1

1 2 3 4 5 6 Natural Resources Conservation Board 7 with Respect to Application 03/01 8 Filed by Agrium Product Inc. 9 10 11 12 13 14 Board: Mr. Bill Kennedy, Chairperson 15 Dr. Robert Powell, Board Member 16 Ms. Sheila Leggett, Board Member 17 18 19 20 Held: Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta 21 22 February 27, 2004 23 24 25

2

1 APPEARANCES 2 3 J.P. Mousseau Board Counsel 4 Michelle Warkitsky 5 6 Richard Neufeld Agrium Products Inc. 7 Bernard Roth 8 9 Darin Stepaniuk Ministers of Environment 10 Michelle Williamson and Health and Wellness and 11 Alberta Environment 12 13 Jennifer Klimek Northeast Strathcona County 14 Residents 15 16 Greg Boyer Capital Health 17 Ludmilla Szmetan 18 19 Jason Unger For Private landowner 20 Anne Brown 21 22 Ken Smulski Private landowner 23 24 25

3

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page No. 3 List of Exhibits 4 4 5 NSCRG RESIDENTS PANEL, Sworn and Affirmed 6 Examination-In-Chief by Ms. Jennifer Klimek 8 7 Questioned by the Board of Marquardts only 49 8 Cross-Examination by Mr. Bernard Roth 92 9 Cross-Examination by Mr. J.P. Mousseau 130 10 Questioned by the Board 143 11 Re-Direct Examination by Ms. Jennifer Klimek 190 12 13 KEN SMULSKI and His Panel, Sworn and affirmed 14 Examination-In-Chief by Mr. Ken Smulski 226 15 Cross-Examination by Ms. Michelle Williamson 386 16 Cross-Examination by Mr. Richard Neufeld 394 17 Cross-Examination by Mr. J.P. Mousseau 414 18 Questioned by the Board 446 19 20 21 Reporter's Certificate 481 22 23 24 25

4

1 LIST OF EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page No. 3 NSCRG-14 Two (2) pictures, a coloured map 4 and two (2) packages. 33 5 6 AGRIUM 34 TITLE ABSTRACT FOR PLAN 7621501 119 7 8 NSCRG-15 Photographs of the Ziegeman farm. 194 9 10 AGRIUM-35 Response to February 25th undertaking 11 regarding fluoride content in product 12 tailings. 199 13 AGRIUM-36 Map of intercept elevations in 14 respect to the West interceptor. 201 15 16 SMULSKI-6 Slide presentation of Dr. David Ho. 248 17 SMULSKI-7 Binder of aerial photographs 295 18 SMULSKI-8 Subdivision plan for the 19 Northeast quarter of Section 20 19-56-21-W4. 332 21 SMULSKI-10 Smulski/Engineering letter 334 22 SMULSKI-9 Subdivision Plan for quarter 23 (RESERVED) directly north Section 30-56-21-W4 336 24 25

5

1 --- Upon commencing at 8:40 a.m. 2 3 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. 4 Ms. Klimek...? 5 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Good morning, Mr. Chair. 6 My citizen panel, and I feel like I own them after a week, 7 and I'm sure they don't want to be owned, are ready to 8 present. 9 We have -- there's a couple of other panel 10 members who will be joining us later. I've confirmed this 11 with the other counsel. 12 As you're aware, Cindy Marquardt was scheduled 13 to have a baby, well, she's had her baby, but, she feels 14 strongly and wants to make a brief presentation. So, thanks 15 to the concurrence of my colleagues, they've agreed that she 16 could come in and do her presentation, interrupt -- and they 17 have all advised me none have cross-examination for her. 18 And unless the Board has any then she could 19 leave immediately just to deal with her family situation. 20 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Certainly. 21 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: And unfortunately along 22 with her, comes the rest of her family, so her husband will 23 be staying or he will be able to attend the same time. 24 So, we'll just swear them in when they come, 25 if that's okay?

6

1 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, indeed. 2 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Sir, I'm back with the 3 exhibit list. 4 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Roth. 5 MR. BERNARD ROTH: There's -- we 6 re-distributed a new exhibit list. There's just one (1) 7 issue with respect to -- to one of Ms. Klimek's exhibits, 8 NSCRG-12, which is cited in the transcript to be the 9 PowerPoint presentation of -- of Dr. James Baker. 10 In fact, I don't believe we got his slides 11 physically. The -- Verona Goodwin's -- Ms. Verona Goodwin's 12 slides were what we had assigned 12 and I just -- maybe Ms. 13 Klimek can speak to whether she intended to have those slides 14 introduced 15 But I -- I'm not asking that she does -- does 16 that, sir. So, if she doesn't want, all we would do is just 17 change 12 to Ms. Goodwin's PowerPoint slides rather than Dr. 18 Baker's. 19 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: I'm -- at the direction 20 of the Board, I thought it might be useful and I have to say 21 by the end of the day, I completely forgot that I was 22 supposed to do that. 23 We can get them reproduced in a hard copy form 24 so that you can have them before you, or either e-mail them 25 or do something. I think it might be useful for the Board to

7

1 have those is -- when they're reviewing this. 2 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I certainly think it would 3 be helpful. I -- I would suggest that it would be a 4 different exhibit. I have NSCRG-12 marked as Ms. Goodwin's 5 overheads. So -- but it would be appreciated. 6 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: And we'll get them by 7 tomorrow to you. And as well, there was some discussion 8 about the slides of Dr. Krook's and we were proposing to have 9 a duplicate set made that you could keep the ones with -- 10 that he had up there. And we'll take care of that today. I 11 think that might be useful for the Board to have. I'll leave 12 it up to you -- or just make sure we have a complete record. 13 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. That would be 14 appreciated. 15 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Does Madam Court 16 Reporter want to swear them before I introduce them? 17 18 CHERYL HENKELMAN, Sworn 19 PERCIVAL HENKELMAN, Sworn 20 EVELYN MARQUARDT, Sworn 21 HEATHER GARON, Sworn 22 WARD SAWATZKY, Sworn 23 TIA BARTLETT, Affirmed 24 ALYSHA BARTLETT, Affirmed 25 SHARON ZIEGEMAN, Affirmed

8

1 2 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: 3 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: I'd like to introduce 4 my panel and they're sort of arranged geographically. 5 At the far end is Cheryl Henkelman, and next 6 to her -- and he's actually the closest to the plant is Tia 7 Bartlett and her daughter Alysha Bartlett. And then next to 8 her is Percy Henkelman and he lives in the same yard as 9 Cheryl and -- although that's the one (1) difference on 10 geographical, because Cheryl has a history of what's going on 11 here, so we're starting out with her. 12 And then we have Heather Garon. Her mother 13 had to work this morning, so she's presenting on behalf of 14 her and the rest of her family, her mother and father. 15 And then, going back, is Evelyn Marquardt. 16 She's a new grandma, and she lives down the road and then at 17 the far end of the road is Sharon Ziegeman and Ward Sawatzky 18 and -- so, I'll just let them present. 19 I'm just going to go down the -- the road, I 20 guess, is how we'll say. 21 Cheryl, would you like to begin? 22 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Sending us down the 23 road already? 24 Good morning, Mr. Chairman, panel members. I 25 thank you for the opportunity that we've granted for this.

9

1 My name is Cheryl Henkelman. Anyone who knows 2 me, even a little bit, knows about my love for animals. I 3 own a small business that is pet related and my own animals 4 are very dear to me. 5 To learn that our area may be heavily 6 contaminated scares and hurts me to the core. I have brought 7 old and debilitated horses to my farm to help heal them, and 8 let them live out their retirement in peace. Now I have to 9 wonder if I'm done them any justice at all. 10 The sheep that I raise are registered exotics 11 that are not sold for slaughter. They're simply beautiful 12 lawnmowers. I purchased two (2) ewes and a ram for breeding 13 stock in 1999. When my best breeding ram suddenly died this 14 past year, I was shocked, to say the least. He was only five 15 (5) years old and in seemingly perfect health. 16 I decided to have him tested for fluoride when 17 the initial autopsy showed no obvious reason for death. My 18 ram, Cotton, is the one that is found in Dr. Krook's report. 19 The results showed that my ram's jawbone had been decaying on 20 a live animal, and that his teeth were loose due to severe 21 loss of bone, probably caused by chronic fluoride poisoning. 22 I was overcome with sadness and anger, because 23 I have eleven (11) more sheep and seven (7) horses living in 24 exactly the same conditions. 25 I live approximately half a mile east of

10

1 Agrium and have lived here now almost thirteen (13) years. 2 I've enjoyed our farm for over forty (40) years, spending 3 time here with friends and family on picnics and 4 get-togethers. The farm has been in our family for eighty 5 (80) years, handed down to my father from my grandfather. 6 This land is very precious to us. 7 Headaches, fatigue, nausea, stiffness and 8 respiratory problems, have plagued me now for years. I would 9 have assumed I had these illnesses just because, but when you 10 casually mention these things to neighbours and find 11 similarities up and down the road, you really start to 12 wonder. 13 We have mentioned our health issues to many, 14 yet no one has done anything about it. Capital Health has 15 heard us, Alberta Environment has heard us, local industry 16 and our County Council has heard us, yet we have never had a 17 health assessment done on the residents. 18 In 2001, a health study was completed in the 19 Fort Saskatchewan area, which some of the residents 20 participated in, but they would never know their personal 21 results. 22 The changes that have occurred in our area in 23 the past five (5) years alone have been astronomical. Our 24 land use has been re-zoned from conservation area to heavy 25 industrial, and we have been engulfed by the self-proclaimed

11

1 Alberta Industrial heartland. 2 The mono-ethylene glycol plant was built, 3 three (3) gravel pits have become active, the Shell Upgrader 4 has been completed, Williams Energy expanded, Dow expanded, 5 Shell's Co-generation facility was added. We had to live 6 through the twinning of a highway and a range road, and the 7 addition of a railway shunting yard. And now across the road 8 from my house, another two (2) projects, Terreson Pipelines, 9 which will be the heartland terminal, and BA Energy Abittamen 10 (phonetic) Upgrader are making plans to develop, and of 11 course we have Agrium planning an extension. 12 We will continue to object to every project 13 that affects us. We don't do this because we want to, we 14 have to. We fear it is not healthy living here. 15 The residents and government need to have more 16 input into studies in our area before Agrium is allowed to 17 build their extension. Agrium should not be able to add to 18 an already existing problem. We need a guarantee that there 19 will be no more impacts. 20 Strathcona County has shunned us and left us 21 here to rot. They obviously enjoy the strong tax base from 22 industry, and meanwhile, have chosen to ignore the residents 23 left behind in the heavy industrial area. 24 This whole process has left me physically and 25 mentally exhausted. The procedures we need to take for every

12

1 new application are so incredibly time consuming and 2 expensive. 3 For years now, friends and family are put on 4 the back burner, because I have one (1) more letter to write 5 or one (1) more meeting to attend. No one should have to 6 live this way. 7 The volume of information we are handed is 8 often difficult to understand. I have spent countless hours 9 on the phone to industry, regulatory agencies, and the 10 County, and then in turn share this with the neighbours. My 11 own business has suffered, due to the time I've had to apply 12 to these Proceedings. 13 Why do we have to defend our right to enjoy 14 our properties, when industries like Agrium continue to 15 operate, at times, in non-compliance. They should be having 16 the testing done in the area, not us. They get paid to do 17 this work, we do not. 18 Over the years I have learned that most of the 19 issues that are brought forward are complaint driven. If the 20 industry does not hear us, they believe there is no -- no 21 problem. 22 We have actively pursued noise and odour 23 issues for years. How many more phone calls do I need to 24 make over the same concerns? 25 I served voluntarily on Agrium's SNAP, that's

13

1 the Strathcona Noise Advisory Panel, or Neighbour Advisory 2 Panel it was changed to, for two (2) years, and I felt it was 3 a waste of my time. 4 I put up a lot -- a lot of effort into this 5 panel with little results. The longer I was on SNAP the more 6 apparent it became that working one (1) on one (1) with 7 Agrium was not going to work. 8 Agrium has added noise abatement equipment 9 because of our complaints, but when I continually mention 10 that it didn't seem any quieter and they said there was a 11 huge difference, I knew SNAP was simply a panel to appease 12 the EUB and I resigned. 13 Our quality of life has diminished immensely. 14 The noise from Agrium in particular, is unbearable at times. 15 The effects from the noise and vibrations make you edgy, 16 sleep deprived, and very frustrated. 17 The noise has been abusive and most often 18 noisiest in the evening. We have repeatedly asked for a 19 noise monitoring station to be placed on our side of the 20 river for an extended length of time, but this has never been 21 done. 22 The horrible odours send me indoors at times 23 and there are many times when you can't smell anything at 24 all, yet you suddenly feel nauseous or get that tightness in 25 your chest or the tingling on your tongue, that tells you to

14

1 get indoors quickly. 2 Then I look out my window and see my horses in 3 the field who cannot escape these fugitive odours. We have 4 experienced inversions in the winter that keep us so socked 5 in that you can smell and feel the condensed pollution that 6 hangs about you. 7 In respect to the gypsum not leaving the plant 8 site, I have seen the dust blowing off the gyp-stack during 9 high winds. I have also wiped that same dust off my face. 10 The extension will certainly add to the noise 11 and source of odours. Decommissioning of the existing 12 mountain apparently will take fifteen (15) to twenty (20) 13 years and either farm or heavy equipment will continue to 14 operate, as well as the scare cannons to keep the birds from 15 landing on the acidic ponds. 16 With construction of the new gyp-stack, we 17 would clearly suffer more construction noise as well as 18 additional scare cannons. It has taken Agrium about five (5) 19 years to re-arrange the scare cannons so that I cannot hear 20 them. 21 But I fear it may start all over again with 22 the extension. We are at the upper threshold of noise 23 acceptance and we can't handle any more noise. 24 It seems to me that it doesn't take a rocket 25 scientist to understand that if you have one (1) mountain of

15

1 contaminants and you add another one (1), you end up with 2 more contaminants. 3 The Heartland Odour Protocol was initiated in 4 2002. Alberta Environment was being called out too often and 5 by the time they got out to our area, the odour had 6 occasionally moved on. 7 The Heartland Fire Hall which is only four and 8 a half (4 1/2) miles away, was the next best thing to respond 9 to our complaints. The firemen would come out, stand in my 10 driveway with -- with their noses in the air, using no 11 instruments at all. 12 In fact, one (1) fireman even told me that he 13 didn't have a good smeller to begin with, that's very 14 helpful, and their average response time was forty (40) 15 minutes. 16 What are we to do if our land is so 17 contaminated that our families and livestock are not safe? 18 And we can't grow produce to eat from our own gardens? We 19 certainly won't be able to enjoy the use of our land. 20 The restrictions put on our land and the re- 21 zoning has put us in an inescapable predicament. I think it 22 is pretty clear that people should not be living in this 23 area. In the Merrick Veterinary Manual under fluorosis, the 24 control measure is to remove the animal from the affected 25 area.

