in a sulfur storage bin.

“It just scraped along one of the concrete walls and threw a spark. In a solid form it’s not flammable however when it gets stirred up and there’s dust in the air that does become flammable,” said Cpt. Pat Henrickson, Pasco Fire Department.

Once the fire was out firefighters sprayed water on their uniforms to get the sulfur residue off.

“When we first got here and found out what it was we knew it was a strong irritant and so everybody that got on scene as soon as they got out of the apparatus they were putting on masks,” said Henrickson.

Fortunately no one was injured or had to be medically treated. (Link to source)

Posted in Community & Industry, Explosions & Fires, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »

Zama City - Sulphur fire and evacuation

October 31, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Zamma [sic] City evacuated
By KEVIN CRUSH, Sun Media

2008 08 15

Zama City had to be evacuated after a fire at a sulphur plant Friday.

Fire broke out in a front end loader at the Apache Gas plant about 20 km south of the town at 1 p.m.

The loader was on top of a sulphur block at the time and when crews tried to get it off the block itself caught on fire.

The burning block produced hydrogen sulfide gas, which is deadly if inhaled, and sulfur dioxide which is also harmful….(Full Story)
________________
Note by folc.ca: There was a correction by officials, namely that the gas of concern was not hydrogen sulphide but that only sulphur dioxide (a product of the combustion of sulphur) was involved.

It seems that another item of information in the story requires correction. That is that the location of the sulphur-block that was on fire appears to be about exactly 15 km south-west of Zama City.

The evacuation of the residents of Zama City is of great interest to residents in Lamont County, especially to those in the vicinity of the proposed sulphur-forming facility intended to be constructed south-east of the intersection of Highway 45 and Range Road 202, 1.5 miles from the eastern border of the town of Bruderheim and 3.5 miles from the western border of the Town of Lamont.

Sulphur fires do happen. As shown in the webpages at folc.ca, they happen fairly often, and they can be and are started by front-end loaders used to handle sulphur.

AlthoughFront-end loaders feature prominently in HAZCO’s plans for their proposed sulphur-forming and shipping facility east of Bruderheim. Evacuations of residents in the vicinity of sulphur fires are a fact of life.  As per the article identified above, Mackenzie County Reeve Greg Newman stated, “With the limited access in and out of there and the potential for a major fire on the sulphur block, there was some concern,” and “I’d like to think we’re prepared for just about everything. We expect these kinds of things and we have the resources to prepare for them.”

That is in stark contrast to comparable expectations and the availability of resources to prepare for them in Lamont County.  HAZCO were repeatedly asked for details of evacuation plans in case of sulphur fires at their proposed plant. Other than to initially refusing to admit that sulphur fires at their sulphur facility could even happen or now claiming that it is extremely unlikely that they would ever pose a danger to nearby residents, as of now we have not seen any plans by HAZCO as to what will be done to evacuate and temporarily house the thousands of residents in the vicinity that would be put at risk through fires at their proposed sulphur facility.

Posted in Community & Industry, Explosions & Fires, Emission Incidents & Issues, Hazco, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »

Alter NRG Corp. finalized purchase of Erco Site, in Lamont County, east of and adjacent to Bruderheim

September 17, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Alter NRG Corp. announces the finalization of the plant siting for the first Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power facility in Canada.

TSXV - NRG CALGARY, Sept. 15 /CNW/ - Alter NRG Corp. (”Alter NRG” or the “Company”) is pleased to announce that it has closed the previously announced acquisition of a project site in Bruderheim, Alberta (approximately 60 kilometers northeast of Edmonton) for $3.1 million, including $0.6 million in costs related to settlement of existing transmission commitments. The Company plans to use the site to develop Canada’s first IGCC facility with the first phase to be operational as early as 2010. On commencement of operations, the facility is expected to be capable of producing approximately 120 megawatts (MW) of electric power using a blend of natural gas as well as synthesis gas (syngas) produced using Alter NRG’s proprietary plasma gasification technology. The facility will be designed for carbon capture and storage (CCS) with approximately 600,000 tonnes per year of captured CO2 to be injected into nearby geological formations or used at nearby oilfields in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects….(Full Story)
_____________
Comments by folc.ca : It is obvious that lawyers had a heavy hand in wording the long list of exceptions and cautionary notes stated at the end of the Alter NRG news release, under the heading, Advisory Respecting Forward-Looking Statements. The list of exemptions shown there is very long. In combination with that list, the following key statements contained in the Advisory loom large and heavy:

The forward-looking information and statements included in this news release are not guarantees of future performance and should not be unduly relied upon….

