March 22, 2009 by admin.

TheRecord.com, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada

French authorities confine thousands indoors over sulphur leak

March 21, 2009
The Associated Press
Web edition

LILLE, France — Authorities warned some 80,000 people in northern France to stay home and close their windows and doors for nearly five hours Saturday after a large cloud of sulphur leaked from a chemicals factory….

Dozens of rescuers and chemicals teams fanned out near the chemicals factory in an industrial suburb of Dunkirk where a fire broke out around 5 am.

The alert was called off nearly six hours later. The site converts liquid sulphur into a solid….(Full Story)

Update 2009 03 22, 10:30 hrs:   According to this Reuters article (in French), “Pollution au soufre à Dunkerque après un incendie” , in L’EXPRESS, 2009 03 21, “Sulphur in suspension is not toxic and does not present a danger to health, but it is irritating, specifies the prefecture.”

That statement is technically correct although very questionable in the context of the Dunkirk sulphur fire.  The cloud of pollution was not a sulphur cloud.  It was a cloud of sulphur dioxide gas, a gas that is deadly in relatively low concentrations.

Anyway, is is not clear from any of the reports on the Dunkirk sulphur fire how much sulphur actually burned and how much sulphur dioxide was produced by the fire. Although the article in L’EXPRESS stated that 250 tonnes of sulphur in storage had been ignited, none of the media reports stated how much sulphur had been consumed in the fire.  Just for the record, when burning, one tonne of sulphur produces three tonnes of deadly sulphur-dioxide gas.

____________
More about sulphur fires (some with catastrophic and deadly consequences)

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

January 27, 2009 by admin.

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

January 25, 2009 by admin.

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 »

January 23, 2009 by admin.

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 »

December 20, 2008 by admin.

news-press.com
Fort Myers, Florida, USA

2008 12 19

BREAKING: Chinese drywall in Lee County homes may be causing health problems

By Mary Wozniak and Dick Hogan

….We have been provided with evidence of complaints of issues of sulfur odors in homes. We have been told about the associated failure of (air conditioning) coils,” he said.

The drywall appears to be emitting sulfur compounds that are corroding coils and other copper-bearing materials, causing them to be replaced repeatedly.

Eldredge cautioned that the health department cannot confirm exactly what the source of the problem is, but the department is working with a consultant representing a homebuilder who believes sulfur gases from drywall are the problem.

“We have not reviewed that data nor can we confirm or support that contention,” he said. “Our primary concern at the heath department is whether or not this is a health risk,” he said.

“It certainly does raise concerns,” said Dr. David Krause, toxicologist for the state Health Department. “There may be a direct health threat,” he said.

The drywall could be emitting one of several sulfur compounds, including sulfur dioxide or hydrogen sulfide, he said….(Full Story)

More on the Chinese drywall problems:

The Defective Chinese Drywall Debacle
Date Published: Monday, January 26th, 2009

_______________
Comment by folc.ca: Whether emissions of sulfur dioxide or of hydrogen sulfide in homes constructed with Chinese-made drywall are the problem has not yet been proven and remains to be seen.

All drywall contains sulphur, as all drywall consists in the majority of gypsum.  Gypsum can be mined but it is also a waste by-product of the fertilizer industry and of fossil-fuel-fired power generation — whenever sulphuric acid is used to leach metals or minerals from ore, or whenever sulphur dioxide needs to be removed from the exhaust gases of fossil-fuel-burning thermal power plants.

For example, industrial processes produce gypsum when sulphur dioxide is being neutralized by passing it through a slurry of water and lime.  Sulphur dioxide reacts with the calcium in the slurry that it is being percolated through to form gypsum (hydrated calcium sulphate, CaSO₄·2H₂O).

The slurry is being stored in settling ponds in which the gypsum settles from its suspension in the water.  The water is then returned to the scrubbing process.  That process produces mountains of gypsum with often massive proportions.

A characteristic of the gypsum that is a waste by-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry is that it is radioactive, about 60 times more radioactive than the phosphate fertilizer produced.  That is due to the circumstance that the phosphate rock that is a feedstock for phosphate fertilizer production contains isotopes such as of uranium and thorium that become concentrated in the waste gypsum (a.k.a. phosphogypsum) during the production processes.

Interestingly, in connection with gypsum production through large-scale industrial processes, the highest geographical feature in all of Florida is a man-made mountain of gypsum.

The huge, unsightly mounds can stretch across hundreds of acres. Some covered, some uncovered–these mountainous stacks can be an eyesore on the flat, sandy Florida skyline. Whitish gray in color, with a crusty surface look like massive heaps of table salt that tower up to 200 feet high.

This is Florida’s stockpile of phosphogypsum. More than 600 million tons of it are already on the ground and an additional 30 million tons accumulate yearly….(Full Story)

_________________

Florida has a large quantity of phosphate deposits, particularly in Bone Valley region. However, the marine-deposited phosphate ore from central Florida is highly radioactive, and as such, the phosphogypsum by-product is too radioactive to be used for most applications. As a result, there are about 1 billion tons of phosphogypsum stacked in 25 stacks in Florida (22 are in central Florida) and about 30 million new tons are generated each year.^[2]

(Wikipedia: Phosphogypsum)

The presence of sulphur in industrial environments causes problems with computer equipment and cell phones, as the sulpur compounds in the atmosphere will affect the soldered connections of microchips, often causing them to fail.  Such problems manifest themselves in surprising circumstances that often have no direct connection at all to either fertilizer production or comparable industrial processes.  For instance,

Ford investigative team solves automotive ‘mysteries’

Reliable Plant Magazine - Tulsa, OK, USA,

Nov/Dec 2006

Central Lab chemist Tom Munie discovered that the solder on the motherboards and other circuitry within these computers had been attacked by sulfur, ….