16

1 When a farmer's right to farm has been taken 2 away, we don't have a lot of hope left. Thank you. 3 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Mr. Chairman and Board 4 Members, I do have some handouts to give out. One (1) of 5 them is a visual of where the residents live. And I also 6 have handouts for your perusal regarding correspondence we've 7 had with the county on other issues and also with Ministry of 8 Health, with Gary Mar, but that -- I'm not bringing that into 9 the -- at your own perusal. 10 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Bartlett, perhaps we 11 can mark these. Can -- can we identify -- 12 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yeah, I put Attachment 1 13 in Attachment 2 -- oh those -- those pictures? Do you have 14 the photos? 15 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I have two (2) photos -- 16 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yes. 17 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And then I have a -- 18 MS. TIA BARTLETT: A coloured photo of the 19 area? For each member? 20 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I do, with residents 21 identified? 22 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yes. 23 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And then the letter to -- 24 to Minister Mar? 25 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yes.

17

1 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Shall we mark these as one 2 (1) package -- 3 MS. TIA BARTLETT: I think so, yes. 4 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: I was going to suggest 5 that, sir, and unfortunately we only have three (3) copies. 6 I've given partial copies to Mr. Stepaniuk and I'll arrange 7 to get the rest for him. We don't have the actual colour 8 photos for him. 9 MS. TIA BARTLETT: I get black and white, 10 sorry. 11 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Please go ahead, Ms. 12 Bartlett. 13 MS. TIA BARTLETT: My name is Tia Bartlett 14 and I am also speaking for my husband, Ken and my sixteen 15 (16) year old daughter, Alysha. We live at 4-21-56-16-south 16 west, Lot 7521364. 17 My daughter is now here, so I guess she's 18 going to be speaking on her own behalf. She has spoken with 19 our counsel and I have no idea what's she put in that -- 20 that's not my business, she says. 21 My -- my family lives approximately one half 22 (1/2) mile directly east of Agrium. As you can see from the 23 visual, a field and river away. We have resided at our 24 residence since the summer of 1998. 25 From reading the current submissions from our

18

1 experts, it does not surprise me on all the levels and 2 exceedances from the noise to fluoride and all results in 3 between. 4 I feel adding to the existing stack will only 5 compound what we are already living and dealing with. 6 I sit before you today only because my sixty- 7 one (61) year old mother, who is dying of terminal cancer, 8 has told me to finish this ongoing fight with Agrium as she 9 has encouraged me for the last five (5) years to get my 10 family out of this unsafe, unhealthy environment. 11 I flew out from Victoria last week from the 12 hospital per my mother's request. I will not be here for the 13 whole hearing as I am flying out the evening of March 1st for 14 the last weeks of her life. 15 As I am here to talk about Agrium, I have 16 compiled the correspondence regarding the lack of involvement 17 from our county and provincial government. You will find the 18 blatant disregard that our Mayor and Council have for us from 19 my written requests and their written responses. 20 I have also submitted written responses to my 21 letters of concern from Gary Mar, Minister of Health and 22 Wellness and Premier Klein. Please feel free to peruse to 23 these information at your leisure. 24 My presentation will consist of my past 25 experiences with Agrium and my family's health concerns. I

19

1 would like to present the health concerns first. 2 Regarding family illnesses. Over the past six 3 (6) we've had ongoing weeping eyes, tightness of the chest, 4 incredible irritability and tension due to lack of sleep from 5 noise. 6 My daughter has mild fluorosis. I got my 7 first cavity since I was ten (10), a year and a half ago. In 8 October of 2002, I had sinus problems that resulted in loss 9 of taste and smell for eight (8) months and I was on rounds 10 of antibiotics to fix this. 11 I finally was send to a nose, ear and throat 12 specialist who sent me for a CAT scan in May of 2003. I have 13 a thickening of the mucosa which he -- which the physician 14 has often seen from Fort McMurray, and when I showed him the 15 aerial view of where I live, he said there is no point in 16 operating until I leave the area. 17 I am on a prescription nasal spray which burns 18 the back of your throat. I have gotten about back about 60 19 percent of my taste and smell. 20 There was a concern over my drastic weight 21 loss at this time and more tests were done and they found 22 blood in my urine. I apparently have a prolapsed urethra. I 23 had an abnormal PAP test. I was sent for more CAT scans, 24 ultrasounds, a skin specialist and ultimately, had a 25 colposcopy (phonetic) where there were pre-cancerous cells.

20

1 I had my gall bladder removed three (3) weeks 2 ago of this year and have to return to have another 3 colposcopy in April. I just had my follow up report on 4 Monday and, according to my surgeon, I need to have some more 5 MRIs. We did not go into everything but there apparently are 6 a few other little problems. 7 Regarding our animals. Two (2) years ago, I 8 had my beloved eighteen (18) year old horse, which is not old 9 for a horse, died of cancer. We had a four (4) year old 10 Doberman, which was raised on the property -- we have -- our 11 four (4) year old Doberman who was raised on our property 12 died of a -- well, we had to have him euthanised because he 13 had a degenerative spine disease. 14 We have ongoing eye problems, which our 15 veterinarians have looked at, of all of our outside animals, 16 and it seems to decrease when we remove them from the 17 property. We've had four (4) rabbits and three (3) guinea 18 pigs deceased. They spend the summer months outside. 19 The most disturbing is our pony, who was 20 examined in June 2003, by a veterinarian, and it was noted 21 that she had lost a tooth. As of -- as of Christmas, she has 22 now lost the majority of her -- her molars. 23 The vegetation in our area, we have dead 24 spruce trees, poor specimens of annuals and perennials, and 25 poor pasture for grazing.

21

1 I wrote this presentation at 2:00 a.m. this 2 past Saturday, February 21st, with a heavy heart, knowing I 3 should be with my mom. The jet engine roar from Agrium only 4 increases my will to be before you as I again lay awake, 5 unable to sleep, because of the noise. 6 The first question I'm sure that is going 7 through your mind is why would they choose this location to 8 reside? My husband was transferred to Edmonton from the 9 Okanagan on our choice in 1997 and he lived with friends in 10 Sherwood Park. We breed and show Arabian horses and needed 11 an affordable acreage, which was not in a subdivision. This 12 is not easy to find. 13 We looked at over twenty (20) acreages and 14 farms, and with our current location being perfect, close to 15 work, and schools and surrounded by hundreds of trees. If I 16 couldn't have mountains, the trees were welcomed. And there 17 were trails for conditioning our horses. 18 The family we bought the home from had lived 19 here for twenty (20) years and were just moving down the road 20 a mile. According to the current zoning from my realtor, we 21 were in environmental policy area. Who would think that in a 22 year and a half we would get a third reading on an approved 23 document, that we were going to become heavy industry. 24 The first year of life was grand, other than 25 my horses and daughter would occasionally have runny eyes.

22

1 In July of 1999 we received a notice from the County that our 2 neighbour was applying for a hundred and twenty-five (125) 3 acre gravel pit. Cheryl Henkelman and myself fought tooth 4 and nail to stop this and failed, and have continued to fail 5 on every application that we have fought. This was the start 6 of the encroachment on our lives and health. 7 Starting in August of 1999 we were noticing 8 the increasing noise from Agrium, and I was now having to 9 wear ear plugs to sleep. In September of '99, Agrium 10 attended a resident meeting of the area and submitted a 11 letter to the residents, admitting they were noisier and were 12 taking care of it. They sent me a box of earplugs. 13 Through the winter the noise was unbearable, 14 it had escalated to the sound of a jet engine flying low, and 15 we resorted to moving beds to the basement. My colleagues at 16 the school I work at would comment on how tired I looked. 17 I phoned Agrium in February of 2000, stating 18 that these noise levels, I did not know about Dba levels at 19 this time, could not be within the acceptable range. They 20 had been taking readings at the corner of my property for 21 months. 22 Darcy Walberg from Agrium brought out a 23 portable monitor and left it on my property for over forty- 24 eight (48) hours. He instructed me on how to work it. 25 I peaked and I saw readings of fifty-two (52),

23

1 fifty-five (55), and fifty-eight (58). When Mr. Walberg got 2 his results, I spoke to him on February 28th, and he told me, 3 quote, 4 "The findings were not substantial." 5 I was devastated, thinking we may have to live 6 like this permanently. In my heart I knew these levels could 7 not be right, as Shell was not this noisy. 8 After twenty-one (21) phone calls, no one from 9 Agrium, Sturgeon County, Strathcona County, or Alberta 10 Environment could give me info on Dba levels. I finally, by 11 luck only, got to speak to Dave Degagne at the EUB on June 12 27th of 2000. 13 He told me he would find the acceptable levels 14 and got back to me that for the nighttime it was forty-five 15 (45) for Agrium. He said he would speak to Agrium. 16 In the meantime, I called Mr. Walberg to get 17 the readings from February 2000, and he was very defensive -- 18 defensive and said no. He told me that the monitoring in 19 February belonged to Agrium, as it was their study and it had 20 not been required by the EUB. 21 In May, Mr. Micek and Mr. Walberg came to our 22 home on an abnormally quiet day and told my husband and 23 myself they were doing the best they could, but this was very 24 expensive and that they could not -- that we could not expect 25 changes overnight.