The Company cautions that the foregoing list of assumptions, risks and uncertainties is not exhaustive. The forward-looking information and statements contained in this news release speak only as of the date of this news release, and the Company assumes no obligation to publicly update or revise them to reflect new events or circumstances, except as may be required pursuant to applicable securities laws.

Translating the legalese into English for normal mortals and in the process condensing it into something that is more useful, what that means then is that, quite possibly, none of the information in the news release by Alter NRG is necessarily final or subsequently true after having been published.

The news release contains information that should worry people living close to the proposed Alter NRG power generating plant, some within less than half a mile, with the eastern boundary of Bruderheim being as close as half a mile to the plant.

The following identifies a few of the statements contained in the news release and also some of the concerns relating to them.

1. On commencement of operations, the facility is expected to be capable of producing approximately 120 megawatts (MW) of electric power using a blend of natural gas as well as synthesis gas (syngas) produced using Alter NRG’s proprietary plasma gasification technology.

Comment by folc.ca: Natural gas is a natural resource that is the primary fuel for home heating in Alberta. Alberta’s natural gas is also a resource that is rapidly being depleted, as a result of which the price of natural gas is escalating.  The production of electric energy from natural gas and its substitute, syngas, is wasteful and will increase the demand for natural gas and syngas. That will cause increases in prices for gas used for home heating.

2. The facility will be designed for carbon capture and storage (CCS) with approximately 600,000 tonnes per year of captured CO2 to be injected into nearby geological formations or used at nearby oilfields in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects.

Comment by folc.ca: The news release states nothing about the fact that CO2 is not a pollutant. More importantly, the news release makes absolutely no mention of pollutants that the plant will produce and how those will be dealt with, so as to prevent their injection into the environment, for instance, nitrous oxides and sulphur dioxide, of which especially the latter has the potential of creating serious and very harmful degradation of the local and general environment.

Nevertheless, there are issues of great concern that directly relate to the scheme for CO2 capture, transport and disposal.

The process of CO2 capture and injection into nearby geological formations requires transportation of an average of 1,700 tonnes of CO2 each day.  How will that be done and by what means?  If the transporting is by trucks, that means that there will be an enormous increase in road traffic, in the order of an average of at least 280 trucks a day (assuming an average of six tonnes of CO2 carrying capacity per truck), about 12 trucks every hour (assuming that the trucks operate around the clock) and considerably more than that if the trucking operations cease during the night.

Furthermore, the logistics of the whole process seem daunting and are not likely to work without flaws or bottlenecks.  If CO2 capture, transporting and injection into the ground should at any time and for any reason be below the required average of 1,700 tonnes per day, will the power plant be shut down, or will it make use of as yet unidentified buffer storage on site?  That storage facility will have to be substantially large and be capable of containing CO2 under great pressure.

Nothing is perfect.  The storage and transporting of large volumes of CO2 present dangers to people and property in the vicinity of the plant and transportation routes.  Aside from the increased likelihood of vehicle accidents in Bruderheim and vicinity, what are any other dangers the scheme of CO2 capture, transporting and injection will pose to residents in the area?

3. The project is expected to be completed in two phases in order to take advantage of near-term capacity needs in the Alberta power market.

Comment by folc.ca: Alter NRG cannot be faulted for wanting to take advantage of the increasing market demand for electric energy. However, the escalating shortage of electric energy is a result of the Alberta government’s failure to create effective policies for the construction of large-scale power plants for the generation of electric energy. That massive problem will not be solved by increasing reliance on Band-Aid solutions, such as energy production through wind-turbine farms (of primary benefit only to the main producer of wind turbines in North America: General Electric) and through natural-gas-fired power plants.

