Comments on HAZCO's answers to its FAQs- Index Page

Except for updates made subsequently, this introduction is the result of a whole week, a full 114 hours of work, spent in examining, and in writing comments about, HAZCO's answers to frequently-asked questions (FAQs) posted at HAZCO's website.

Many people say that HAZCO lies. The representative in the HAZCO Lamont information office maintains adamantly that HAZCO doesn't lie, enthusiastically volunteering that opinion without even being prompted. But I am inclined to agree with her.

HAZCO obviously doesn't tell the truth, all of the truth or nothing but the truth in many instances, but don't hold that too much against HAZCO; it is not necessarily because HAZCO lies. It is far more likely (as in HAZCO's answer to FAQ #28) that HAZCO doesn't know enough to know any better. After all, HAZCO's experience is in waste management and in constructing and operating landfills for waste management — which explains why its applications for Thorhild County, for the County of Sturgeon, and for the initial proposal for the County of Lamont revealed at the open house in Bruderheim in June 2005, all involved the idea of using Sulphur as landfill, in sub-surface pits.

From the history of its failed attempts in Thorhild County, the County of Sturgeon and from the history of the changing parameters of HAZCO's design of its intentions for the County of Lamont, if sulphur storage could be treated as a landfill and sulphur could be permanently buried, and if HAZCO would treat sulphur disposal like the disposal of any other waste HAZCO learned to deal with,

it seems that HAZCO would probably do a good job in going through the motions but with disastrous results if anyone lets HAZCO do that with respect to sulphur-storage and handling. HAZCO simply doesn't seem to know enough to do any better. That is most likely, for example, why HAZCO got rooked into buying a piece of land for a sulphur-storage and -processing site that straddles a seasonal run-off that drains the water run-off from many sections of land. The proposed HAZCO site contains what was called Mud Lake, shown on the map at the right.

Unfortunately, it appears that HAZCO doesn't know enough about sulphur to know any better. That is most probably why it doesn't know that water and sulphur in contact with one another will react and produce sulphuric acid (see FAQ #42; footnote on the role of bacteria in that process) and why HAZCO is so inept in reacting to any concerns about HAZCO's designs in connection with sulphur-storage and-handling. That is most probably why HAZCO reacts to all such concerns like a kid caught with its hand in the cookie jar, "Oh, I didn't know that those cookies weren't just for me, that they were for all of us?" or "Oh, look at the bird!" or "Oh, it's alright if sulphur comes into contact with water. It won't turn into sulphuric acid," and "Oh, sulphur fires are not a threat to anyone. They are easily put out," and puts on a show, pretending, however unsuccessfully, that a few measly rotoforming machines will be sufficient to make people believe the impossible, that behind the smokescreen of rotoforming and the ludicrous claim of being able to sell another 6,000 tonnes per week and more of sulphur into an already saturated world market in the years to come no permanent storage of sulphur will be going on. (See information on world sulphur market trends)

Because of that, it seems, and given the apparent total lack of experience by HAZCO with the handling of enormously massive quantities (many million tonnes) of sulphur — a potentially dangerous chemical that is for good reasons designated as being hazardous — HAZCO appears to have no idea how dangerous it will be if anyone lets HAZCO deal with sulphur in the intended manner and location.

HAZCO stated several times in its answers to the FAQs it responded to in the texts quoted in the pages identified through the index on this web page that everyone is entitled to their opinions. HAZCO obviously puts much faith into that maxim, for good reasons. In many of the answers to FAQs HAZCO hides its lack of knowledge about sulphur and its impact of the environment with the opening words, "We believe...".

Sulphur and its consequences pay absolutely no attention to anyone's beliefs.

The residents of the County of Lamont cannot afford, and do not want, to stake their future wellbeing on HAZCO's beliefs. For the sake of the quality of our lives and of those of our children and grandchildren, we must go by facts and by what is known about the dangers of sulphur-storage and -handling. Decisions that will have an impact on the quality of our lives and of those of our children and grandchildren must not be based on opinions. Opinions that are uncorroborated by facts are worthless at best, and at worst harmful and deadly.

Does HAZCO know about the difference between a chemical reaction and a half-life? Let's hope so, just in case HAZCO should ever get into using waste from the nuclear industry for landfill.

Perhaps HAZCO has no chemical engineers and environmental protection experts on its payroll, but that matters very little in the end if we remain vigilant. Alberta Environment does and has obviously done a very good job of pinpointing the many holes in HAZCO's plans for the handling of sulphur and the gravely damaging impact on the environment and people resulting from that. Alberta Environment's screening report on HAZCO's intentions near Gibbons is now just as important as it was in Gibbons, only more so, as now far larger quantities of sulphur are involved, initially 50 to 60 sulphur trucks per day instead of the 37 trucks a day in the failed proposal for Gibbons.

Regardless of how far HAZCO is permitted to go in its application for the proposed sulphur facility in the County of Lamont, HAZCO must not be permitted to put its plan into operation without a full EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) having been done.

Nothing is said in HAZCO's FAQ web page about who asked the individual questions of the 42 questions posted and "answered" at HAZCO's website. That is a standard procedure with most web pages that deal with FAQs. It appears, though, that at least some of those "questions" asked of HAZCO are rhetorical statements crafted by HAZCO, statements that are being used as lead-ins that permit HAZCO to provide the sort of answers HAZCO continues to attempt having Lamont County residents believe in.