24

1 I told them this did not help us sleep at 2 night, and I did not believe at this time that ten (10) 3 months after their September meeting, that there was still no 4 -- excuse me, there was still no muffler. 5 On July 5th, 2000, with friends who were 6 staying with me from Calgary, I took a video of Agrium, as no 7 one could sleep. The noise and the flaring was unbelievable 8 to all. On July 6th, the neighbours complaint to Alberta 9 Environment regarding the flare, led to this investigation. 10 The investigation consisted of Alberta Environment speaking 11 to Agrium by phone, and the response from Agrium's office 12 was, quote, 13 "They sometimes get us confused with Shell, 14 as there was no problem that evening." 15 Well, if that did not make us feel like dumb 16 farm folk. What kind of investigation was this? Shell is 17 due south and Agrium directly west. No one came out from 18 Alberta Environment to visually investigate. 19 Mr. Degagne from the EUB came out on July 20 31st, 2000, and seemed extremely embarrassed and shocked that 21 there were still residents living in this area, as he sat on 22 the Board for the twenty-four (24) who were bought out. He 23 set up his audio equipment at this time. 24 On August 1st, Ms. Henkelman and myself, went 25 to Agrium to view the video I took. This is the first time

25

1 they admitted to excessive noise over the last few months. 2 And I can get that video available if you ever wanted to see 3 it. 4 On August 21st, 2000, we received the EUB 5 noise monitoring report that stated the average was fifty 6 (50) Dba levels up to fifty-eight (58) for the night time. 7 This was a far cry from forty-five (45) Dba they were 8 supposed to be at. 9 This takes us back to February when I peeked 10 at the monitor, at the fifty (50) plus levels, and Agrium 11 knew all this time, they were over the levels, but denied it. 12 It was at this time that I swore no representative from 13 Agrium had come onto my property to express their lies and 14 deceptions. 15 I also ceased complaining to them and 16 forwarded my complaints directly to the EUB, Alberta 17 Environment and the Ministry of Health. 18 August 22nd, I videotaped again it was so loud 19 you could hear your heart vibrate like the base on a stereo. 20 Agrium sent a letter September 15th, 2000 to the EUB, stating 21 that the neighbours were overly sensitive because of all the 22 other conflicts of industry in our area. This was so far 23 from the truth, as it was at this time, the lack of sleep 24 from the noise at Agrium. 25 On October 7th, 2000, I wrote an in-depth

26

1 letter to Mr. Micek on what it is like to walk in our shoes. 2 In March of 2001, Chris Micek from Agrium 3 invited me to put a proposal together on what a purchase 4 price would be for our home. My realtor spent three (3) 5 weeks putting together a replacement value package. 6 I stayed very close to the values of the 7 twenty-four (24) who were already bought out. We met to 8 Agrium. He said he would get back to me, as he had to talk 9 it over with the Calgary bosses. We heard nothing from him 10 or the Calgary office. 11 I wrote Mr. Micek June 12th, 2001, with no 12 response back. Ms. Klimek finally contacted him, and he 13 stated Agrium was not taking this any further. 14 I started to get concerned about the gyp-stack 15 now, because of all the noise non-compliances and it was not 16 until six (6) months of pestering them that I got some brief 17 information that the gyp-stack was safe. I do have that 18 information it was a book on radon in your house and there 19 was a -- just to show at the Macintoshes who live down the 20 road, what their -- apparently that was fine, according to 21 Radon in your Home. 22 I was still fearful that the stack would not 23 be in compliance as the non-compliance with noise did not 24 give me much faith -- faith in their word. Casey Chan at 25 Alberta Environment, told me that Agrium had complied years

27

1 ago, so there was only concern with the width and the height 2 of the stack. They had no information for me. 3 I now ventured into the internet journey of 4 the phosphogypsum stack. The findings Ms. Henkelman and 5 myself are retrieving from Florida stacks were very scary. 6 And now our health concerns were close to and the same as the 7 resident's close to the fertilizer plants in Florida. 8 From an Agrium open house, June 20th, 2002, 9 Agrium was to come to my home to look at pitting in the 10 windows. I did not ask them to come to my home. This was 11 the first meeting that we had with Greg McGlone who had taken 12 over. 13 And the neighbours who had live in the home 14 previously, they had mentioned the pitting. They did not 15 know that I did not, because I had voiced my opinion before 16 that I did not want Agrium on our property. 17 Mr. Walberg was aware of that and before I 18 left the meeting that evening, I explain to Mr. McGlone also 19 that Agrium was not welcome on my property. I didn't want to 20 say anything in front of the rest of the group that was there 21 at that time, though. 22 I informed them over and over -- oh, and also 23 it was Mr. Walberg who was only going to come and I would 24 have expected a proper expert at that time. 25 I informed them over and over that we needed

28

1 other professionals to do these tests as my trust in Agrium 2 was gone and they never gave us the results which we had -- 3 which Ms. Klimek has brought up before, under question number 4 one (1) action, under what she had submitted before, 5 recommendations for further work, such as a sample of glass 6 for exposure testing will be developed by July 31st, 2002; we 7 did not see any results, and Mr. Walberg has said that they 8 didn't do that. 9 On October 27th, 2002, I wrote Mr. Singh at 10 Alberta Environment requesting they investigate the existing 11 stack before looking at expanding into a new -- or the 12 expansion, I voiced our concerns. 13 When I became aware of the proposed extension 14 before the February 2003, public notice release, I wrote Gary 15 Mar, Minister of Health and Wellness, on January 10th, 2003. 16 He responded that I needed to set up a meeting 17 with the Medical Officer of Health and the Director of 18 Environmental Health. Well the names he gave me were not for 19 our region and six (6) fax laters (sic), I finally spoke with 20 Tony Mack from Capital Health, and Stephen Probert. 21 I explained our health concerns and sent them 22 all our information of the residents in the area. These were 23 not in dempth (sic) -- in depth reports that I had sent. 24 I was told there was not enough of us to do an 25 epidemiology study and that we had lost credibility for not

29

1 participating in the human study done in the area which 2 extended to Fort Saskatchewan and Bruderheim, approximately a 3 fourteen (14) mile radius, if not bigger. 4 I explained that I had spoken to the head 5 physician who had undertaken this project, and he told me 6 that I would not be privy to my individual results as they 7 were confidential, and they would be lumped together with the 8 other hundred and thirty-eight (138) participants. 9 This study was obviously not to help me, so 10 why would I be someone else's guinea pig and not see my 11 results? 12 We never did get in an investigation from the 13 Ministry of Health and Wellness for the extension of this 14 stack. 15 This brings me to today. After thousands of 16 hours of research, meetings, and telephone conversations with 17 existing, and now an upcoming one billion dollar Abbitmen 18 Upgrader, -- fifty (50) metres away. When does this stop? 19 Being eyes, nose, and ears of the county, the 20 province, and industry, we are having to put our own money 21 for experts that should maybe have been paid for by Agrium or 22 the government. 23 I teach braille for a living and transcribe 24 it. I am an expert at what I do. I would never consider 25 giving you a written submission in braille because you would

30

1 have to find someone and probably pay them, to transcribe 2 this for you. Why is it expected of us to read a four (4) 3 binder document, written by experts in their field, and for 4 us to pay for a lawyer and experts to decipher this? 5 It was not guaranteed for us to get 6 Intervenorship, so we had to put our own money on the line to 7 pay for them if we were not granted this funding. 8 If we don't fight these applications, we are 9 condoning them and if we do fight, we are considered 10 opportunists. All we want now is to get on with our lives 11 with meetings of our choice, with interests of our choice and 12 a clean, safe environment, out of the industrial heartland. 13 To have the choice to read a novel instead of 14 the preferred reading about EIAs, application by-laws, the 15 periodical table and research upon research on industrial 16 pollutants. 17 As I fly out March 1st to be with my mother, 18 it will only make me reflect that health is above all what 19 carries us through to sustain life on this earth and our 20 health in this area is rapidly depleting. 21 We are not the only ones who believe we should 22 not be in this area. If I may read from a meeting from the 23 EUB back in December of 2000, which was a long time ago, the 24 meeting summary -- this was sent to us from Dave Degagne. 25 The meeting summary:

31

1 "On Wednesday, December 6th -- on 2 Wednesday, 6 December, the EUB, Dave 3 Degagne met with the Canadian Chemical 4 Producers Association, Regional Heavy 5 Industrial Operators, Degusa, Dow, Oxy- 6 Vinyl, Agrium, Westaim, Shell Chemicals, 7 Shell Refinery Upgrader and Nexon, Alberta 8 Industrial Heartland, the County of 9 Strathcona and Alberta Environment. 10 The meeting was arranged at the EUB and 11 AENVs request to discuss all issues related 12 to heavy industrial development in a candid 13 and informal manner. The object was to 14 bring greater awareness of the impact of 15 short term issues, flaring, noise, odour 16 emissions, traffic dust et cetera, on the 17 residents within the AIH as well as long 18 term land use issues." 19 I won't read the whole thing. I'll just read 20 the part here. 21 "with respect to the long --" 22 Which is us, that would be us. We are the -- 23 remaining there. 24 "With respect to the long term issues, 25 there appears to be an -- unanimy (sic)

32

1 around the concept that those living with 2 the AIH are deeply affected by the 3 industrial development that surrounds them 4 and that those outside the AIH are becoming 5 more aware of the impact they may face as 6 further industrial development takes place. 7 There needs to be a many-faceted 8 approach to dealing with this -- issue, 9 which includes a relocation for some, 10 increasing confidence in the industry with 11 others, by demonstrating improved operation 12 records -- operating records and of course, 13 better communication and involvement with 14 all nearby residents. 15 The indust -- the industrial risk 16 communication trade fair and open house the 17 previous night was one (1) example of an 18 effective form for receiving and giving the 19 relevant information. Resolving a long 20 term issue requires and largely depends, on 21 working with all the member municipalities 22 in the AIH, Strathcona, City of Fort 23 Saskatchewan, Lamont, and Sturgeon. 24 The meeting was reminded of what the 25 potential cost of failure was if effective

33

1 solutions were not implemented in a more 2 timely manner, as noted by the Board's 3 comments in several recent hearing 4 decisions handed down relative to the AIH. 5 In short, that full industrial 6 development of the area is ultimately not 7 acceptable without the relocations of the 8 residents in the area." 9 Thank you. 10 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Bartlett, I-- I think 11 we were going to enter this as an exhibit. I'm not sure that 12 we gave it a number. I have four (4) parts, and I'm going to 13 suggest that we mark that as NSCRG-14. 14 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Yes, and I'd inquire -- 15 I think the transcript will reflect fairly what that letter 16 was, but would you like a copy of that for your...? 17 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please. 18 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Okay, we'll arrange to 19 make a copy at the break. 20 21 --- EXHIBIT NO. NSCRG-14: Two (2) pictures, a coloured map 22 and two (2) packages, one (1) 23 package and then responses on the 24 back of each package. 25

34

1 CONTINUED BY MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: 2 MS. ALYSHA BARTLETT: To the NRCB Board. My 3 name is Alysha Bartlett and my mom is unaware of my speech, 4 as over the last five (5) years I have been kind of selfish, 5 and really did not support her while on her fight for our 6 family and others to be relocated out of the industrial 7 heartland. 8 I am here to tell my story and to support my 9 mom. I am coming up seventeen (17) years old and have lived 10 here since I was eleven (11). 11 Six (6) years may not seem like a long -- lot 12 to an adult, but it is a third of my life and all I can 13 remember living at our farm, is my mom battling Agrium and 14 other industries, plus the County. 15 I have always worried about moving away from 16 my new friends, as there has always been some kind of talk 17 about buy-outs with twenty-four (24) other people and maybe 18 us. I used to get teased that my mom was Erin Brockovich, it 19 bothered me at first, but then I was proud of her. 20 Being a teenager you don't let your parents 21 know these things. My mom has tried to protect me from all 22 that -- all of this and has rescheduled her life around these 23 meetings, and is constantly apologizing to me and her friends 24 for not spending as much time as she should with us. 25 As far as I can remember, my mom has been the

35

1 president of many horse associations, and she was the dir -- 2 as director on our Arabian Club here in Alberta, but had to 3 resign after the first year because of these other meetings. 4 I have fought over these meetings with her and 5 have missed out on some engagements of my own, because my 6 father works out of town, and we live too far away for 7 friends to drive me. 8 We have fought over the computer and the 9 Internet, because she is always researching and her and my 10 father have had many fights, that they try to keep quiet, 11 over time and money that has gone out regarding this 12 industrial heartland, and the fight to relocate. 13 Out of this I have had some financial gain, as 14 my mom gave me ten dollars ($10) a meeting, and fifteen 15 dollars ($15) if they were at our house, because then we had 16 to do the rush cleanup, and I think I've gotten probably over 17 five hundred dollars ($500) now. 18 The money doesn't mean nothing though, when 19 you are sitting home alone wishing -- home alone on your 20 farm, wishing your mom was here. Now that I'm older though, 21 it is not so bad. 22 I have missed two (2) riding lessons this week 23 because of this Hearing. I have had some health complaints, 24 like runny eyes and achy bones, but the worst is the noise 25 from Agrium, especially at night, as my bedroom is closest to

36

1 it. 2 I have slept many times downstairs, and 3 earplugs really hurt when you are sleeping. It gets 4 frustrating when I'm riding my horses outside, there is 5 always some noise from Agrium or Shell. 6 I know what they were talking about when they 7 ambient, but it is Agrium, and when it is not, it is Shell. 8 It does not take a noise expert to figure this out. 9 We really do not get to hear the birds 10 anymore. I get home forty-five (45) minutes before my mom, 11 and when we first moved out here she drilled me over and over 12 to me, that if a stranger comes on to the property to bring 13 the Doberman and the other dogs into the house, lock the 14 doors and phone her. I was like, whatever, yada, yada, yada, 15 in one (1) ear and out the other. I never thought I would 16 have to do this. 17 I came home one (1) day and there was -- and I 18 was in the barn with the horses. We have a gate at the top 19 of our driveway that I keep closed when I come home. I heard 20 the gate open this one (1) day and I knew it was not my mom. 21 My heart jumped to my throat as the dogs were locked in their 22 back run. 23 A white truck was there, and I was able to get 24 into the house without them seeing me. I brought the 25 Doberman in and locked the doors and phoned my mom at work.

37

1 It usually takes her thirty-five (35) minutes, but I believe 2 she made it in five (5) to get -- twenty-five (25) to get 3 home. 4 These men were walking around our property and 5 the neighbour's. I did not answer the door. When my mom got 6 home she chewed them -- chewed into them like I have never 7 seen before, as I believe she was scared also, and I think 8 they were scared too. They were from industry. 9 We now have a huge lock on the gate. I have 10 seen my mom at a neighbour meeting, get into a huge fight 11 with a neighbour, where he wasn't saying the nicest things 12 about her and I felt really bad, because she had worked so 13 hard for them and our neighbour, Cheryl, too. 14 She has spent the rest of the night -- she had 15 spent the rest of the night phoning other neighbours 16 apologizing for her four (4) letter language. She should not 17 be apologizing for nothing. 18 I lost my Doberman, who was only four (4) 19 years, on my birthday one (1) year ago, to a bone 20 degeneration condition in his spine. I will be so angry if 21 this is Agrium's fault. 22 I have also lost numerous guinea pigs and 23 rabbits. My big concern now is my pony, who has lost her 24 molars. I know about fluorosis now, and it disturbs me to 25 know that my show horses might get this and myself.

