PSSG: Session Round 1

Location:

Leduc

Date:

June 28, 2000

Committee Reps:

Gerry Desorcy
Brian Winter
Paul Jackson
Randy Gossen
Barry Virtue
Tim Lambert
Judith Bugg
Robert Ollerenshaw
Cindy Miller Reade
Ron Wolsey
David Wilson
David Spink
Bob Clark

Number of Participants:

28*

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 session in Leduc was well attended, receiving the most advanced registration of any location. Members of the public provided the Advisory Committee with a range of input related to sour gas and public health and safety. The key and consistent issues presented in the Leduc session included: (1) concerns about the negative impacts of sour gas emissions on human, animal and environmental health; (2) issues related to flaring and the need to develop and implement alternatives to flaring; (3) challenges related to communication and consultation with industry; and, (4) the need for sticter regulations and enforcement by the EUB.

Prevention, Policy and Jurisdiction

The EUB's relationship with government and industry was identified as a concern by some of the Leduc participants. It was suggested that because the EUB is linked to government, that they are not impartial and favor industry. Some participants indicated that these relationships have generated a climate of mistrust among the public.

A few participants said that the role of the EUB is not well understood by the public and that the EUB needs to be more accessible and user-friendly. The suggestion for improved cooperation between the EUB, AB Environment, and the Regional Health Districts was made by a few individuals. One participant believed that the Municipal Districts should have more involvement, especially in the context of ERP planning and control of development permits.

Some of the Leduc participants expressed dissatisfaction with the hearing process, saying that it is intimidating, expensive and time consuming for the public. A few participants made comments about the need for improved and impartial baseline studies for hearings.

A few suggested that EUB notification is inadequate and that more public meetings are required.

Several individuals in Leduc believe that EUB regulations should be stricter, more monitoring should be conducted, and enforcement of regulations should be more rigorous. A wide range of suggestions for specific regulations were made. Some key and consistent examples include: improved testing before and after drilling, a stronger focus on conservation, implementation of alternatives to flaring, and increased monitoring of pipeline integrity.

The need for stricter regulations, including development limits, related to proliferation of sour gas facility development in populated and recreational use areas was identified as an issue by some of the Leduc participants. It was suggested that these sticter regulations consider the cumulative effects of development.

Some of the participants indicated that the EUB is understaffed and as such, cannot regulate, monitor and enforce adequately. It was noted by a few individuals that self-regulation by industry does not work.

Flaring and flaring emissions were identified as an issue by some of the participants. Issues included: negative health effects, noise, pollution and night flaring. It was suggested that alternatives to flaring (incinerators, loop systems) or a ban on flaring be explored.

Event Consequence Management

Several participants expressed concerns about the negative human, animal and environmental impacts of sour gas emissions. Participants provided personal experiences related to human (headaches, respiratory conditions, nausea, cancers) and animal (reproductive problems, growth problems, death) health issues. Environmental concerns centered on diminished wildlife, and air and water quality. It was suggested by a few participants that the EUB needs to be more proactive in protecting health.

A few participants suggested that risk assessment should be localized and provide for site-specific circumstances.

Setback distances were considered to be inadequate by some of the participants. It was suggested that the setback distances should be revised to include site specific criteria (climate, topography).

Several of the individuals in Leduc expressed concerns related to the effectiveness of ERPs. Issues ranged from the absence of phones in some areas to the inability for evacuation because of dead end roads to poor response (answering machines, no answer) of ER phone numbers. It was suggested that companies should more actively include the public when developing the plans.

The need for research related to the chronic health effects of long-term exposure to sour gas emissions was identified by several participants in Leduc. The lack of baseline data related to long term effects was mentioned.

Some individuals suggested that alternative forms of energy needs to be pursed by the government.

Communication and Compensation

Several of the Leduc participants expressed dissatisfaction and frustration with industry communications. Examples of issues of poor communication from industry include: broken promises, disrespectful attitude and lack of disclosure. A few individuals suggested that an ombudsman or public advocate would be the most effect approach to solving the problem.

A few individuals indicated that there is a lack of public awareness and knowledge about the issues and risk related to sour gas. It was suggested that government and industry should make existing information more accessible to the public.

Some of the participants had issues with compensation, generally suggesting that compensation from companies is inadequate and that the onus is on the public to prove their claims. A few participants noted that everyone is affected by emissions, yet only the landowner, on whose land the facility is located, is compensated.

A few individuals commented on risk communication, suggesting that the information should be more user friendly and not include so many technical terms.

