Fisheries Committee on Jan. 30th, 2007

[Michael McSweeney]

The one in Cornwall, Ontario, is the same technology.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

What sort of issues have you had in Cornwall with respect to its environmental record, etc.?

[Michael McSweeney]

Very few issues. We've owned that plant for close to five years now. We just had Conestoga-Rovers in as a consultant to do a third-party assessment and a five-year review for the Ministry of the Environment in Ontario, and there were absolutely no issues with that plant there. And that's a plant that doesn't handle soil, it handles debris--capacitors, ballasts, transformers.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Same technology, though?

[Michael McSweeney]

It's the same technology. It's a furnace, a car-bottom furnace, as they call it there, not a rotary kiln.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Is it the fact that you're handling soil in the New Brunswick plant that does concern people...that don't concern people in Cornwall?

[Michael McSweeney]

Well, I think when you look at it, Mr. Kamp, there are only three incinerators in Canada that handle this, one in Alberta at Swan Hills, owned by the Government of Alberta, but managed by Earth Tech; and our two facilities. That's it for hazardous waste material.

Whenever you say “incinerator”, it scares people. I think it will be a very long time before we see incinerators being permitted again—unless you see energy from waste incinerators, which some of the municipalities are looking at.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

I think one of the fears related to this committee on the part of the witnesses is that you've got this smokestack, stuff goes up the smokestack and is going to come down in the water, and, due to the geography of the bay and so on, we're going to make a bad situation worse.

Your company had nothing to do with the smelter, I assume?

[Michael McSweeney]

Or the power plant.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Yes. So how do you respond to that?

[Michael McSweeney]

In our studies undertaken there, we looked at the maximum point of impingement. The maximum point of impingement is on the land, and it was negligible. The impact was negligible.

We also studied the wetlands area and the Belledune River, which would feed the bay. We took a worst-case scenario and modelled it there, in the middle of the wetlands, and found that it was negligible. That would have been based on a farmer or an aboriginal or a tourist catching a rainbow trout and eating the trout: what would the risk be? That's the level of detail we got down to studying, and the results were negligible, non-detectable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Go ahead, Mr. Lunney.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a very interesting discussion today. Thank you for your presentation, Mr. McSweeney.

My background is zoology and chemistry going back a number of years ago, back to my university days. I know this about furans and PCBs, that as organic compounds they are very resistant to breaking down in the environment under normal environmental conditions. But we know that what will break them down is high temperature. I think the problem you have, whether it's in Belledune or also, in discussions that other people want to mention, related to the tar ponds, is that the people themselves are intrinsically suspicious. They're confusing solutions with problems, because you're dealing with the same terrible names of compounds there that nobody really wants in their neighbourhood. So we've got NIMBY going on in a big way.

In fact, and maybe Mr. Cuzner would correct us on this as he gets an opportunity in a moment to respond, it seems to me that the people in Sydney did not want to hear about incineration or burning I think because of this intrinsic mistrust of what in the past created some of the problems. So we have a huge public relations problem for a company like yours that is trying to present a solution when it involves incineration. Somehow we need to come up with another word or concept to help people get past this, because there is such resistance with the public to hearing the word “incineration”, which everybody regards as bad.

Frankly, looking at what's going on around the world, you mentioned just a moment ago something to do with incineration in response to Mr. Kamp's question about whether it's a waste incinerator. All over the world, particularly in Europe, there are high-tech solutions to garbage problems. There's a big problem for us now too in just accumulating household garbage and so on. It seems to me that high-temperature oxidizers, if we want to use another word, is the way to deal with landfill problems and getting rid of things that are toxic. These new smokestacks are able to eliminate all the toxic elements that people are concerned about, and recycle them into the things that are harmless.

But we have a huge relations problem in trying to help people understand these technologies. It seems to me there probably is a way the government can help, but of course we're accused then of being in collaboration with you.

Mr. McSweeney, you're a big business guy here; we've seen you come in with your biceps. There's a public relations problem for government, too, if we're seen to be supporting industry with something that people mistrust. So we have to find a way to deal with this.