38

1 I have worn braces too long to now have to 2 worry about the grossness of colour on my teeth. I have been 3 showing horses since I can remember and my parents moved out 4 here from beautiful British Columbia, so I could have the 5 best trainers in North America. 6 I am with Pam Zimmerman, who is a national 7 winner and judge. I feel guilt now that we are not in BC, 8 but in this polluted area. My horses are very important to 9 me and because we show them in confirmation if there is 10 anything wrong with their teeth, we could not show them in 11 this specific class. 12 Having a bit in their mouth, would also be 13 extremely difficult and uncomfortable. I would not be able 14 to ride my pony in a bit anymore, as it would be too 15 uncomfortable for her and she - and she was to be used for a 16 lesson, so the income -- so that income for me will now be 17 gone. 18 I have acquired two (2) four (4) month old 19 colts and I wonder if the damage as young babies will be 20 extensive. My other show horses, during the winter months, 21 are at Mrs. Zimmerman's, as they have a heated indoor arena 22 and I have noticed that my five (5) year old does not have 23 the runny eyes when he is here, but when he comes home in the 24 summer he does have really bad running eyes. 25 I have been successful at showing at the

39

1 regional level, and this year, I'll be showing at the 2 national level and need to know that my horses lungs and 3 health are at their best. 4 To have my dreams ruined by industry, really 5 makes me angry and we just should have stayed in BC. I'm 6 here to support you mom, you and the neighbours and will not 7 argue with you anymore at these meetings and research as they 8 are obviously important. 9 Thank you. 10 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Cindy Marquardt has 11 arrived, Mr. Chair, and I think she's ready, so maybe we 12 could interrupt our flow, have her sworn, so she can give her 13 statement to the Panel? 14 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Certainly. 15 16 CINDY MARQUARDT, Sworn 17 18 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Perhaps if the Court 19 Reporter could administer the oath and I've also been advised 20 that Mr. Marquardt senior who has stepped out probably to 21 take care of the little guy, is also going to say something. 22 So we'll have to swear him later -- no Grandpa -- Grandpa has 23 stepped out to take care of the other little guy. 24 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Oh there's -- oh, okay. 25

40

1 BRENT MARQUARDT, Sworn 2 3 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Yes, and that would be 4 Brent Marquardt. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 CONTINUED BY MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: 9 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Cindy, do you want to go 10 ahead and then you can -- the other Counsel advised that they 11 have no questions for you, so once you're done if you feel 12 you want to leave, you can. 13 MS. CINDY MARQUARDT: Thank you. 14 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: And then Brent you can 15 follow up, because you have responsibilities here, too. 16 MS. CINDY MARQUARDT: Mr. Chair and Board 17 Members. My name is Cindy Marquardt and I'm speaking on 18 behalf of myself, my husband, Brent, my son Carson and -- and 19 my other son, Chase. 20 We live on a farm directly east of Agrium, 21 approximately a half a mile and I've lived there for five (5) 22 years, Brent has lived there for twenty six (26) years, 23 Carson only twenty (20) months and this is Chase's only 24 second day here. 25 Our current health status is what I would

41

1 consider average. I've had some digestive problems over the 2 last two (2) years. Carson has had similar reactions. 3 Headaches have become more frequent and my husband suffers 4 from bad migraines from time to time. 5 Carson has a runny nose, on average two (2) 6 weeks of any given month. Three (3) times in the last four 7 (4) months, he has had bouts of vomiting and diarrhea that 8 last for up to seven (7) days at a time. 9 Both Brent and I have experienced the same 10 symptoms. I ended up in the hospital from dehydration in 11 November of 2003 from these symptoms. I have taken Carson to 12 the dental person at the Health Unit and she has made 13 comments that it looks like he has the start of what looks 14 like fluorosis on his teeth, because of the little white 15 spots. 16 My huge concern is Carson -- sorry -- Carson 17 is only twenty (20) months old. He was exclusively breast 18 fed for nine (9) months and since then he only drinks 19 homogenized milk that has been boughten from the store. 20 He does not drink any juice or water. He was 21 too long -- oh, sorry -- he was too young last year to eat 22 very many vegetables or fruit from our garden, so everything 23 that he has eaten has been store boughten. 24 Where's he getting this excess of fluoride 25 from? The only two (2) sources I can think of -- the only

42

1 two (2) sources I can think of is airborne particles or did 2 the fluoride pass through my breast milk? 3 My second child was born only two (2) days ago 4 and it makes me angry that Agrium is making me second guess 5 my decision to breast feed my child. 6 Sorry. Agrium has told us that the fluoride 7 does not pass through to the milk. However, after reviewing 8 all of the re -- results so far, it's obvious that Agrium and 9 the government has not done enough testing in this area to 10 put my mind at ease. 11 Maybe they would be willing to put this in 12 writing so that if anything does come out of this in the 13 future, I would have proof that I had concerns at this point. 14 The amount of time that has already been 15 invested by our family just to fight a losing battle is 16 sickening. I am personally sick of going to meeting after 17 meeting, telling government officials and industry 18 representatives my concerns and issues. 19 Time and time again, we have said the same 20 things and time and time again, industry gets another 21 approval for an expansion or an increase to emission levels, 22 or an entirely new industry gets to go ahead and build and 23 become our neighbours. 24 If communities in the city can fight and win 25 against things like a casino or a lounge being built in their

43

1 neighbourhood simply because they do not want the increase in 2 traffic, or they think that this type of business will 3 attract undesirable patrons to the area, or the noise will be 4 excessive, welcome to our world. 5 Try an increase of traffic of over eight 6 thousand (8,000) vehicles a day, twice a day, for two (2) 7 years. A huge increase in noise that does not comply with 8 their own regulations. 9 If you want to talk about undesirable patrons, 10 try an enormous mountain of gypsum containing God only knows 11 what, huge flaring out of the stacks, accidental fires, 12 explosions, bomb threats, chemical spills, suspicious odours, 13 gravel trucks racing down our narrow little country roads, et 14 cetera. 15 But, hey, we chose to live here, right? We 16 wanted these things, right? I don't think this is what we 17 bargained for when we set up our farm in the industrial 18 wasteland that our County is so proud of. 19 When people work in the industry, they are 20 required to wear protective gear. With the pollution levels 21 around our farm being so high, I'm wondering whether my 22 family should be wearing them as well. 23 It terrifies me to think of what this 24 fluorine -- or, fluorine is doing to my little children's 25 lungs. If they can etch glass on a windshield of a vehicle,

44

1 or on the windows of a house, I think it could probably do 2 some damage to my children's lungs. 3 To be completely honest, industry has not been 4 all bad. A large number of the residents in the area all 5 make their living off of industry. However, some are lucky 6 enough that when they drive away after their shift, they can 7 forget about industry for a little while. 8 We, on the other hand, are constantly reminded 9 out our windows and in our yard. Some people have enquired 10 why we placed our house on our property like we did. We 11 placed it going sideways so the end of the house faces the 12 road. The reason we did this is because we like to pretend 13 that we don't have the eyesore of Agrium out of our front 14 door. 15 After reviewing a small portion of results, 16 I'm no longer comfortable planting my garden. I have 17 concerns about raising beef cattle. We have been told that 18 fluoride does not affect the animals and we were also told 19 that the levels were not above normal. 20 We have taken pictures of our cows' teeth and 21 they are in Dr. Krook's report showing the advance fluoride 22 poisoning. I have read in veterinary books that farms with 23 high fluoride levels should produce annual animals, such as 24 slaughter pigs, chickens and feeder cattle. 25 This means changing our farming operation.

45

1 I'm not comfortable having breeding stock remain on our land 2 year after year. Why should the animals be poisoned? 3 Are we then, in good conscience, supposed to 4 take our beef to the auction to be sold to the public? I 5 feel once again that the government has not forced Agrium to 6 do enough due diligence to put our minds at ease. 7 The county has re-zoned our land numerous 8 times when it fits their plans for the area. We have gone 9 from agricultural to environmental protection area to heavy 10 industry, all without our knowledge. It seems our taxes go 11 up and our rights go down. 12 The county has placed numerous restrictions on 13 what we can and cannot do with our own farm. They tell us 14 how much we can build or expand our operation, because they 15 have future plans for our land and they don't want our own 16 developments to interfere with theirs. 17 My solution? You want to manage our land and 18 dreams, then maybe you should own them first. 19 Agrium is requesting this extension so that 20 they can grow and compete in a challenging economic 21 environment. I don't dispute this. All we are saying is 22 that if our County and the surrounding Counties want the 23 industrial heartland to go ahead as planned, and reap the 24 benefits of the enormous increase in taxes, then they need to 25 do something about the residents that are stuck in the middle

46

1 of it. 2 Please remember, I did not ask to be in the 3 middle of this heartland, I did not ask to have my land 4 advertised all over the world for sale, and I did not ask to 5 have my family and my animals, slowly ingest chemicals that 6 we're not sure of what the long term affects will do to us. 7 Thank you for your time. 8 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 9 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Thanks, Cindy, and you 10 can leave if you wish, okay. Oh, -- 11 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I think we should canvass 12 the parties, I know I have -- have at least one (1) question. 13 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Oh, okay. 14 MR. BERNARD ROTH: I have no questions of the 15 Marquardt's, sir. 16 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Roth. 17 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Mr. Chair, Brent also 18 wanted to make a statement and they're sort of together. 19 Would you like him to do his first, before you ask your 20 question, or...? 21 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Well, that would be helpful, 22 then we could allow them to leave together. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: 25 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Yeah, okay. Brent, do

47

1 you want to... 2 MR. BRENT MARQUARDT: Good afternoon, my name 3 is Brent Marquardt, I have lived directly east of Agrium for 4 twenty-six (26) years. My family is strongly opposed to the 5 gypsum stack extension, and this is why; when I listen to 6 Agrium's experts, the most notable words that I heard were 7 almost always. They told us that Agrium will almost always 8 meet the acceptable limits for their emissions. This is like 9 an impaired driver saying he almost always drives sober. It 10 was just this once. We all know it's never just the once. 11 The things that I know for certain are we're 12 scared for our family's health, our first son already has 13 what appears to be the start of fluorosis on his teeth. My 14 wife is scared to breastfeed our new son. Our cows have 15 advanced fluorosis on their teeth, and our cows eat 16 contaminated feed in pasture because of the fluoride, and we 17 do not eat from our garden. 18 When we informed -- when we were informed 19 about anything fluoride related, we weren't informed about 20 anything fluoride related until this stack extension was 21 proposed. 22 I don't believe we should have to put up with 23 someone else's disregard for our health. I thought this was 24 why we have our government here for us, to look after the 25 people they represent.