Electric energy production from natural gas or syngas will add to demand for natural gas and for syngas. That will drive up the price for home-heating fuel and for fertilizer (the price for fertilizer is presently at about $2,000 a tonne).

4. NGCC facilities are the cleanest fossil fuel power generation technology available today.

Comment by folc.ca : That statement is true, but it is not all of the truth. Aside from increasing the demand for natural gas — with associated price increases, the demand for increased production of natural gas will also increase the production of sulphur. Especially new natural gas sources produce sour gas, meaning gas that must be stripped of its large content of hydrogen sulphide before it can be injected into the Alberta gas distribution system.

The inventory of Alberta’s waste sulphur is presently at about $11 million tonnes. Large-scale use of natural gas will escalate Alberta’s problems with issues arising from stockpiling waste sulphur.

Canada is one of only two nations in the world (the Russian Federation being the other one) that presently and unreservedly permit the stockpiling of waste sulphur. Large scale electric energy production from coal can without a doubt be made to be as clean as that from natural gas. The current technology for that is to store waste sulphur produced from coal-fired power plants in the form of relatively inert gypsum (much like the gypsum pile at the Agrium Fertilizer Plant south of Redwater).

5. The regulatory process is underway, as regulatory permitting is critical for early implementation of the first phase. The Company expects timely issuance of the required permits.

Comment by folc.ca : Whatever it may mean that the “regulatory process is underway,” that process has not yet progressed to the point where any of the residents who are concerned parties in the vicinity of the proposed power plant have been formally notified of any hearings or other aspects of the required “regulatory process” and environmental reviews.

6. The second phase of the project will use petroleum coke and oilfield waste, which are both available in the nearby area, to create syngas using the Alter NRG proprietary gasification system.

Comment by folc.ca : Neither that statement nor anything else in the Alter NRG news release mentions that petroleum coke and oilfield waste contain potentially very large portions of sulphur and other pollutants that need to be stripped from either those primary fuel sources or from the syngas produced from them or from the flue gases of the Alter NRG power generating plant, so as to meet environmental pollution parameters dictated by Alberta Environment.

What will Alter NRG do with the pollutants, such as waste sulphur, it would produce at its proposed power generating plant to be located just a few hundred meters east of Bruderheim?

7. The Bruderheim facility will capture up to 90% of the CO(2) produced by the plasma gasifier (up to 1,700 tonnes per day) which is expected to be sold to oilfield producers in the nearby area for EOR.

Comment by folc.ca : What that means is that ten and more percent (how much more is left unspecified) of the CO2 produced will not be captured.

Still, the fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant, and that no one should worry about it, except people like Al Gore (who makes a good living from the brokering of carbon credits and from promoting the fears required to make that carbon credit brokering a viable enterprise).

However, we must worry about the pollutants that the Alter NRG news release does not mention at all. It is worrysome in the extreme that the Alter NRG news release does not mention any pollutants other than the ostensibly polluting but in reality environmentally-beneficial CO2.

_________________

Without a doubt, benign and even environmentally-beneficial CO2 is a major component of the emissions of the power generating plant proposed by Alter NRG.  Still, another potentially benign and major component of the proposed power plant’s effluents, water (not mentioned by Alter NRG), will in all likelihood have a very detrimental impact on the environment in the immediate vicinity of the proposed power plant.

Water is a major by-product of the combustion of hydrocarbons. The water vapour that would come out of the flue stacks of the proposed power plant would be invisible for varying distances from the flue stacks. However, the distance of that invisibility varies with the weather — humidity and temperature.

In extremely cold weather, the water vapour turns into a large cloud that, depending on local weather conditions, lingers in the local environment and adds to the often and increasingly severe fogs that have become more and more prevalent in and around Bruderheim.

Given that the fog to be produced by the proposed power plant will contain sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxides, the fog will be acidic. Alter NRG stated nothing about that. That is extremely worrying and needs to be addressed in the environmental review process for the plant, of which, so far, we have heard absolutely nothing.