Our former environment critic, Bob Mills, is a big fan. He's been to Europe and he's been to Vienna, and he's been to these places planted right in the middle of cities with these high-tech oxidizers, high-temperature processing of waste materials. It's just a concept that in Canada I guess we're a little slower to embrace. I'm not sure how we can help you with that.

Personally, in response to Mr. Stoffer's question about why wouldn't you be in favour of a study if you spent $1 million, going on $2 million, to satisfy our own standards. There are some people who, with their current understanding, would not be satisfied no matter what you do, no matter who provides the money, it seems. I don't know how we're going to get there, but we need to work together somehow to overcome these problems. Maybe I'll just leave that as a comment.

I could ask you this question, though, on something that's not clear to me. I heard that the plant was delayed and so on. When your plant was constructed in 2003, when did the plant actually become operational?

[Michael McSweeney]

We finished our compliance test this past April 2006 and sent the results of the compliance test to the ministry at the end of June. The results are still with the environment minister in New Brunswick. I guess my predecessors at Bennett, if they didn't like the way government was doing things, would go sit on the doorstep of the minister and pound their fist and yell and scream. I'm not that kind of person. They had a change of government in New Brunswick. I'm letting the new minister, who also comes from the Belledune area, take time to assess the situation and then he'll make his pronouncement.

But I can tell you that we have done all the studies that would be required under environmental assessment. I can tell you that there are very few people opposed to this facility in New Brunswick. This past October I sat through 13 days of public hearings on the Belledune building permit for this facility. There were 13 days of public hearings that cost us over $250,000 and 10 people showed up. In Belledune, New Brunswick, and the four municipalities that form the Baie-des-Chaleurs, they have written a letter imploring the Premier of New Brunswick to get this facility working.

As you said, Mr. Lunney, there will always be people who are afraid. There will always be the naysayers. But by and large, when you sit through a 13-day hearing and only 10 people show up--not the mayor, not the MLA, not the city councillors, not the deputy mayor, only 10 rank and file citizens--and then you have the political leadership in the municipality imploring the premier to get this process moving, that's the state of where we are today in Belledune, New Brunswick.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

For clarification, then, the video implied that the plant is operational now, but you're saying the plant is not yet operating.

[Michael McSweeney]

No, we are waiting to get our operating permit.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

So the trucks dumping and conveyor belts going in the video, that's Saint-Ambroise?

[Michael McSweeney]

No, that's Belledune. We shot that video during the compliance test this April.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Lunney.

Gentlemen, we are out of time. I would like to allow one more round of questions for each party, for two minutes. I'm going to be very strict about the time.

Before we do that, I have a question.

I hesitate...and I know that Mr. Cuzner is going to mention some of the challenges of the Sydney tar ponds. But as Mr. Lunney has already mentioned, the great difficulty is that something needed to be done there. Probably the alternative to incinerate wasn't an option. The people of Sydney very clearly said that. And if we know one thing as politicians, it's that we have to listen to public opinion.

My question for you, Mr. McSweeney, is this. You stated to Mr. Stoffer that you could burn the PCBs out of the Sydney tar ponds. I assume you meant that the technology is out there, you didn't mean the Belledune incinerator. If you're restricted to 30 parts per million of PCBs, and there are 1,000 parts per million of PCBs in the tar ponds, how could you do that?

[Michael McSweeney]

We would have been delighted to undertake that project. You have to look at--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

My question is not about the tar ponds. I'm asking how you can go over 30 parts per million.

[Michael McSweeney]

You have to look at the tar ponds and see where the hot spots are. When you dig the material out of the tar ponds and put it on land, it does get diluted. When it gets diluted when you're digging it, and you put it through a filter press, then it could have been shipped to Belledune.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I think that raises a very important point, and that's where my question was headed to begin with. I really think we need a straight answer.

In Belledune, if you're restricted to 30 parts per million, is there any ability for corporations or companies that want to get rid of this restricted material to blend their material before it goes to you? They could actually take material that had 1,000 parts per million of PCBs in it, dilute it down with other soil, and then bring it to your facility.

[Michael McSweeney]

The basic rule in Canada is that you cannot dilute, but when you're digging—