48

1 Residents and industry do not survive 2 together. There will always be upsets and releases. They 3 are accidents, they're not planned. Let's do something to 4 prevent these accidents from happening before they start. 5 I work in industry and I know they always tell 6 us, safety is always first, and it is, as long as it doesn't 7 cost too much. 8 My mom taught me something else as well, she 9 said, you made the mess, you clean it up. 10 Thank you. 11 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Brent, I'd like you to 12 answer one (1) question and I'm sure everyone wants to know 13 here. Could -- they're your cows in the pictures; right? 14 MR. BRENT MARQUARDT: Yeah. 15 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: And there's probably a 16 question on what you feed those cows. Can you tell us? 17 MR. BRENT MARQUARDT: I just feed them hay off 18 our land, and I'm -- I feed the calves -- I buy feed from Bon 19 Accord for the calves, and that's it. I feed -- I give them 20 straw from our neighbours land, or -- but everything comes 21 off of our land or neighbour's lands. 22 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Are there any 23 supplements given to them? 24 MR. BRENT MARQUARDT: No. 25 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: If there -- these two

49

1 (2) I guess are open for questions now. 2 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I'll just go 3 through the list. Mr. Smulski...? Mr. Unger is not here 4 today. Ms. Szmetan...? 5 MS. LUDMILLA SZMETAN: We don't have any 6 questions for them, thank you. 7 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr. 8 Stepaniuk...? 9 MR. DARIN STEPANIUK: Good morning. I'm the 10 lawyer for Alberta Environment and Alberta Health and 11 Wellness. I don't have any questions for you, but I -- I do 12 want to extend my thanks for you participating in the 13 Hearing, especially in your circumstances with a new baby. 14 MS. CINDY MARQUARDT: Thank you. 15 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Powell...? 16 17 QUESTIONED BY THE BOARD: 18 DR. ROBERT POWELL: I think I -- I think I 19 will ask one (1) question. Mrs. Marquardt, you mentioned 20 symptoms, and among them vomiting and diarrhea, and it was 21 you and your son Carson both experienced this? 22 MS. CINDY MARQUARDT: Actually all three (3) 23 of us have experienced. 24 DR. ROBERT POWELL: All three (3). And when 25 you went to see a physician about this, was there a diagnosis

50

1 as to what this -- what might have caused this? 2 MS. CINDY MARQUARDT: They didn't say 3 anything, I was just admitted into the emergency ward, and 4 they basically just put me on an IV just to keep me hydrated. 5 I was pregnant at the time so they were just worried about it 6 putting me into pre-term labour. 7 And they just said that if it didn't clear up 8 within, I think three (3) or four (4) days, to go into my 9 family physician and see if it -- it progressed further into 10 something. 11 And it had cleared up in about three (3) days. 12 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Okay. And -- and the oth 13 -- the other two (2); did they end up going to see a 14 physician? 15 MS. CINDY MARQUARDT: No, both -- both Brent 16 -- yeah, both Brent and Carson didn't go in. Carson was 17 probably on the verge of where he needed to go in. And we 18 just -- I just kept trying to feed him fluids and milk and 19 things like that. 20 And it eventually -- it did clear up on his 21 own and then he started to slowly eat, so I didn't bother to 22 take him. 23 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Thank you. 24 MS. CINDY MARQUARDT: You're welcome. 25 MS. SHEILA LEGGETT: Good morning,

51

1 congratulations on your new baby. 2 MS. CINDY MARQUARDT: Thank you. 3 MS. SHEILA LEGGETT: Can you tell me the exten 4 -- what type of operation you run? Your agricultural 5 operation? 6 MR. BRENT MARQUARDT: We just have a few beef 7 cows, that's it. 8 MS. SHEILA LEGGETT: If -- you don't have any 9 dairy cattle on your property? 10 MR. BRENT MARQUARDT: Nope, just beef. 11 MS. SHEILA LEGGETT: That's very much. 12 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I have no further questions. 13 Ms. Leggett just asked the question that I had. 14 Thank you very much. Appreciate the -- it 15 must be a great inconvenience at this time for you to come 16 in. Thank you. 17 MS. CINDY MARQUARDT: Thank you. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Thank you, Brent and 22 Cindy, and we'll just give you a second to get organized to 23 get out. 24 25

52

1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 CONTINUED BY MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: 4 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: And Mr. Henkelman, I 5 guess you're the next, the sage of the group. 6 MR. PERCIVAL HENKELMAN: Mr. Chairman and 7 Panel Members. My name is Percy Henkelman. During my 8 graduate studies, a professor said that I had a tendency to 9 brevity, I -- I don't think that was a complement. 10 But, today after having been at this marathon 11 Hearing, I -- I think everybody will appreciate a three (3) 12 minute presentation. 13 I feel profoundly privileged to speak for very 14 few minutes at this Hearing today. Let me begin with some 15 quotes from an article I wrote and which was printed in local 16 and provincial publications on June the 21st, the year 2000. 17 Incidently, I heard from friends in industry 18 that this article had may its way into, other -- among other 19 places, Board rooms in Calgary, Houston and the Netherlands. 20 I quote: 21 "Some sixty (60) years ago, my parents gave 22 me a priceless gift of land. It was a 23 quarter section in the north area of 24 Strathcona County. It was our dream to 25 retire on this idyllic piece of God's

53

1 creation. At the age of seventy (70) 2 years, this dream came true. My wife and I 3 retired on this lovely place, after a busy 4 life in the church's ministry. Recently at 5 4 --" 6 And this is part of the quote yet. 7 "-- recently at 4:14 a.m., I was awakened 8 by a nauseous odour. It was Saturday 9 morning. Who would respond to this 10 violation, by some industrial firm, on that 11 day?" End of quote. 12 That was just a harbinger of things to come 13 with light, noise and stack effluent pollution, in our area. 14 By the year of our Lord 2004, it became obvious that 15 something had to give and that we must consider leaving the 16 farm that had been in the family, for over eighty (80) years. 17 It was again, about 4:00 a.m., that I awoke 18 recently, perhaps my mind was on the intelligent, 19 enthusiastic and I might add attractive, young people with 20 whom I had to meet, to prepare for this Hearing. And I'm 21 sure you'll all agree that they're attractive group. 22 An illustration of our situation came to me 23 that I should like to share with you. 24 We have dozens of gorgeous birds in our 25 backyard, they scurry around our feeders and -- and drink and

54

1 bathe in our birdbath. The later is a year round operation 2 because we have a thermostatically controlled heater in the 3 bird bath for winter months. 4 Tony Byers from whom we buy our sunflower 5 seeds, wondered aloud if we were feeding pterodactyls because 6 we come back so often. 7 We have even found a tiny hummingbirds nest in 8 our raspberry patch. We love to watch the endless activity 9 of the birds and the squirrels, but, one (1) day we noticed 10 that all the birds had seemed to disappear. 11 After checking carefully, we noted that they 12 were hiding in the woods, perfectly still never moving a 13 muscle. Looking out the front window, we saw an enormous 14 great horned owl atop our flagpole, occasionally turning its 15 head a hundred and eighty (180) degrees. 16 That was the reason that struck terror into 17 the hearts of the tiny little creatures in the woods, while 18 we never saw the owl attack the birds, we did see the 19 occasional hawk swoop down and snatch up an unfortunate, 20 terrified bird. 21 Like the great horned owl on the flag pole, we 22 were suddenly designated the Alberta industrial heartland by 23 some unknown person in seek of power. We learned of it by 24 seeing our land for sale on the world wide web in English, 25 French, German, and Japanese.

55

1 Like the birds in our back yards, seeing the 2 great horned owl, the residents of north-east Strathcona 3 County felt panic in their hearts. Eminent scientists 4 informed us that we were living in a toxic soup. 5 We have lost a middle aged neighbour due to 6 cancer. My daughter lost a ram of the miniature sheep 7 variety and autopsy revealed heavy toxins. I, myself have 8 noticed a chronic congestion in my lungs. My travels of -- 9 as a bishop of the church have taken me recently to places 10 such as North Carolina, California, and Pennsylvania and 11 sometimes for lengthy meetings, and no congestion. 12 Shortly after my return, congestion showed up 13 again. Consulting with neighbours, I find similar health 14 complaints. An additional gyp-stack is not in order. 15 Residents and close industry are a bad mix. 16 Thank you. 17 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 18 MS. HEATHER GARON: Hi, my name's Heather 19 Garon. I'll read my mom's submission first and then my own, 20 if that's okay with you? 21 MR. CHAIRPERSON: By all means. 22 MS. HEATHER GARON: If I say "I" in this one, 23 I'm referring to my mother. 24 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Okay. 25 MS. HEATHER GARON: It's just the way it's

56

1 written. 2 "Hello, my name is Sylvia Garon. I am 3 speaking on behalf of my family. The 4 property at south-west 16-56-21 West of the 5 4th has been in my family since -- 1974. 6 My mom, brothers and sisters lived here for 7 five (5) years. I moved here in February 8 of '79 when my children were two (2) and 9 four (4). 10 The road was quiet and very scenic. Along 11 2-14 where Shell Chemicals is now, there 12 was a pasture with dairy cows. The trees 13 and bush were thick, but you could hear and 14 smell Redwater Fertilizer even then. 15 The noise was mostly in the background. 16 But the smell and dust have always been 17 present. The phosphate factory, itself, 18 wasn't very big. A sleepless night because 19 of loud noises didn't seem too much -- too 20 unreasonable. After all, we were 21 neighbours, so to speak. 22 But back then, Agrium would phone over and 23 enquire about how many resided on the 24 property, human and animals, in case of an 25 emergency. Agrium would tell us to keep

57

1 indoors if we smelled ammonia. That was 2 it. No mention of any other substance, 3 odour or dust particles. 4 I tried to keep the kids in on the worse 5 days, especially the windy ones. This was 6 because the phosphate odour was enough to 7 choke. I had two (2) more children in the 8 early '80s. 9 Over the years, the warning never changed. 10 If anything happened, Agrium never seemed 11 too concerned. If I smelled ammonia and 12 phoned over to enquire about it, most of 13 the times, Agrium said I was mistaken. 14 Sometimes Agrium said they would check on 15 it, and get back to me, always with the 16 admonition not to worry, the wind would 17 carry the smell away. 18 Call-backs always said it was a minor 19 mishap, nothing to worry about. Or 20 sometimes, that I could -- that nothing 21 could be found so Agrium didn't know what I 22 was smelling. 23 Once, my friend came over. She passed 24 through one (1) of the ammonia fog banks, 25 as it sat on the road in front of my place.

58

1 But Redwater assured her, when we phoned 2 over, that her baby would be okay. 3 But, hey, nothing was broke on their side. 4 Other times, valves would break and vent 5 with a deafening roar and when I called 6 about it, Agrium couldn't hear it. They 7 didn't know what was happening on their own 8 plant site. 9 Yes, it is worrisome. These are the guys 10 that say we're safe and they don't know 11 what the -- what's happening all the time. 12 The trust started to fade quite a while 13 ago. The plant has expanded over the years 14 and with it, the noise, until it's now a 15 deafening roar more often that not. 16 Sleepless nights are quite common now. 17 The noise is invasive and intrusive. At 18 one of the meetings we attended, a 19 neighbour mentioned fluorine gas causes 20 pitted windows. I have always wondered why 21 every vehicle I have owned in this yard has 22 pitted windshields. Agrium said they would 23 come over and look at it. 24 Darcy Walberg came and looked at it. Just 25 looked at it. Said it wasn't fluorine gas

59

1 that causes the pitted windows. He looked 2 at my car only. I looked at the trucks in 3 the bush. Then, since he was there, I 4 asked him about the red growth in the -- my 5 water buckets. The fact that for two (2) 6 straight summers, all of my potted plants 7 died on the porch, literally overnight. 8 And as May -- May mentioned, that all my 9 poplar and saskatoon bushes were dying. My 10 concerns were all dismissed, no testing, 11 nothing. Darcy Walberg denied it had 12 anything to do with Agrium, but he took 13 pictures of my dead and dying bush, which 14 is so bad now, that I have no wind breakage 15 from Agrium. The wind howls through my 16 property and the plant is more of an 17 eyesore than ever before. 18 At first when the plant started to get 19 loud, I didn't want to complain, but the 20 stress of all the subsequent noise has made 21 me realize that to say nothing, implies 22 that I'm okay with it. 23 As the last few years have passed, the 24 neighbours have been talking together, and 25 I have realized that I'm not the only one

60

1 (1) with health and noise concerns. I 2 myself share some of the complaints, rheumy 3 and droopy -- droopy -- drippy eyes, 4 clogged sinuses, and sore throats, which 5 has led to a severe infection. 6 My joints and muscles ache every day, I 7 have lost my sense of taste and my tongue 8 goes numb regularly. I have high blood 9 pressure. I took pictures of my children's 10 teeth and they are said to have mild 11 fluorosis in one (1) case and moderate to 12 severe fluorosis in another. 13 My children have headaches and painful leg 14 cramps since they were little. We all 15 drank local milk for quite a few years. We 16 ate the produce from my garden, even a lot 17 of lettuce. Dr. Krook has mentioned it in 18 his report, it has one hundred and thirty- 19 seven (137) parts per million of fluoride. 20 I can no longer sleep with the window open, 21 for one (1), the noise would be too loud, 22 but for another, I don't want to breathe 23 the industrial emissions while I sleep. 24 I feel that living here is having an 25 adverse affect on myself and my family.

61

1 The alarms and whistles and what-ifs are 2 terrible. 3 We are turning to you, the NRCB Board, to 4 help us with a -- to have a healthier and 5 better quality of life, we are real, we do 6 live here, we're not hypothetical." 7 My name is Heather Garon, I am twenty (20) 8 years old, I have lived at SW-16-56-21-W4th in Strathcona 9 County for twenty (20) years. I am approximately half a mile 10 from the fertilizer plant in Agrium. 11 As I have grown up, the fertil -- Agrium's 12 fertilizer plant has grown with me. Many changes have come 13 to our little world over the years. These changes seem 14 gradual in the beginning, but have increased with astounding 15 regularity. 16 When I was a child, the problems of the 17 outside world had little affect on my day-to-day life, I went 18 to school, I did my homework, I had fun with my friends and I 19 played outside all the time. I went for long bike rides with 20 my family, I had a playhouse and a dog, just like any other 21 country kid. 22 And just like any other kid, I had no 23 understanding of chemical or fertilizer plants and the damage 24 they can cause. They were just there, a part of the scenery, 25 something you drove past on the way to town, but could not

62

1 see from your house, I used to have a nice view all around 2 the house, lots of tall green trees, green fields and blue 3 skies, it was quiet, little noise from the phosphate factory. 4 In the winter the snow is deep and white, 5 tobogganing and pond hockey were a way of life. However, 6 there were times when our parents made us stay inside, there 7 was a bad smell in the air, and what child understands the 8 meaning of a gas release? All I knew was if it smelled bad 9 it must be bad. 10 There was also the anxiety our parents 11 exhibited in these situations, that transferred to us. They 12 did not how to explain to -- it to us, to reduce our worry, 13 because they did not understand it themselves. 14 As the years went on, my understanding of the 15 plants and the dangers involved with living here increased. 16 My knowledge -- as my knowledge increased, so 17 did my questions, and fears started to emerge. What happens 18 if there's an emergency, and my parents are not home? And 19 they -- they and my family are unreachable, who will evacuate 20 us, will we be a priority to the plants? 21 Where will we go? Will our animals go with us 22 or be left behind? Is my family garden safe to eat? I the 23 water safe to drink? Are my cats, who were born here and 24 have lived here for twelve (12) and thirteen (13) years, 25 affected, are they sick because of a cumulative effects?