SULFUR COMPOUNDS (SOx)

The primary reason sulfur compounds, or SOx, are classified as a pollutant is because they react with water vapor (in the flue gas and atmosphere) to form sulfuric acid mist. Airborne sulfuric acid has been found in fog, smog, acid rain, and snow. Sulfuric acid has also been found in lakes, rivers, and soil. The acid is extremely corrosive and harmful to the environment….

Historically, SOx pollution has been controlled by either dispersion or reduction. Dispersion involves the utilization of a tall stack, which enables the release of pollutants high above the ground and over any surrounding buildings, mountains, or hills, in order to limit ground level SOx emissions. Today, dispersion alone is not enough to meet more stringent SOx emission requirements; reduction methods must also be employed….

Flue gas desulfurization systems are classified as either non-regenerable or regenerable. Non-regenerable FGD systems, the most common type, result in a waste product that requires proper disposal. Regenerable FGD converts the waste by-product into a marketable product, such as sulfur or sulfuric acid. SOx emission reductions of 90-95% can be achieved through FGD. Fuel desulfurization and FGD are primarily used for reducing SOx emissions for large utility boilers. Generally the technology cannot be cost justified on industrial boilers.

Emissions Cleaver Brooks Package Boiler Systems 2002 08 17

Note: Given the escalating world sulphur glut, converting “the waste into a marketable product” requires solutions that have not yet been found to be practical or viable. Still, it is wrong or only partially correct to state that “Generally the technology cannot be cost justified on industrial boilers.”

The controlling factor is not cost justification (that would make it a discretionary option) but environmental regulation and is therefore mandatory, not an option. –Walter

–Walter Schneider
_______________

Related story:  Alter NRG powerplant east of Bruderheim put on ice (Oct, 22, 2008)

Posted in Community & Industry, Alternative Energy Sources, Town of Bruderheim, Explosions & Fires, Acid Rain, Hydrogen-Sulphide, Emission Incidents & Issues, Nitrogen-Oxides, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | 1 Comment »

China: Deadly Sulphur Explosion

January 16, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

China News

7 confirmed dead from SW China chemical plant blast
www.chinaview.cn 2008-01-15 15:32:44

KUNMING, Jan. 15 (Xinhua) — Two more bodies have been recovered from the debris of of chemical plant in southwest China, bringing the death toll from an explosion on Sunday to seven, local authorities said….

The explosion happened at a sulphuric acid plant under the state-run Yuntianhua International Chemical Industry Co., Ltd., a leading Chinese chemical fertilizer producer, at 3:52 a.m. on Sunday.

Sulphur powder exploded starting a large fire when workers were loading it in front of a store house, said investigators from the city’s work safety administration.
…(Full Story)

Posted in Explosions & Fires | Print | No Comments »

Hazco reps answer questions from Lamont Town Council

January 3, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Lamont Leader, 2007 12 11, p. 3

BY CATHY WEETMAN

Note by folc.ca: Cathy Weetman’s article is posted here with the permission of the Lamont Leader. The fact that the permission was granted does not imply in any way that the Lamont Leader is partial in its reporting of issues relating to industrial development in Lamont County. Any perception of conflict between Hazco’s statements (as reported in the Lamont Leader article) and the appended comments by folc.ca is a result of differences between Hazco’s assertions and folc.ca’s clarifications but does not reflect any bias by the Lamont Leader.

A delegation of four representatives from Hazco were in attendance at the November 27 Lamont Town Council meeting to address concerns raised by councillors over the company’s proposed sulphur processing terminal to be built east of Bruderheim.

Rob Mann, Director of Sulphur Services, Sylvia Holowach, Project Administrator, Andrew Timlick, Business Development, Sulphur Services, Gordon Johnson, with Worley, Parsons Comex, stayed for an hour to answer questions from council about the time line for the proposed project, how large the stack of sulphur pastilles would be, traffic congestion on Highway 15, air monitoring and emergency response by the local fire departments in case of a fire.

