PSSG: Session Round 1 - Drayton Valley

Location:

Drayton Valley

Date:

June 20, 2000

Committee Reps:

Gerry Desorcy
Paul Jackson
Tim Lambert
Frank George
Maureen Bolen
Judith Bugg
Brian Winter
Doreen Healy
Bart Guyon
Randy Gossen

Number of Participants:

12*

Other Locations:

June 8 Millarville
June 8 Vulcan
June 9 Pincher Creek
June 19 Red Deer
June 20 Drayton Valley
June 21 Rocky Mtn. House
June 22 Sundre
June 24 Grande Prairie
June 26 Edson
June 27 Hinton
June 28 Leduc
June 29 Calgary

Summary Aboriginal

Summary Response Forms

Summary Written Forms

Session Overview:

The daylong session in Drayton Valley was relatively well attended with the Committee receiving a range of input from the public. Key and consistent issues that were presented involved: (1) the current effectiveness of EUB regulations, (2) the credibility of the information received from the EUB and the operators, and (3) the lack of consideration for health effects in the decision making process and in the actions of the operators and EUB when an incident occurs.

Prevention, Policy and Jurisdiction

Most of the participants expressed concerns regarding the lack of EUB personnel. In their opinion, this has resulted in less monitoring of sour gas facilities. There was a feeling that the EUB needs more resources (money and staff) to better enforce regulations. There is a belief that companies are regulating themselves and that the general public is expected to monitor the companies. Many participants found this to be unacceptable.

A few participants indicated that smaller companies get away with more and that the EUB does not penalize these companies quickly enough. It was suggested that a zero tolerance is needed for those not following safety procedures

Some of the participants see the EUB as reactive instead of proactive and are concerned that this results in many costly accidents that could have otherwise been prevented. It was suggested that there needs to be more focus on preventative measures.

One person indicated that the jurisdiction of the EUB is confusing and that it is often left to the individual to contact the necessary parties instead of them reaching you when an incident occurs.

A few of the participants expressed concern with the training of company employees, resulting in a general feeling that some employees are not properly trained or certified.

A few of the participants suggested that the lack of monitoring and enforcement of regulations has resulted in the EUB lacking credibility with the public.

Event Consequence Management

Several of the participants mentioned health risks that they believe are caused by sour gas emissions. They mentioned health concerns including: cancer, asthma, respiratory problems, brain damage, livestock problems, and loss of crops. There was a general feeling that these issues are ignored by companies and EUB, especially in the decision making process.

One participant indicated that there has not been enough research conducted regarding the 'true' effects of sour gas. It was the opinion of the participant that until there is conclusive, unbiased research, accurate policies can not be established.

A few of the participants were concerned that the ERPs are not fool proof and question their reliability since they are never tested before an incident occurs. In order to ensure that the plan reflects the nature of the area and the community, it was suggested that there be a community coordinator who works with the company to develop the plan and then assists in communicating it to the community.

One individual expressed a concern about inadequate notification by companies.

Communication and Compensation

Although a few participants spoke well of the public consultation process, some thought that there is a lack of information sharing and that the information gathered is quickly forgotten. A few view the process as a series of broken promises that generally ignores the community issues until the residents become angry.

Most of the participants indicated that there is a need for more awareness regarding sour gas and the potential issues. One participant suggested that companies provide all of their related records to the local public library so that the community could better understand their corporate neighbour.

One person was frustrated because despite the fact that there are several opposition groups, the EUB and the companies are always considered to be correct. "If there are that many people with concerns, can they all be wrong?"

There was a general frustration with the EUB and the operators because of the lack of information available and because the information that is available appears to be contradictory. Some of the participants question whether the EUB has credibility because of its lack of accurate, consistent answers and its inability to consistently regulate the industry.

A few of the participants mentioned that better signage is needed to indicate where pipelines are located, especially near rivers, and the amount and type of sour gas that is in the sour gas facility.

