Board decision NR 2009-01 : NRCB application no. 0702 : Alberta Sulphur Terminals Ltd. sulphur forming and shipping facility near Bruderheim

2009·15.9 MB·English

by  Alberta. Natural Resources Conservation Board

BOARD DECISION NR 2009-01
NRCB Application No. 0702
Alberta Sulphur Terminals Ltd.
Sulphur Forming and Shipping Facility
near Bruderheim
July 2009

News release
T^XJWT»^* 0 I C Noatnusrearlv a tRieosno u rBcoeasr d
July 28, 2008
Natural Resources Conservation Board issues decision on
Alberta Sulphur Terminals project
Edmonton... A p anel of the Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) has determined that
Alberta Sulphur Terminals’ proposed sulphur forming plant is in the public interest, and is not
likely to result in significant adverse social or environmental effects. The plant will be located in
the Industrial Heartland region of Lamont County, near Bruderheim.
The panel concluded that the plant will be an economic benefit to the region and a useful
response to by-product sulphur generated from upgrader and refinery operations. The project
will provide an alternative to the significant amount of sulphur generated by upgraders in Alberta
that is block formed and placed in long-term, above ground storage.
The decision report includes conditions of approval to minimize and manage potential impacts
that are in addition to the commitments made by the applicant that address safety, community
impact and environmental mitigation. The approval is also subject to a requirement set out by
the panel that Alberta Sulphur Terminals must submit a revised emergency response plan to the
satisfaction of the NRCB before construction commences.
Natural Resources Conservation Board Act decisions that determine that a p roject is in the
public interest are forwarded to Cabinet for approval, and require an Order in Council.
The NRCB is an independent, quasi-judicial agency of the Government of Alberta. It is
responsible for determining whether natural resource projects are in the public interest, by
considering the social, economic and environmental effects of proposed projects.
-30-
Note: The full decision report is p osted on the NRCB website; http://www.nrcb.gov.ab.ca
Attachment: Backgrounder
Media inquiries may be directed to:
Bill Kennedy, Counsel, NRCB.
Tel.: [phone]
To call toll-free within Alberta dial 310-0000.
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2016
https://archive.org/details/boarddecisionnr201albe_0
Backgrounder
July 28, 2009
Project description
The plant will produce 3000 tonnes/day of sulphur pastilles, with short term, on-site storage.
Sulphur is p rimarily used in the production of agricultural fertilizers. The facility will potentially
provide service for oil and gas production and refining operations from Fort Saskatchewan, Fort
McMurray and Lloydminster, taking the by-product of oil and gas upgrading and refining, and
processing it i nto high quality sulphur pastilles for export. The primary markets for formed
sulphur are the United States, Asia Pacific and North Africa. Currently, a significant amount of
sulphur generated by upgraders in Alberta is block formed and placed in long term, above
ground storage.
Location
The site is located in the Industrial Heartland region of Lamont County, west of the fourth
meridian near Bruderheim. It has direct access to both the Canadian Pacific and Canadian
National railway lines, and is zoned “medium/heavy industrial policy area.”
Key issues considered by the panel
The key concern related to the project is the release of SO2 gas (sulphur dioxide) in the unlikely
event of a l arge fire. The panel gave close attention to the application’s safety measures for
mitigating hazards and the facility’s emergency response capabilities.
Key issues considered by the panel also included potential social, health, property, safety,
infrastructure and environmental impacts, including noise, increased vehicle traffic, light, fugitive
dust emissions and impact on agricultural land.
Panel conclusions
The panel is an independent body. Its conclusions are:
• The project is in the public interest, taking into account its potential environmental,
economic and social impacts.
• The project will have a p ositive economic impact during the construction phase and from
annual taxes and labour. Capital costs are anticipated at more than $30 million. The
annual economic impact is estimated at $35 million, exclusive of taxes, with the vast
majority of the benefit occurring in Alberta. The project will create 22 full time, permanent
positions, and the applicant has committed to hire labour and source services locally
where possible.
• The plant will provide a useful alternative to the long-term, above ground, block storage
currently used for a significant amount of by-product sulphur generated from upgrader
and refinery operations in Alberta.
• The location of the project is consistent with municipal planning documents, and with
other industrial development in the region. The scale of the project is modest compared
to other industry in the Industrial Heartland.
• Alberta Sulphur Terminals conducted a credible risk assessment and is committed to
using appropriate management practices for maintaining a safe environment and
ensuring public safety.