Mann reported HAZCO has now completed the Environmental Impact Assessment study and it is now under technical review. From there, the Natural Resources Conservation Board takes over the review, and if the project is approved at that stage, a public hearing will take place. The time-line from now until the public hearing and final approval will be at least a year, he added.

Mann was asked how much truck traffic would be added to the already congested Highway 15. He responded that initially, there would be 40 trucks making round trips daily to and from the site that would be using both Highways 15 and 45. [Emphasis by folc.ca; see also appended comment #1 –WHS]

Another concern brought up by council was the height of the stockpiled sulphur pastilles as opposed to the height of the windscreen. Council was told that the majority of dust would be coming from machinery working at the base of the stockpile [emphasis by folc.ca; see also appended comment #2], and due to the type of sulphur processing equipment, the formed pastilles are much firmer and less likely to crumble than those processed a few years ago. [Emphasis by folc.ca; see also appended comment #3. –WHS]

“The older processes of forming the pastilles made them more susceptible to the wind blowing and causing dust,” noted Mann. [Emphasis by folc.ca; see also appended comment # 2 –WHS]

As to whether local emergency response organizations such as the Bruderheim and Lamont fire departments would need to assist HAZCO with on-site fires, Mann replied that it would depend on the size of the fire. A Level 1 fire could be handled by personnel on site, while a Level 2 fire would require the assistance of a local fire department. In a worse case scenario, a Level 3 fire would require the assistance of NR Care if the plant personnel and fire departments are unable to extinguish the fire. Local fire departments would not require special equipment or training when handling a fire. [Emphasis by folc.ca; see also appended comment #4 –WHS]

_________
Comments by folc.ca

1. “Initially” is an important key word here. What counts is not so much the initial traffic volume but what the volume of truck traffic will eventually be. Given the volume of sulphur to be formed into pastilles according to Hazco’s intentions, the truck traffic volume would soon intensify to two and more times than what Hazco stated it will initially be. Hazco is fully aware of what the trend in the increase of the traffic volume will be.
2. The hardness of the formed sulphur whose “…formed pastilles are much firmer and less likely to crumble than those processed a few years ago.” Regardless of the forming process used, solidified sulphur has a hardness of 2, about as hard as a fingernail but is brittle and prone to cracking, crumbling and pulverization if put under pressure, such as by a vehicle tire. Robert Mann failed to identify the forming process and locations used that produced much softer pastilles in the past, while the process intended to be used by Hazco will employ forming machines of a type that have been in use by Shell’s Shantz Sulphur Facility for 20 years or more.
3. The sulphur dust to be generated in Lamont County will be due to a major difference between the sulphur-handling process at Shantz and that proposed by Hazco. At Shantz, the whole handling process is by means of a totally enclosed conveyor belt system and large storage silos, while Hazco’s proposal calls for open storage piles and transfer from their sulphur pile to the train-loading facility by means of front-end loaders.
4. Fire fighting, fire-crew readiness and risks. Standards for procedures used in fighting sulphur fires call for a minimum of two fire-fighters wearing self-contained breathing apparatus, with a minimum of a further two fire-fighters that are also equipped with self-contained breathing apparatus standing by in case the active fire-fighters require to be rescued. To my knowledge, so far no agreements are in place as to local fire teams becoming involved in fighting sulphur fires at the proposed Hazco sulphur facility if that should be necessary and desired. (Check the consequences of a recent sulphur fire in Calgary: Huge Fine Handed to Calgary Sulphur Processor.) When I mentioned Hazco’s assertion that “Local fire departments would not require special equipment or training when handling a fire,” to the fire chief of one of our local volunteer fire departments, his comment was: “If that’s they way they feel, let Hazco fight their fires by themselves.”
   No one should blame him for that attitude. After all, his crew consists of our relatives, neighbours and friends who would be risking their lives in potentially dangerous situations whose danger Hazco insisted all along is non-existent.

Posted in Community & Industry, Explosions & Fires, Emission Incidents & Issues, Hazco, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »

Huge Fine Handed to Calgary Sulphur Processor

November 2, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

[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 »