“We were seeing a lot of new computers in one particular area of the design center that were malfunctioning – sometimes within the first 30 days,” says Ford commodity analyst Cyndi Morrell….(Full Story)

It could be a bit of a red herring to focus the examination of sulphur problems in Florida just on Chinese-made drywall.  After all, drywall is drywall (unless China used its drywall to dispose of other forms of its waste sulphur — of which its growing economy has many).  On the other hand, Florida has a lot of sources of sulphur that can contaminate its environment and cause failures of copper-containing equipment components or may even cause a variety of health problems.

Perhaps one of the first issues to be examined should be whether any of Florida’s phosphogypsum was exported to China and whether then it was used there to produce drywall that was exported to the whole world and to Florida.  It would not hurt to prove that that route of environmental pollution in Florida can and should be ruled out.

Then it may be worth the effort to see how much of Florida’s phosphogypsum made its way into road and parking lot construction in Lee County and in other areas affected by sulphur-pollution problems.  After all, Florida ran a lot of experiments in the early 1990s to find practical ways by which to get rid of its masses of waste-phosphogypsum.

Posted in Heavy-Metal Poisoning & Pollution, Community & Industry, Emission Incidents & Issues, Sulphur-Related Construction Costs, Hydrogen-Sulphide, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | 2 Comments »

December 10, 2008 by admin.

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 »

December 9, 2008 by admin.

Prince George Citizen

Monday, 08 December 2008

Penalties imposed on Marsulex for 2006 sulphur-dioxide release

By PAUL STRICKLAND, Citizen staff

Marsulex Inc. was fined a total of $2,000 plus a 15-per-cent impact surcharge Monday after pleading guilty to two environmental counts in connection with the release of a concentrated plume of sulphur dioxide from its Prince George plant on Aug. 9, 2006….

On the morning of Aug. 9, 2006, Marsulex shut down its plant for routine maintenance….

During the start-up the winds changed, and the mixing of the gas in the lower atmosphere may have become poor. Its analyzer showed sulphur-dioxide concentration levels exceeded 1,653 parts per million for seven-and-a-half minutes…the plant discharged a dense bluish-white cloud of gas, a plume, from its stack. The plume travelled across the road and descended upon the Canadian Forest Products’ Rustad sawmill, court learned.

Marsulex had notified the Rustad mill by phone 10 minutes ahead of time that it was restarting its furnace. At least 18 Rustad workers were physically affected by the plume. Some received first-aid treatment on site. Nine workers were taken to Prince George Regional Hospital for further treatment and were discharged from hospital that day, according to the agreed statement of facts.

The affected workers described the plume as bluish-white or grey cloud with a strong smell. They described the adverse physical effects they experienced as watering eyes, burning lungs, difficulty breathing, blurred vision, skin burning and a strange taste in the mouth, court heard.

The physical effects described by the workers are generally consistent with those suffered by people exposed to sulphur-dioxide, court heard….(Full Story)
______________
Comment by folc.ca: The article does mentions that four workers who allege that they experienced permanent damages to their health from the sulphur dioxide release filed a claim with WorkSafe - B.C., but nothing is mentioned whether anyone other than the “environment” received any sort of compensation.

More than three years after the fact, and no money for real people’s pains….but about $150,000 is to be paid to a bureaucracy, the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund, that safeguards the environment.  Is that not just absolutely wonderful?

Posted in Fines & Penalties, Community & Industry, Emission Incidents & Issues, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »

December 9, 2008 by admin.

Sydney Morning Herald

December 9, 2008 - 8:55AM

Workers inhale sulphur dioxide at Sydney industrial site

Arjun Ramachandran

Six people have experienced breathing problems after inhaling sulphur dioxide at a work site this morning, the ambulance service says….

Three had to be taken to to Fairfield Hospital and were in a stable condition….(Full Story)

Posted in Emission Incidents & Issues, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »

October 31, 2008 by admin.

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 »

October 2, 2008 by admin.

chicagotribune.com

EPA: BP violated Clean Air Act in Whiting

Associated Press
5:38 PM CDT, October 2, 2008

WHITING, Ind. - BP PLC violated the Clean Air Act by beginning to make modifications at its Indiana oil refinery along Lake Michigan to process Canadian crude before it received the proper permit, federal regulators said Thursday.

The allegation was included in an amended complaint by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The complaint alleges BP violated the law by making several unapproved changes in 2005 when it altered a unit at the refinery that converts heavy oils into lighter products such as gasoline.

The EPA said in November the modifications caused “significant increases” in sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter and carbon monoxide emitted from the refinery….(Full Story)
_________________
Comment by folc.ca : It is not clear at all what BP will do with the sulphur it will recover from the heavy crude it gets from Canada.  As of now the US does not permit storage of sulphur to block.

Posted in Pollution: Health Issues, Emission Incidents & Issues, Sulphur Logistics, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »