MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOUR GAS

24 March 2000
9:00am to 4:00pm
15th Floor Training Room
Energy Resources Building

A T T E N D E E S

M I N U T E S

1. Opening Comments

   The meeting was opened by the Chairman, Gerry DeSorcy. Members were welcomed and introduced themselves for the benefit of members in attendance for the first time.

   Preliminary matters:

   • Frank George advised that the Canadian Petroleum Institute (CPI) will hold its annual safety seminar in Banff again this spring. He has the information if anyone is interested.
     
     
   • In response to questions raised at a previous meeting, Harry Lillo provided information that last year 55 percent of critical wells were inspected by the EUB. He advised that the EUB inspections are based on a priority system which considers operator history, sensitivity of the site and inherent risk of the operation. He also stated that it is very rare that problems are found during critical well inspections.
     
     
   • The EUB is still in the process of confirming whether the City of Calgary and First Nations will provide representatives to the committee.

   
   
   

2. Approval of Minutes of 10 and 17 March Meetings

   Minutes of the 10 March meeting were approved as circulated.

   Minutes of 17 March meeting were approved as circulated. It had been suggested that item 5 be amended by adding ranges in parenthesis to define low and high levels of H₂S. The committee did not agree to this change as it did not believe that it was consistent with the information presented by Dr. Roth.

3. Review and Discussion of Draft Terms of Reference

   A discussion of the revised draft terms of reference took place with particular emphasis placed on the Vision statement. Some members were of the opinion that “public confidence” should be at the beginning of the Vision statement rather than at the end. Others felt that the focus of the committee’s work needed to be on public health and safety. Concern was expressed that risk communication can make people feel good and trust in a system without satisfying people that the trust is warranted.

   It was agreed that the Vision statement would remain as circulated in draft #4, however it was also agreed that the need to improve public confidence is a primary reason that the committee exists. The committee however needs to place emphasis on validating the regulatory framework which provides for Public Health and Safety.

   The following vision statement was agreed to: The regulatory framework for sour gas development ensures a high level of Public Health and Safety*, worthy of continuous public confidence.

   The committee also discussed the 2nd bullet under Operating Principles and the need to balance the rights of present and future stakeholders. It was agreed that there was no need to add reference to “present and future” in the item because it was already reflected in “various stakeholders”. It was agreed to remove the first three words in the bullet. The item will now read “There is a range of legitimate rights amongst the various stakeholders.”

   The Terms of Reference were approved with the change discussed above.

   ACTION ITEM: Marilyn will finalize the Terms of Reference and forward to members prior to the next meeting.

4. Update re: Enchant Well Blow-out, Web Site and Draft News Release
   
   
   • Enchant Well Blow-out: Greg Gilbertson provided the group with an update of the on-going well blow-out at Enchant, north of Lethbridge. He indicated that the well is still out of control but the company hoped to regain control by 25 March.

   Action Item: A detailed presentation of the event will be provided by EUB staff and possibly a company representative once the incident is over and an investigation has taken place.

   • Web Site: Greg Gilbertson provided an up-date on the development of a committee web site. He provided the group with a sample web page design for comment. The proposed web site name is “publicsafety&sourgas.ab.ca”. A second choice is “publicsafety&sourgas.org”. The EUB web master is currently doing a domain search to ensure that the preferred name can be used. The web site can be linked to others such as CAPP, EUB and SEPAC. In order to use the EUB main server for the web site Government approval is required which is also being pursued by the EUB. Once government approval is obtained and the domain search is complete the site could be up quickly, possible in April. The committee expressed concern about the timing and asked if it could be completed more quickly. It was also suggested that the web page contain pictures with people possibly in a rural setting.

   Action Item: Gerry will meet with the web master and discuss how the process can be expedited.

   • Draft News Release: Greg Gilbertson provided a second draft of a news release for the committee’s review. It was suggested that the news release should reference the committee’s web site. Several wording changes were suggested. It was agreed that a sub-committee should be struck to work with Greg on the wording.

   Action Item: Paul Jackson, Frank George and David Spink agreed to work with Greg Gilbertson to re-draft the news release. Other committee members should pass any comments to one of these individuals for consideration. The sub-committee will present the committee with a revised draft for approval when completed.

5. EUB Staff Presentation
   
   
   • EUB Hearing and Decision Making Process

     Doug Larder of the EUB’s Law Branch provided an overview of the Statutes in place which the provide the EUB with its decision making powers. A lengthy discussion took place and several questions were asked which Doug responded to. He will summarize his presentation and provide a written summary to the group.

   Action Item: Harry Lillo will make a copy of some EUB decision reports and pertinent pieces of legislation for the committee to view. Copies will be made available upon request. Doug Larder will provide a written summary of his presentation.

6. Presentation on Risk Issue Management by Dr. Bill Leiss

   Dr. Leiss presented the committee with information regarding “Risk Issue Management” which is a new approach to dealing with risk controversies. Previous approaches did not work eg. people didn’t trust the numbers being presented from risk assessment or the “spin” put on them through communicating the risk. Risk perception research didn’t lead to ways of closing the gap between risk and perceived risk. Risk communication didn’t work because very few people listened to clever messages or changed their opinions.

   He stated that risk controversy will continue to accelerate and organizations must manage the risks and the issues. Institutions must build competency in risk controversy management and not hide from the issues.

   Dr. Leiss’ web site contains information about procedures for dealing with risk controversy and “Risk Issue Management”. His web site address is www.ucalgary.ca/~wleiss. Dr. Leiss indicated that he would be pleased to meet with the group again to discuss this topic further.

7. Synopsis of Other On-going Relevant Projects
   
   
   • Flaring Guide 60: Kim Eastlick of the EUB’s Environment, Safety and Technical Services Group provided a broad overview of the new flaring requirements contained in Guide 60 which were effective in early 1999. Several questions were asked which he responded to. A member suggested that as a minimum the nearest resident should be notified prior to well test flaring taking test. The notification area is 1.5 kilometres but the nearest resident could be just beyond that distance and would be able to clearly see the flare. It was also suggested that the local municipal disaster services should be advised of flaring since they are usually the first to be called if someone sees a flare. These suggestions will be considered.
     
     
   • Sulphur Recovery Guidelines: Kim Eastlick provided an overview of the sulphur recovery guideline review which is currently taking place. A review of policies such as grandfathering, and economics of a large plant versus several small plants in an area will be included.
     
     
   • Alternative Dispute Resolution: David DeGagne indicated that there is currently a joint industry/EUB review underway of various options or tools that could be used to resolve disputes between the public and industry outside of the formal EUB hearing process.
     
     
   • Western Canada Study on Animal and Human Health Effects Associated with Exposure to Flare Emissions: David Spink provided some background on the issues which lead to the study, an overview of the various study components and the role of the science advisory panel, and the scheduling of the components. Several questions were asked including whether this study would address any of the human health issues that this advisory committee has to deal with. David indicated that he did not believe that it would.

   Action Item: David Spink and Kevin McLeod will provide more information to the committee regarding the human health component of the study.

8. Analysis of ‘93/’94 Process

   Marilyn provided the committee members with a copy of a report and analysis of the ‘93/’94 process prepared with input from Randy Gossen, Steve Hrudey and Ron Wolsey. The report will be reviewed in detail at the meeting on 31 March.

   Randy and Steve are unable to attend the meeting on 31 March and provided the following additional comments for consideration: It was felt that complex technical material must be presented to the committee in easily understandable language. It must also be looked at for what information it cannot provide as well as what it can. It was also felt that the constituency reports outlining issues that were presented early on were very helpful in preparing the initial list of issues.

9. Overview of EUB Processes & Requirements, and Identification of Issues

   This item was deferred to the 31 March meeting.

   Action Item: Gerry asked each member to identify and compile a list of issues as they see them for the next meeting. If you will not be in attendance please forward your list to Marilyn in advance of the meeting.

10. Committee Process and Timelines

    This item was deferred to the 31 March meeting. Gerry indicated that he would like to continue the discussion from 10 February of a public consultation process at this meeting as well.

11. Proposed Agenda for 31 March Meeting

    Key items will include an overview of EUB processes and requirements, analysis of ’94 process, committee process and timelines and public consultation processes.

12. Other Matters

    David DeGagne reminded everyone of the rig tour that will take place for committee members on 30 March and asked that those who plan to participate confirm with him.

    Paul provided copies of an excerpt from the APEGGA newsletter containing the wording of the current and proposed Code of Ethics for APEGGA members.

    Judith Bugg provided copies of her input into possible public consultation processes.

13. Next Meeting

    31 March, EUB offices.

All handouts will be available at the 31 March meeting for those not in attendance.