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

	Location:	Leduc
	Date:	June 28, 2000
	Committee Reps:	Gerry Desorcy Brian Winter Paul Jackson Randy Gossen Barry Virtue Tim Lambert Judith Bugg Robert Ollerenshaw Cindy Miller Reade Ron Wolsey David Wilson David Spink Bob Clark
	Number of Participants:	28*

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 session in Leduc was well attended, receiving the most advanced registration of any location. Members of the public provided the Advisory Committee with a range of input related to sour gas and public health and safety. The key and consistent issues presented in the Leduc session included: (1) concerns about the negative impacts of sour gas emissions on human, animal and environmental health; (2) issues related to flaring and the need to develop and implement alternatives to flaring; (3) challenges related to communication and consultation with industry; and, (4) the need for sticter regulations and enforcement by the EUB. Prevention, Policy and Jurisdiction The EUB's relationship with government and industry was identified as a concern by some of the Leduc participants. It was suggested that because the EUB is linked to government, that they are not impartial and favor industry. Some participants indicated that these relationships have generated a climate of mistrust among the public. A few participants said that the role of the EUB is not well understood by the public and that the EUB needs to be more accessible and user-friendly. The suggestion for improved cooperation between the EUB, AB Environment, and the Regional Health Districts was made by a few individuals. One participant believed that the Municipal Districts should have more involvement, especially in the context of ERP planning and control of development permits. Some of the Leduc participants expressed dissatisfaction with the hearing process, saying that it is intimidating, expensive and time consuming for the public. A few participants made comments about the need for improved and impartial baseline studies for hearings. A few suggested that EUB notification is inadequate and that more public meetings are required. Several individuals in Leduc believe that EUB regulations should be stricter, more monitoring should be conducted, and enforcement of regulations should be more rigorous. A wide range of suggestions for specific regulations were made. Some key and consistent examples include: improved testing before and after drilling, a stronger focus on conservation, implementation of alternatives to flaring, and increased monitoring of pipeline integrity. The need for stricter regulations, including development limits, related to proliferation of sour gas facility development in populated and recreational use areas was identified as an issue by some of the Leduc participants. It was suggested that these sticter regulations consider the cumulative effects of development. Some of the participants indicated that the EUB is understaffed and as such, cannot regulate, monitor and enforce adequately. It was noted by a few individuals that self-regulation by industry does not work. Flaring and flaring emissions were identified as an issue by some of the participants. Issues included: negative health effects, noise, pollution and night flaring. It was suggested that alternatives to flaring (incinerators, loop systems) or a ban on flaring be explored. Event Consequence Management Several participants expressed concerns about the negative human, animal and environmental impacts of sour gas emissions. Participants provided personal experiences related to human (headaches, respiratory conditions, nausea, cancers) and animal (reproductive problems, growth problems, death) health issues. Environmental concerns centered on diminished wildlife, and air and water quality. It was suggested by a few participants that the EUB needs to be more proactive in protecting health. A few participants suggested that risk assessment should be localized and provide for site-specific circumstances. Setback distances were considered to be inadequate by some of the participants. It was suggested that the setback distances should be revised to include site specific criteria (climate, topography). Several of the individuals in Leduc expressed concerns related to the effectiveness of ERPs. Issues ranged from the absence of phones in some areas to the inability for evacuation because of dead end roads to poor response (answering machines, no answer) of ER phone numbers. It was suggested that companies should more actively include the public when developing the plans. The need for research related to the chronic health effects of long-term exposure to sour gas emissions was identified by several participants in Leduc. The lack of baseline data related to long term effects was mentioned. Some individuals suggested that alternative forms of energy needs to be pursed by the government. Communication and Compensation Several of the Leduc participants expressed dissatisfaction and frustration with industry communications. Examples of issues of poor communication from industry include: broken promises, disrespectful attitude and lack of disclosure. A few individuals suggested that an ombudsman or public advocate would be the most effect approach to solving the problem. A few individuals indicated that there is a lack of public awareness and knowledge about the issues and risk related to sour gas. It was suggested that government and industry should make existing information more accessible to the public. Some of the participants had issues with compensation, generally suggesting that compensation from companies is inadequate and that the onus is on the public to prove their claims. A few participants noted that everyone is affected by emissions, yet only the landowner, on whose land the facility is located, is compensated. A few individuals commented on risk communication, suggesting that the information should be more user friendly and not include so many technical terms. * Several participants indicated that they were acting as representatives for larger groups and/or organizations.