It is intriguing that many of HAZCO's answers to the frequently-asked questions at its website have no relevance at all to what it claims now it wants to put into place in Lamont County. For details on that refer to some of the answers by HAZCO (e. g.: FAQ #6, #7 & #18). The plot will become much more clear as you read on. Nevertheless, it is even more worrying that although HAZCO took many of the FAQs it did answer straight and almost verbatim from interactions initiated by The Friends of Lamont County, it chose to ignore quite a good number of those questions and did not mention all of the questions that had been asked of HAZCO. HAZCO still owes not only The Friends of Lamont County but all residents of Lamont County answers to those questions. Within a few days a comprehensive index to questions that HAZCO deliberately failed to answer will be appended in this page after the index to the FAQs that HAZCO recognized and provided answers for.

The background text in the web pages accessible through the FAQ index in this page was copied from the Frequently-asked Questions page at HAZCO's website, Nov. 2, 2005.

HAZCO's answers to "frequently asked questions" deserve further comments. Those comments are inserted where required in HAZCO's text and are shown on yellow background.

The following index to the texts of frequently-asked questions asked of HAZCO shown here is not part of HAZCO's FAQ page. HAZCO's FAQ page has no index. The index on this page has been constructed to ease the navigation of the pages covering HAZCO's answers to FAQs and of the responses written in relation to HAZCO's answers.

Index to HAZCO's answers to frequently-asked questions

1	Who is actually proposing this facility? Is it Hazco or CCS?	22	What have you done to keep area residents informed about your proposal?
2	What exactly are you proposing to build?	23	Opponents to your project claim that the technology you’re using to store the sulphur is new and untested? What are you doing differently compared to more traditional sulphur storage facilities?
3	Where will it be located and how much land will be required?	24	What assurances can you give residents that this technology will actually work, especially on the long term?
4	What will it look like when completed? How big will the sulphur pile be? Will it be stacked in blocks or a giant pile?	25	What would happen if your sulphur pile caught fire? What would the threat be to nearby residents?
5	What is your proposed schedule for approvals, construction and completion?	26	What would you do about the stink of burning sulphur?
6	How much will it cost?	27	How dangerous are the health risks if there is a sulphur fire?
7	How many people will be required to build the facility and how many of those will be local?	28	There’s strong concern that if water seeps into your sulphur pile it will create significant amounts of sulphuric acid. What assurances can you give that this won’t happen and what will you do if it does happen?
8	Why is this a good area to build your facility? What makes this better than somewhere more remote?	29	Why, according to the petition, haven’t you developed an emergency response plan for the project?
9	Why do you think so many local people are opposed to your project?	30	How many full time jobs will this project create?
10	How willing would you be to live near this facility?	31	How significant will this project be to the local tax base?
11	How would you like it if you looked out your window and all you saw was a sulphur storage facility?	32	Where will the sulphur come from and how will it get here?
12	What’s your reaction to the petition opposing the facility that going around?	33	What do you do with the sulphur once it arrives? How is it processed?
13	What’s your reaction to the opponent website that’s now up and running?	34	The website opposed to your proposal speaks to tens of thousands of hits about sulphur fires and evacuations. Why do they happen so often and what steps will you take to make sure it won’t happen here?
14	What guarantees can you give that your project won’t have negative impact on air quality, especially dust and particulates?	35	Why not build this facility at a more remote location, not so close to farms and communities?
15	What guarantees can you give that this project won’t have a negative impact on water quality, especially runoff?	36	Why not build in a community that supports your project instead of one with so much opposition?
16	How will you collect, store and treat runoff water?	37	A flyer is being distributed by the Friends of Lamont County who are opposed to your project. What’s your reaction to the things being said in the flyer?
17	What assurances can you give that this project won’t have negative impacts on drinking water?	38	The flyer asks “Will our quality of life survive Hazco’s Sulphur Storage facility. Its’ obvious some people are very concerned about your proposal. What do you say to these folks?
18	How much more rail and truck traffic can residents expect when your project is up and running?	39	The flyer maintains that the storage facility is a waste of prime industrial land with very little tax return. What’s your response to that?
19	What kind of support do you have for your project from local councils and municipalities?	40	What impact do you think your facility will have on attracting other industrial developments in the community?
20	How will you deal with the safety issues with so much more road and rail traffic?	41	The residents say this is just the tip of the iceberg and that if this project is approved than Lamont County will become the dumping ground for Alberta sulphur. What’s your response to those concerns?
21	What assurances can you give people living nearby that noise, lights and smells won’t impact their quality of life?	42	Why was a similar proposal from Hazco rejected in Sturgeon County and Thorhild 2002?

Comments on HAZCO's answers to its FAQs

Ideas on what to do to attract more people that wish to live in Lamont County

The proposed sulphur storage facility envisioned to be constructed between Bruderheim and Lamont is a bad idea.

Comments to HAZCO's answers to frequently-asked questions about the proposed HAZCO sulphur storage site in Lamont County

Introduction

Index to HAZCO's answers to frequently-asked questions