* Several participants indicated that they were acting as representatives for larger groups and/or organizations.

	Location:	Drayton Valley
	Date:	June 20, 2000
	Committee Reps:	Gerry Desorcy Paul Jackson Tim Lambert Frank George Maureen Bolen Judith Bugg Brian Winter Doreen Healy Bart Guyon Randy Gossen
	Number of Participants:	12*
Other Locations: June 8 Millarville June 8 Vulcan June 9 Pincher Creek June 19 Red Deer June 20 Drayton Valley June 21 Rocky Mtn. House June 22 Sundre June 24 Grande Prairie June 26 Edson June 27 Hinton June 28 Leduc June 29 Calgary Summary Aboriginal Summary Response Forms Summary Written Forms	Session Overview: The daylong session in Drayton Valley was relatively well attended with the Committee receiving a range of input from the public. Key and consistent issues that were presented involved: (1) the current effectiveness of EUB regulations, (2) the credibility of the information received from the EUB and the operators, and (3) the lack of consideration for health effects in the decision making process and in the actions of the operators and EUB when an incident occurs. Prevention, Policy and Jurisdiction Most of the participants expressed concerns regarding the lack of EUB personnel. In their opinion, this has resulted in less monitoring of sour gas facilities. There was a feeling that the EUB needs more resources (money and staff) to better enforce regulations. There is a belief that companies are regulating themselves and that the general public is expected to monitor the companies. Many participants found this to be unacceptable. A few participants indicated that smaller companies get away with more and that the EUB does not penalize these companies quickly enough. It was suggested that a zero tolerance is needed for those not following safety procedures Some of the participants see the EUB as reactive instead of proactive and are concerned that this results in many costly accidents that could have otherwise been prevented. It was suggested that there needs to be more focus on preventative measures. One person indicated that the jurisdiction of the EUB is confusing and that it is often left to the individual to contact the necessary parties instead of them reaching you when an incident occurs. A few of the participants expressed concern with the training of company employees, resulting in a general feeling that some employees are not properly trained or certified. A few of the participants suggested that the lack of monitoring and enforcement of regulations has resulted in the EUB lacking credibility with the public. Event Consequence Management Several of the participants mentioned health risks that they believe are caused by sour gas emissions. They mentioned health concerns including: cancer, asthma, respiratory problems, brain damage, livestock problems, and loss of crops. There was a general feeling that these issues are ignored by companies and EUB, especially in the decision making process. One participant indicated that there has not been enough research conducted regarding the 'true' effects of sour gas. It was the opinion of the participant that until there is conclusive, unbiased research, accurate policies can not be established. A few of the participants were concerned that the ERPs are not fool proof and question their reliability since they are never tested before an incident occurs. In order to ensure that the plan reflects the nature of the area and the community, it was suggested that there be a community coordinator who works with the company to develop the plan and then assists in communicating it to the community. One individual expressed a concern about inadequate notification by companies. Communication and Compensation Although a few participants spoke well of the public consultation process, some thought that there is a lack of information sharing and that the information gathered is quickly forgotten. A few view the process as a series of broken promises that generally ignores the community issues until the residents become angry. Most of the participants indicated that there is a need for more awareness regarding sour gas and the potential issues. One participant suggested that companies provide all of their related records to the local public library so that the community could better understand their corporate neighbour. One person was frustrated because despite the fact that there are several opposition groups, the EUB and the companies are always considered to be correct. "If there are that many people with concerns, can they all be wrong?" There was a general frustration with the EUB and the operators because of the lack of information available and because the information that is available appears to be contradictory. Some of the participants question whether the EUB has credibility because of its lack of accurate, consistent answers and its inability to consistently regulate the industry. A few of the participants mentioned that better signage is needed to indicate where pipelines are located, especially near rivers, and the amount and type of sour gas that is in the sour gas facility. * Several participants indicated that they were acting as representatives for larger groups and/or organizations.