Conditions of approval
The panel set out 12 mandatory conditions in addition to commitments made by Alberta Sulphur
Terminals that address safety, community impact and environmental mitigation. The conditions
imposed by the panel include the following:
• Submission of a revised emergency response plan to the satisfaction of the NRCB as a
precedent to the approval. Construction may not begin prior to NRCB acceptance of the
plan.
• Mandatory monitoring and reporting of H2S levels that exceed 10 ppm in the molten
sulphur received in the plant and in the receiving area.
• Additional design research for the wind screen, and mandatory reporting if t he storage
pile exceeds the height of the wind screen.
• Additional noise impact assessments and surveys, and compliance with ERCB Noise
Directive 038.
• Additional requirements for groundwater and surface water monitoring.
• Requirement that reasonable costs necessitated by the project, associated with storm water
management, access to the regional water line and necessary upgrades to RR 202 be paid.
Review process
The Alberta Sulphur Terminals proposal was referred to the NRCB by Order in Council on July
12, 2006. The NRCB received the application from Alberta Sulphur Terminals on July 13, 2007.
As required under the Natural Resources Conservation Board Act, the applicant prepared and
submitted an environmental impact assessment (EIA) to Alberta Environment. Alberta
Environment declared that the EIA report was complete, pursuant to the Environmental
Protection and Enhancement Act, on November 24, 2008.
The NRCB conducted a p re-hearing on January 27, 2009 in Lamont, Alberta to determine
intervener status and the major issues to be examined at the hearing, and visited the site on
April 13, 2009. The public hearing took place April 14 - 1 7 in Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta. The
decision report includes the complete list of interveners.
-30-

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 : INTRODUCTION 1
1.1: Application to the NRCB 1
1 .2: Scope of Review 3
1 .3: Review Process 3
SECTION 2: PROJECT NEED 4
2.1: Project Need 4
2.1.1: Views of the Applicant 4
2.1.2: Views of the Interveners 7
2.1.3: Views of the Panel 8
2.2: Socio-Economic Impacts 9
2.2.1 : Views of the Applicant 9
2.2.1 .1 : Impacts during the Construction Phase 9
2. 2. 1.2: Impacts during the Operations Phase 10
2.2.2: Views of the Interveners 11
2.2.3: Views of the Panel 12
SECTION 3: PROJECT DESIGN 13
3.1: Project Design 13
3.1.1: Views of the Applicant 13
3. 1.1.1: Liquid Sulphur Handling and H2S
Capture 14
3. 1.1. 2: Sulphur Forming Facilities 15
3. 1.1. 3: Solid Sulphur Storage 16
3. 1 . 1 .4: Loading Facilities for Formed Sulphur 1 8
3. 1.1. 5: Surface Water 18
3.1.2: Views of the Interveners 18
3.1 .2.1 : Liquid Sulphur Handling and H2S
Capture 18
3. 1.2. 2: Sulphur Forming Facilities 19
3. 1.2. 3: Solid Sulphur Storage 19
3. 1.2.4: Loading Facilities for Formed Sulphur 20
3. 1 .3: Views of the Panel 20
SECTION 4: COMMUNITY EFFECTS 23
4.1: Public Consultation 23
4.1.1: Views of the Applicant 23
4.1.2: Views of the Interveners 26
4.1.3: Views of the Panel 28
4.2: Noise 29
4.2.1: Views of the Applicant 29
4.2.2: Views of the Interveners 32
4.2.3: Views of the Panel 34
4.3: Odour 35
4.3.1 : Views of the Applicant 35
4.3.2: Views of the Interveners 36
4.3.3: Views of the Panel 36
4.4: Light 37
4.4.1 : Views of the Applicant 37
4.4.2: Views of the Interveners 37
4.4.3: Views of the Panel 37
4.5: Rail and Road Traffic 37
4.5.1: Views of the Applicant 37
4.5.2: Views of the Interveners 40
4.5.3: Views of the Panel 41
4.6: Property Values 42
4.6.1: Views of the Applicant 42
4.6.2: Views of the Interveners 45
4.6.3: Views of the Panel 45
4.7: Site Suitability 46
4.7.1: Views of the Applicant 46
4.7.2: Views of the Interveners 47
4.7.3: Views of the Panel 47
4.8: Municipal Concerns 48
4.8.1: Views of the Applicant 48
4.8.2: Views of the Interveners 50
4.8.3: Views of the Panel 51