63

1 Will this affect my Irish Wolfhound, who has lived here for 2 two (2) of his three (3) years? 3 As a child, I was considered healthy. The 4 only constant problem was sharp pains in my legs. I was told 5 it was nothing more than growing pains and I would grow out 6 of them, but, as the years went on, they became more frequent 7 and painful. In the middle of the night, my sister would 8 have to run hot baths and rub my legs for what seemed like 9 hours until the pain eased enough for me to go back to sleep. 10 At the age of twenty (20), my legs still cause 11 me trouble. And I am no longer growing. Around the age of 12 fifteen (15) I started having stomach trouble. I was placed 13 on medication. 14 I still take this medication along with 15 Rolaids for it. In Junior High, I started to have lower back 16 and hip troubles. Now, if I sit down or lay on my back too 17 long, I have trouble moving. 18 Around September 2000, I developed migraines. 19 After having one (1) for three (3) days I visited my doctor. 20 Since that first visit, I have been to many doctors, 21 specialists, a mental health physician, I've had blood work, 22 a CAT scan, x-rays, ten (10) different medications and missed 23 more than four hundred (400) days of classes in my three and 24 half (3.5) years of high school. 25 The cause of migraines is still under

64

1 investigation. Furthermore, I have now been informed that I 2 show signs of mild fluorosis on my teeth. This has left me 3 with many unanswered questions. 4 Everything I read about fluoride does not 5 reassure me that I am at all healthy. This leaves me to 6 wonder if I will be able to have healthy children in the 7 future. 8 As everyone keeps mentioning a cumulative 9 effects. The view is gone now, the trees are stunted and 10 dying. Nothing grows well anymore. Huge power lines run the 11 length of the road in front of my house. I need only walk 12 out my front yard to see refineries and gypsum stack the size 13 of a small mountain. 14 With a bad view, noise and smell and light, it 15 is no longer pleasurable to go for a walk with my dog. 16 Thank you. 17 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Thank you, Heather. We 18 are now going to go back to the Marquardts. This is Mr. and 19 Mrs. Marquardt senior. And Mr. Marquardt has not taken the 20 oath, so perhaps if we could administer the oath to him. 21 22 MR. ERIC MARQUARDT, Sworn; 23 24 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Okay, Eric and Evelyn, 25 you can go ahead with your presentation.

65

1 MR. ERIC MARQUARDT: I'm Eric -- 2 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: I'll go first. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: Mr. Chair and Board 7 Members. My husband Eric Marquardt, and our two (2) children 8 now grown and myself moved to our acreage one and a half 9 miles, directly east of the river, from Agrium in '78. 10 We thought we had found a little piece of 11 heaven, especially since this area was zoned green belt, a 12 safe area. It was with a labour of love, that we built our 13 home in the country, where we could raise our children, in 14 the good country living, the great outdoors, so we thought. 15 Oh how very ignorant we were. The summer we 16 built our home, 1977, Brent experienced his first migraine 17 headache at four (4) years of age. Myself, I would get an 18 immediate headache when I would get a whiff of phosphate with 19 any prevailing northeast winds drifting out across our way. 20 Eric having worked in Phos-acid at Sherritt 21 Gordon mines in Fort Saskatchewan, for fourteen (14) years 22 was more or less conditioned to these smells and could ignore 23 them. 24 We thought we were surely at a safe distance 25 from Redwater, now Agrium. There were several times I

66

1 questioned the problematic conditions, visible from Agrium, 2 only to be reassured nothing out of the ordinary was taking 3 place, after calling and asking what was happening. 4 One (1) particular instant comes to mind, 5 where a huge orange yellow cloud, was emitted from the flare. 6 I immediately called to the site, only to be told, they could 7 not even see it. And if there was any danger, we certainly 8 would have been notified. 9 We have never been forewarned of any danger, 10 that could possibly have taken place even though the alarms 11 have gone off numerous times. 12 Noise issues have always been downplayed or 13 just simply ignored and considered neighbourhood complaints. 14 Approximately five (5) years after living in our home on the 15 acreage, we noticed pitting on the west side windows and 16 mentioned this fact, at every opportunity, only to have it 17 either completely ignored, or simply noted and then ignored. 18 No one ever even asked to have a look at them. 19 At the last neighbourhood goodwill meeting in 20 October 2003, again we brought it up and were actually told 21 it was from blowing sand. Now, we have experienced 22 sandstorms in Arizona, and know the difference between 23 blowing sand and a sandstorm. Every vehicle we have owned 24 has had pitting on the windshield, this too has been ignored 25 by Agrium.

67

1 Yes, Agrium has actually taken the time to get 2 names, phone numbers, as well as the number of occupants at 3 each resident, being as we are considered within the radius 4 considered too close to industry. But if concerns and issues 5 are raised, we are quickly considered complainers, or whiners 6 or opportunists. 7 Industry does have a place in society, for 8 sure. I realize they provide a good livelihood for a great 9 many people. My family have all worked and still do, in 10 industry, and have appreciated being able to do so. We are 11 not asking that industry shut down. We are only asking that 12 they be responsible and operate in a safe and responsible 13 manner, the same way in which we work for them. 14 Yes, it is more costly to implement these 15 measures, but isn't it worth the expense where human life is 16 concerned? Do we need to see a Chernobyl like disaster to 17 make industry sit up and take notice of the real health 18 issues that are taking place here in our backyard. 19 In addition to frequent headaches, we have 20 experienced other health issues, these are, myself 21 precancerous diagnosis, daughter irregular thyroid condition, 22 family, general aches and pains in the joints, numerous dead 23 trees, shrubs, dead cows, calves born dead or with defect -- 24 birth defects, gimpy cows, our family pet died and suffered 25 from extreme joint problems.

68

1 At one (1) point in our lives my husband and I 2 considered ourself blessed to have the privilege to live and 3 raise our children and now our grandchildren, in what we 4 thought were idyllic conditions. Little did we know what we 5 were jeopardizing. We consider ourselves good citizens, 6 neighbours and employees of industries, is it too much to ask 7 the same of them? 8 We are constantly reassured by Agrium's facts 9 and figures, that there's was a totally safe and 10 environmentally friendly operation. To say we are devastated 11 by the recent data interpreted by experts in their fields is 12 an understatement. 13 It is time for industry to accept 14 responsibility for their errorness and negligent actions. 15 Expansion will only magnify an already undesirable 16 environment. Health is wealth, and that of this 17 neighbourhood is sinfully being depleted and neglected by 18 those who have the power to change the obvious. 19 Ignorance is bliss, and yes, we were happy, we 20 are not anymore. Our daughter-in-law Cindy Marquardt, felt 21 so strongly about participating in these Hearings, that she 22 rescheduled her caesarian birth of their second new baby, 23 putting both at risk. Fortunately mother and nature 24 intervened, and Chase Erich Marquardt was born before that 25 was necessary. That's all I have to say.

69

1 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Evelyn, before -- before 2 we go to you, Erich, could you maybe just clarify where your 3 first house is -- that's the house that you -- 4 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: Our first home was Tia 5 Bartlett's -- 6 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: And that's -- 7 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: -- present residence. 8 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: And that was the home 9 you were referring to in the first part of your presentation? 10 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: Yes, we built that home 11 in '77 move in, in '78. 12 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: And then when did you -- 13 and you moved out when Tia moved in? 14 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: We moved a mile down 15 the road, and we now currently reside at Brent Marquardt's 16 address. 17 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Okay, I just wanted to 18 clarify that so the Board knew where -- where you were 19 referring to. 20 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Klimek, I appreciate 21 that we have this map and it was something we were going to 22 be looking for is -- is clarity to the -- the map that was 23 put at Tab 2, but what I -- what I don't see on this map is 24 an identification of all of the members of the coalition? 25 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: I believe that the one

70

1 (1) -- 2 MS. TIA BARTLETT: These were -- you can't see 3 so well -- east on the map -- 4 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I see. 5 MS. TIA BARTLETT: -- and they're two and a 6 half (2 1/2) kilometres northeast, and that map did not -- I 7 do have that written at the top, I believe. 8 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: I -- Mr. Chair, I 9 believe the one (1) in our submission has all nine (9) on it, 10 doesn't it, Cheryl? They're the -- 11 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I have -- I have seven (7) 12 residents identified. Oh, are you talking about the 13 submission? 14 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Yes, and I think when 15 you're looking at the one (1) that Ms. Bartlett put in, the 16 Sawatzky's and Ziegeman's, it doesn't go up that far, but -- 17 MR. CHAIRPERSON: No, and -- and that's fine. 18 I don't have -- 19 MS. TIA BARTLETT: The other Henkelman and the 20 other Marquardt, is what you're probably missing. 21 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: There's a couple yard 22 sites that have two (2) on it, when you -- if you -- if you 23 go to Tab 1 of our submission there's a map. We have -- oh 24 -- and you'll see, if you open it up, if you start on the 25 immediate right, that one (1) dot out there is Cholowski's,

71

1 who are not here. 2 And then if -- as you go around the corner, 3 the -- the one (1) -- there's two (2) dots sort of 4 overlapping each other? 5 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 6 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: The one (1) to the right 7 is the Garon's, and the one (1) over -- the next one (1) 8 would be Bartlett. And then immediately across the road 9 would be Percy and Martha Henkelman and Cheryl Henkelman, 10 they're in the same yard. 11 And then if you go to your left, that's the 12 Marquardt's, now that would be Brent and Cindy and Evelyn and 13 Erich, there's two (2) houses in that yard. 14 And then if you go up around the corner, the 15 one (1) below the road is Ziegeman's, right, Sharon? 16 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: Right -- right along the 17 river? 18 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Yeah, and then -- and 19 then Ward Sawatzky's the one (1) that's up a little further. 20 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Does that clarify that for 21 you? 22 MR. CHAIRPERSON: That is helpful. And the 23 McIntosh's are no longer part of the association? 24 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: No, no they sold, 25 they've moved away.

72

1 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 2 3 CONTINUED BY MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: 4 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Okay, sorry to 5 interrupt, Erich, you can go ahead. I just wanted to clarify 6 that location. 7 MR. ERICH MARQUARDT: My name is Erich 8 Marquardt, I live directly east and across the river from... 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: On behalf of Erich, 13 "I lived directly east across the river 14 from Agrium, I was employed at Sherritt 15 Gordon Mines for fourteen (14) years. For 16 five (5) of these years I was an operator 17 in the fertilizer plant. One (1) day a 18 spill of sulphuric acid occurred and all 19 the cars on the downwind side of the stack 20 got sprayed. 21 Employees parked on this parking lot 22 complained about the spots on the cars and 23 the windshield. After an investigation it 24 was discovered that the spots were from the 25 sulphuric acid spill, and soon after

73

1 complaints were filed of pitted 2 windshields. 3 We were informed that the acid spill did 4 not create the pitting of glass, but it did 5 come from the fluorine gas that is created 6 when the phosphate rock is digested in the 7 attack tank. It was this fluorine gas that 8 actually attacked the glass on the 9 vehicles, not sulphuric acid. 10 Other concerns I have. Pitting of glass on 11 all the vehicles we have owned since living 12 there in '78. This pitting of the glass 13 makes visibility difficult for night vision 14 from oncoming traffic. Browning of trees - 15 - tree leaves, flowers, and shrubs, at 16 times the smell of fertilizer from the 17 plant. 18 Sometimes there is a visual emission from 19 orange to greenish yellow in colour, called 20 laughing gas by Agrium, I am told. Dust of 21 gypsum, depending on the wind direction, 22 sometimes temporary, but extreme and 23 lengthy noise during shutdowns or startups. 24 Slow growth, grass growth, even though it 25 has been fertilized. Very little

74

1 communication given when alarms have been 2 sounded, pertinent information not passed 3 on immediately. Sometimes days later an 4 explanation is given to residents, but this 5 is not timely or acceptable. 6 Unsightly pile of gypsum, personally 7 requested a small barrier of trees to hide 8 the ugly pile, but this request was turned 9 down. 10 Had one (1) good response after I 11 complained about the noise level, other 12 complaints were simply ignored or 13 considered not worth mentioning. We now 14 have two (2) grandsons, one (1) was born on 15 Tuesday. I would like to see them grow up 16 as healthy children, in a healthy 17 environment." 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 MR. WARD SAWATZKY: My name is Ward Sawatzky 22 and my wife Connie, our son, Kyle, aged fifteen (15), and 23 daughter Kaitlyn, age eleven (11), live on SW-26-56-21-4, in 24 the Alberta's Industrial Heartland. 25 Our property is two (2) miles straight east of

75

1 Agrium's existing phosphogypsum stack. My family has lived 2 on this farm since 1986, as this property was homesteaded by 3 my grandfather in 1910. 4 I currently run a cow/calf operation which 5 consists of ninety (90) cows. The feed that these animals 6 consume through the winter months, which is from October to 7 May, is grown on southwest 26-5621, northwest 26-5621, 8 northeast 26-5621 and southwest to 13-5621. 9 All of this land, with the exception of 10 southwest 135621, is within two (2) miles east of the 11 existing gypsum stack. I've sent two (2) samples of green 12 feed and also a sample from a cow's jaw, called a mandible, 13 to get tested for fluoride. 14 The results are in Dr. Krook's report. For 15 the summer months, I pasture the cattle on southwest 26-5621, 16 northwest at 23-5621, the southeast half of 27-5621, 17 southeast of 16-5621, and northeast of 16-5621. 18 The cattle are on these parcels of land from 19 May to October. This land is also within two (2) miles of 20 existing gypsum stack. 21 After looking at Dr. Krook's report, I feel 22 that the existing gypsum stack is already emitting too much 23 fluoride into the atmosphere, as there is evidence in our 24 livestock which would indicate that we have a problem with 25 fluoride in this area.

76

1 Human health is a concern to us, as it is to 2 everybody else living in the area. Living here for the past 3 eighteen (18) years, my wife has been planting a garden and 4 -- every spring and preserving the vegetables for our own 5 use. 6 She's not sure if it is safe to continue to do 7 anymore due to the levels of fluoride that have been found in 8 this area. For these reasons, we feel that the air is no 9 longer safe for our family, or our livestock. 10 I hope the NRCB realizes we have a serious 11 problem with fluoride in this area and denies Agrium's 12 application to extend the phosphogypsum stack. 13 We as residents living in Alberta's industrial 14 heartland should not be afraid to plant gardens for food, do 15 outdoor activities with our families, or to raise cattle. 16 Thank you. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: Mr. Chair, Board Members 21 and Panel. My name is Sharon Ziegeman and I am here to speak 22 on behalf of myself, my husband Barry Ziegeman and our three 23 children and our pets. 24 We live at northeast section 27, township 56, 25 range road 21, west of the fourth, in Strathcona County. Our

77

1 home is approximately one and a half (1 1/2) miles northeast 2 of Agrium's existing gypsum stack and we have lived on our 3 farm since 1993. 4 Our property of thirty-six (36) acres 5 bordering the river's edge has been re-zoned and 6 environmental policy area and heavy industrial dividing our 7 house. 8 We were comfortable eleven (11) years ago with 9 moving into the area and then awakened by the re-zoning of 10 the Alberta industrial heartland and what it has meant to our 11 family. 12 As parents, we would like to feel that we have 13 made wise and healthy decisions for our children by raising 14 them in the country, to teach them a healthy and wholesome 15 way of living, by eating our own naturally grown fruit and 16 vegetables all year long, along with the poultry and eggs 17 that we've raised ourselves. Also be eating wildlife that we 18 have hunted locally. I believe our diet consists of much 19 more than 50 percent of our own food. 20 Our goals were to raise our kids to be healthy 21 and self-sufficient, and to show them that having a hobby 22 farm of pets of all size and kinds could fill them with love 23 and responsibility; how to respect the use of this knowledge 24 to live happy, healthy successful lives as they grow to 25 become adults.

78

1 We live down what used to be a very quiet 2 dead-end road. We love our log home and the privilege of 3 being one (1) of the very few families in our country to live 4 on the river's bank and since living on our farm, we have 5 enjoyed making and utilizing walking trails to the river. 6 But now we're scared by all the findings that 7 have been surfacing by the help of these professional 8 researchers that for all these years, we have possibly been 9 harming the health of our children and our pets by feeding 10 them from our gardens and our fields. 11 My husband and our daughter complain of 12 constant sinus problems. My husband and our two (2) boys 13 complain of achy legs and Barry has been told he has early 14 signs of arthritis. 15 One (1) of our sons is prone to throat 16 infections and canker sores. Are these results of exposure 17 to fluoride? 18 We are worried that without a proper, 19 independent study that with the go-ahead of the extension of 20 the Agrium gypsum pile, plus all the other industrial 21 applications being brought forward into our area, it is 22 jeopardizing our health and our investments. 23 Now that the heartland is being marketed to 24 more and more countries and welcoming more applicants into 25 the area, someone should be responsible for the well being of

79

1 the residents and to have them relocated. I'm not sure who 2 that should have to -- I'm not sure who should have to pay 3 for that -- those re -- those relocations, but someone needs 4 to figure it out and soon. 5 No one is looking out for us. We seem -- we 6 see a lot more applications being brought forward since the 7 re-zoning than we ever did before. So we feel that as this 8 toxic soup gets added to, that the health of our families and 9 pets are at risk. 10 By relocating residents you can have your 11 heartland and the residents won't be in your way to oppose 12 every application being brought in that directly affects us. 13 Hard not to be affected when it's starting to surround you. 14 So, until then, our family feels the need to 15 question each application and how it will affect us. With 16 all the restrictions the county placed on our properties 17 during the re-zoning the -- of the heartland and all the 18 industries applying to build or expand something, who would 19 want to purchase our property? 20 One (1) of the restrictions in the re-zoning 21 was that there was to be no new residential -- no new 22 residents allowed to build within the heartland. 23 What does this say for concerns? There must 24 be issues that aren't being addressed. Are they safety 25 issues? Are they health issues? Does this not indicate that

80

1 even our municipality believes that residents and industry do 2 not belong together? 3 We were also assured during the re-zoning 4 process that no new industry was predicted for at least 5 twenty-five (25 to fifty (50) years. These predictions were 6 told to us by both our Mayor over in Hartwell (phonetic) and 7 Alberta Industrials president -- Alberta Industrial 8 Heartland's president, Larry Wall (phonetic). 9 We asked, then why the restrictions? No 10 answers. For every approved application, our proper -- 11 property becomes more devalued. And even if someone other 12 than industry would buy it, or could buy it, how could we 13 sell to the average person to live there and have a clear 14 conscience with knowing everything we know about the area? 15 If we're not in meetings to do with new 16 applications or expansions, then it's regarding 17 infrastructure concerns or with health and safety. It's a 18 continuous battle and it takes us away from our families and 19 personal lives and if we do not keep on top of it, then we 20 are made to look like we didn't have an issue with it -- with 21 it, when do we get a chance to realize -- when we do get a 22 chance to realize what it means to our well being. 23 And up until approximately four (4) years ago, 24 Barry and I, along with the help of our three (3) children 25 and some pet geese, owned and operated a sixty thousand

81

1 (60,000) strawberry plant U-Pick market garden. We ran the 2 market garden for five (5) years. We sold strawberries, 3 vegetables and fresh cut flowers to the public, either by 4 self-picking consumers, or by picking ourselves and selling 5 at a local farmers' market. 6 With the love of gardening I have had to -- I 7 have -- I have continued to grow enough garden vegetables to 8 preserve or store fresh to feed my family year round. We are 9 now scared to plant and eat anything off of our farms for the 10 fear of what it may be absorbing. 11 Therefore, our grocery costs are going up and 12 my passion for gardening has been destroyed. Our quality of 13 life is being destroyed. 14 We're always -- we're always said to be 15 opportunists -- can I show you some photo albums of what an 16 opportunist looks like? Do you mind looking at, while I 17 finish reading? 18 MR. CHAIRPERSON: We certainly don't mind, 19 but it's -- it's just a matter of keeping consistent with the 20 process. 21 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Well, what we'll do is 22 make copies available. We'll get them photocopied and I -- 23 you may want to point out the ones -- maybe just pick out a 24 couple that are representative, Sharon, because I don't think 25 we want to photocopy your whole photo album. As lovely as it

82

1 is. 2 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: I just listed -- you 3 can just flip through it -- I've just listed when we moved 4 here in 1993. And I made this well before this Hearing. 5 This is what I did. 6 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Perhaps we'll put tabs on 7 the ones that you've pointed out. 8 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: Everything up to there. 9 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Okay. 10 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: They're dated. You can 11 see the differences over the years. 12 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Thank you. 13 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: As far as feeling safe 14 at our own homes, we now question the enjoyments that simple 15 every day life activities should bring us. For eleven (11) 16 years I wondered quietly why the forest of pines all around 17 our area were dying. I asked at a meeting at -- on fluoride 18 at Agrium, Oct -- in October, if fluoride emissions could be 19 the cause of this? The suggestion was for me to hire an 20 arborist. I don't have the money to do what Agrium should be 21 doing. 22 How can we feed our animals for -- from our 23 pastures or our fields anymore, knowing we may be slowly 24 poisoning them. 25 We don't have the money to have every pet or

83

1 livestock tested, every time one (1) dies, to see what the 2 cause of death was and then to prove it to Agrium, or the 3 Government. 4 As the theory of the white-tailed deer, I 5 wonder why Agrium never went to the deer farmer in our area. 6 If you needed the loca -- if you need the location, I can 7 provide that. 8 My concern is that they harvest the hay from a 9 field located west of our property, and I'm not sure if 10 that's what the feed their deer, but that could be ingested. 11 They harvest antlers of the white-tailed deer 12 for medicinal purposes. 13 Who wouldn't want to know what their animals 14 were ingesting or digesting, especially when the fluoride is 15 found in bone matter, or -- and in the antler of the deer. 16 Since November we have lost a very dear and 17 close family member. Our beloved Shelty had to be put to 18 rest because of arthritis in his hips that spread into his 19 spine overnight, leaving him paralysed. A loving ten (10) 20 year old donkey, which one (1) day seemed perfectly healthy, 21 following us around the yard, and the next morning found dead 22 near his barn. We also have lost a very friendly em -- emu. 23 Could these be the results of fluoride 24 poisoning? And now -- are now -- are we now to sell our pets 25 for their own protection? Should we be bear -- wearing

84

1 personal protective equipment in order to enjoy playing 2 outdoors on our own farms, or even while sitting with 3 neighbours and friends on our decks? This would be protocol 4 if I was entering an unsafe area where I work. 5 We enjoy tell -- taking friends and family for 6 hay rides and snowmobiling in our area. We enjoy snowshoeing 7 down the river, and taking our dogs for long walks in the 8 bush along the trails. Our family spends a lot of time 9 outdoors. We have been known to clear the snow off a section 10 of the river and play hockey and skate. 11 Living in the country is about being outdoors. 12 We love our area, but we hate the harm that is being brought 13 to it and us. 14 It's too bad that our municipality didn't see 15 the beauty of the area the way we do. Instead they see the 16 dollars it could bring to the hamlet of Sherwood Park. 17 Furthermore, if the residents of the 18 industrial heartland within coun -- Strathcona County, are 19 not allowed to make improvements or expansions to our 20 residential investments without signing waivers, or -- and 21 having restrictions placed upon our properties, why should 22 industry be allowed to go through with an application without 23 proper testing? 24 This study should have been done and paid for 25 by Agrium and our Government, without the push of a few

85

1 residents dealing with direct affects, and yet here we all 2 sit, because we to -- we the residents, took it upon 3 ourselves to have samples of our livelihoods tested with our 4 money from our pockets, and precious time that we weren't 5 being paid for, while Agrium employees are getting paid to be 6 here, maybe even overtime at some points, and for what they 7 should have done in the first place. 8 In Dr. Krook's sub -- submissions you will 9 find plant samples that I took from our family farms, that 10 are noted to have high levels of fluorine along with pictures 11 that I took of neighbour's cow's teeth, and that are also 12 noted to have high fluoride exposures. 13 Some of our own family member's teeth, in Dr. 14 Limeback's submission, noting fluoride exposures. 15 These are all important findings that should 16 not go unnoticed to the Application of this extension of the 17 gypsum stack. At what cost will it take? The fatality of a 18 resident and then to have them tested and proven, before 19 someone is made to claim responsibility for removing the 20 resident's from the area? 21 If Agrium is granted the approval of the 22 extension of the gypsum stack, there will be more effects and 23 emissions, even closer to the Ziegeman and Sawatzky farms, 24 that are already showing these fluoride exposures. 25 What will the noise from the extension mean to

86

1 us? Seeing as our home approximately fifty (50) metres from 2 the top of the river's bank, we hear the -- we hear the 3 action on the stack now, and with it that much closer to us, 4 and the way noise travels through the valley, I'm expecting 5 an increase in volume. 6 We will eventually have the site of the 7 extension to enjoy every morning through our bedroom windows, 8 as we wake up what will once have been a beautiful view of 9 the river. 10 I always said, the only thing missing in that 11 view is the mountains, but, I never expected it to be a 12 mountain of poison. I am wondering why Ziegeman and Sawatzky 13 farms are not listed on the Agrium's emergency response map, 14 since we are within the three (3) mile radius. 15 My family does not recall any emergency 16 response information being given to us, by Agrium, or any 17 information on SNAP. With the evidence being brought forward 18 to this Hearing, we feel there is enough proof that Agrium 19 and the government along with the input of the residents of 20 the area, should be made to hold a public study for the 21 health of all. 22 We are asking our government of Alberta -- we 23 are asking our government, Alberta Environment and Capital 24 Health to request a proper study and relocation of residents 25 to be done before the approval of Agrium's gypsum extension,

87

1 or any other applications granted in the area. 2 I'd like to tell you about my experience last 3 night when I went home and I got there about quarter to 4 10:00. I live down the dead end of 212, and just before my 5 driveway, I noticed a smell of H2S, so I rolled my window 6 down to see how strong it was, where exactly I noticed it. 7 The grass in the ditch, I couldn't tell which 8 way the wind was -- if there was any wind direction, so I 9 went to Ward's house and asked him to come and help me out 10 with the situation. 11 From my truck to his house, a matter of feet, 12 I never smelled the H2S, by the time Ward put his boots and 13 coat on, and we both went outside, Ward suggested we get back 14 in, because the odour had by that time, become so strong. 15 While we were both on the phone to Alberta 16 Environment, the EUB and Esso, you could smell the emissions 17 in the house. And this morning, they -- well then within 18 about twenty (20) minutes I guess it was, Esso was out doing 19 their rounds, checking on our concern. 20 And the EUB member was going to be there 21 within an hour to forty-five (45) minutes. They phoned me 22 this morning to say that they couldn't find anything. I 23 wonder now, why are there no permanent monitors monitoring 24 those areas of our issues for H2S. 25 If you have an H2S site, you should have a

88

1 permanent monitor, not just your hand held personal monitors. 2 We want something with readings. 3 Thank you. 4 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Mr. Chair, I was wondering 5 before Ms. Klimek gets up, when I was here yesterday, I did 6 ask her -- and she's not aware that I'm going to say this, if 7 she got an apology for -- Mr. Neufeld is not here today, to 8 defend himself. 9 But, there was a -- unless he is -- there was 10 a reference which sort of shows the public and everyone else 11 how we're treated about herself and Ms. Brown's Counsel, I'm 12 not sure if he's here, on Tweedledum and Tweedledee. 13 This is how we are treated out where we are. 14 We are the hillbillies. And I think we -- I did ask her if 15 she got a private apology, she said, yes, she did, but, I 16 think it's incredibly important from the Counsel to do a 17 public apology for the comments that he made yesterday, were 18 absolutely deplorable -- deplorable to have made that 19 comment. 20 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Roth...? 21 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Maybe I'll act as Mr. 22 Neufeld's Counsel, if he'll retain me on this. 23 I realize that that was put across -- Mr. 24 Neufeld did apologize most definitely. The -- the issue of 25 course, as we'd heard from his cross-examination and getting

89

1 up and down is one and it came in -- he -- he quite often 2 quotes Ed Whalen and also quotes Mr. Mousseau and he tries to 3 put his points across in a layperson's fashion and I 4 guarantee there was no disrespect at all intended for -- for 5 Ms. Klimek in that remark. 6 All he wanted to make very clear is, at the 7 end of the day, frankly, we have an Intervenor cost issue 8 that's come up. The Board's already made a preliminary 9 ruling and what he was trying to do is draw to the Panel's 10 attention that -- that there's -- there's an issue here of 11 two (2) people that were acting in sync and he put it in a 12 very layperson's fashion, which is unfortunate and -- very 13 unfortunate that Ms. Klimek took offence at it. 14 And I definitely -- an apology was made 15 personally to Ms. Klimek and I've explained on the record and 16 there was no disrespect intended and we're certainly sorry 17 that any offence was taken. 18 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Bartlett, we -- in the 19 course of these proceedings, sometimes things may be said 20 that people regret. We do expect all of the participants in 21 the proceeding and all of the parties within this Hearing to 22 show respect to each other. 23 Ms. Klimek, do you have any questions of 24 your -- 25 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: No, I have no further

90

1 questions for my panel and they're now available for 2 cross-examination. Perhaps we could take a little break to 3 let them -- 4 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Break, please. 5 MR. CHAIRPERSON: It's twenty-five past 6 10:00, why don't we -- why don't we come back at quarter to 7 11:00? 8 9 --- Upon recessing at 10:28 a.m. 10 --- Upon resuming at 10:55 a.m. 11 12 MR. CHAIRPERSON: If people could take their 13 seats, we'll get underway. 14 Just one (1) correction, and -- and sorry for 15 the delay, we were sorting through the paper and we noticed 16 that NSCRG-14 had five (5) parts, not four (4), and that was 17 our confusion, is we wanted to make sure -- 18 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Yes -- 19 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- we had all of the -- 20 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Just to be -- 21 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- all of that document. 22 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: -- just to be clear in 23 that in that one (1) exhibit, Tia, you can correct me if I'm 24 wrong, there's a couple of the -- there's the big map, a 25 couple of pictures and three (3) letters.

91

1 MS. TIA BARTLETT: There's two (2) pictures, 2 there's the coloured map and then there is two (2) packages, 3 one (1) package with -- and then responses on the back of 4 each package. 5 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 6 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Okay. Sir, my panel is 7 ready for cross-examination now. 8 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Smulski, do you have 13 questions of this panel? 14 MR. KEN SMULSKI: I have no questions in this 15 matter. Thank you. 16 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr. Unger...? 17 MR. JASON UNGER: I have no questions. 18 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms. Szmetan...? 19 MS. SZMETAN: Thank you all for coming 20 forward, no, I don't have any questions. 21 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr. 22 Stepaniuk...? 23 MR. DARIN STEPANIUK: I also don't have 24 questions and I'm not sure if people heard from me early this 25 morning. I'm the lawyer for Alberta Environment and Alberta

92

1 Health and Wellness. 2 And in case you -- you hadn't heard from me 3 before, I do want to thank you for participating in the 4 Hearing. 5 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Roth...? 6 7 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERNARD ROTH: 8 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Good -- good morning. I'm 9 Bernard Roth, I represent Agrium here. And what I'm doing 10 now, we've officially called a conversation and I've -- or a 11 cross-examination and I would prefer not to do a cross- 12 examination although that's kind of what I got prepared here 13 in a regular -- lawyer style is questions and then I maybe 14 try and trap you and do this and do that, and we saw a lot of 15 that yesterday. 16 And I don't want to do that at all today, 17 because I -- I would much rather have a conversation with 18 you. And if I'm going to do that, I've got to be fair with 19 you -- fair with you and tell you where we're going, because 20 I want kind of want you to put your guard down and I won't 21 worry about traps and things like that. 22 So, I'll tell you exactly what I'm trying to 23 do. And maybe before I do that, I think I should introduce 24 myself and kind of put a face on myself as a human being and 25 what not.

93

1 I represent Agrium and the reason I represent 2 Agrium primarily, is because I have a very good friend who is 3 in-house Counsel at Agrium who has been sitting next to us, 4 Gary Thoms, he's been a friend and acquaintance of mine and 5 we've been family friends before he ever worked for Agrium, 6 going back. 7 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Roth -- Ms. Klimek is 8 trying to edge you off the microphone -- 9 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Sir, I'm not quite sure, 10 what relevance's Counsel's history here is. I mean this is a 11 proceeding and I guess I'm a little -- where are we going 12 with this? 13 It's a cross-examination. I understand what 14 he's trying to do, but why is this relevant to what we're 15 doing? My clients are prepared to answer questions. 16 MR. BERNARD ROTH: And certainly -- there will 17 be questions, sir. And like, her clients are emotionally 18 involved in this and the last thing in the world I want to 19 do, is cause them any more grief. 20 What I'm trying to do is create a relationship 21 with the witnesses, tell them exactly where I'm going. I 22 don't want people in -- tears, I understand where they're 23 coming from. 24 The last thing in the world I want to be is 25 the big bad industry lawyer, and I'm just trying to say where

94

1 -- where I come from, tell them what I'm trying to accomplish 2 here and I think that will be helpful for them, helpful for 3 the Board. 4 Otherwise, if I just go about asking a bunch 5 of questions, I -- so if I can a brief opening statement as 6 far as the case at this point, which lawyers are generally 7 entitled to do, both before the Board, quite often you have a 8 policy witness give it. 9 I'm just kind of introducing who I am in an 10 extended fashion. I think it would be easier -- I know it 11 would be -- I'm sure it'll be easier for the witnesses and I 12 think it'll be -- it'll be more difficult for me, because 13 I've got a cross-examination prepared. 14 And after Mr. Henkelman introduced himself to 15 me last night and asked me if we were -- were related, 16 because he's married to a Roth and then I heard Alysha this 17 morning, I couldn't come up here and grill people. 18 It's just -- so I -- I would really like to 19 try and establish a connection and then carry on with a 20 conversation that's geared to questions. 21 MS. TIA BARTLETT: We're prepared to be 22 grilled. We've -- we've -- the emotion part of this -- there 23 has been emotion and emotion probably still will come up, but 24 we've come fully prepared for this and we have spent five (5) 25 years preparing for this.

95

1 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Klimek, I doubt that 2 anything we hear from Mr. Roth will be evidence related to 3 Agrium's application and -- and in that respect, if -- if he 4 believes that a short introduction as to who he is may lead 5 to better responses and more complete responses from the 6 panel, I think we're prepared to sit through this. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. BERNARD ROTH: 9 MR. BERNARD ROTH: So -- I -- and I don't 10 want to upset you by doing this, because this will be totally 11 defeating my purpose. 12 MS. TIA BARTLETT: I'm just feeling that now 13 -- I don't want you to feel that you have to tippy toe with 14 us. We don't need any tippy toeing. 15 MR. BERNARD ROTH: And it won't be -- it 16 won't be tippy toeing. It'll just -- actually, it's more for 17 my benefit and my -- because I really don't like people to 18 think ill -- ill of me. So if you can -- and you do, right 19 now -- you're not too keen on my client. I'll try and do 20 what I can to -- to redeem them somewhat with -- with-- with 21 you as well and I wouldn't want you to think ill of me. 22 So, I guess by way of that introduction, I 23 guess the first thing I wanted to remark upon is we've 24 characterized this, I think, and I've seen land zoning and 25 land planning issues and the first thing I wanted to do, is

96

1 express personal empathy for you. 2 And when I heard Alysha talking about family 3 fights and whatnot, I -- recently, we've bought a lot in 4 Calgary and we want to relocate there and we have a family of 5 five (5) and we've -- my wife convinced me to purchase it and 6 the reason I said Alysha brought this up is 90 percent of the 7 fights we have in our house is me with my wife, because I 8 didn't want to buy it in the first place, and the kids not 9 wanting to move there. 10 And then the other parallel between our 11 situations is that -- the roughest time I've ever had with a 12 regulatory tribunal in my entire life is going before the 13 Calgary Sub-division Development and Appeal Board when I got 14 a neighbour complaint that is right now, forcing me to move a 15 little barn and a little outhouse I have built on my lot, 16 off. 17 And I came back out of that hearing and I was 18 devastated. I was treated probably as disrespectfully as I 19 ever had. This Board is a superb Board relative to what I 20 know you've been through with local governments and that's 21 just the nature of them, they're highly political bodies. 22 And, so -- when -- did -- when you go through 23 this and you go through your -- your fight, I have -- have -- 24 have been there. This is a high class proceeding with 25 respect to the way this Board is run. I realize where you've

97

1 been with respect to land development and zoning bodies and 2 the process and the treatment. 3 So, I'm just going to go on with questioning. 4 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: I was just going to say 5 this is all a very sad story. But maybe if this is to be 6 part of Agrium's presentation, I should have an opportunity 7 to cross-examine Mr. Roth on his history and -- and what 8 relevance it might have to this -- 9 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Yes -- 10 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: -- and I'd just make 11 that -- I guess I'm a little taken aback by this, so -- 12 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Ms. -- Ms. Klimek the 13 rumours of Mr. Roth's plight with the city of Calgary have 14 travelled through the legal community in Calgary where -- 15 some of us are quite aware of the situation. 16 I can assure you, you do not need to 17 cross-examine Mr. Roth. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. BERNARD ROTH: 20 MR. BERNARD ROTH: The -- the last point I was 21 going to make, is the last parallel was media coverage, and 22 I've -- I've received my -- my -- my own, quite to my chagrin 23 on that. So, in any event, that -- that was the end of that 24 intro -- introduction, sir. I would happy to -- to, over a 25 beer, or on the record, answer any questions Ms. Klimek has

98

1 on my interesting stories. 2 But, in any event, now for -- where -- where - 3 - if I'm going to do this as a conversation rather than a 4 cross-examination, I have to tell you, so you can put your 5 guard down. Although you don't have to, but I think if I'm 6 asking you to, I have to be fair with you. 7 I -- the first purpose of my questioning, and 8 I want to make an argument at the end of the day, and that's 9 the purpose of questioning, all the -- all the time. 10 The first purpose is to fit where Agrium is as 11 far as your concerns go, temporally, like, when you moved 12 into the area, and things like that, and I -- I want to 13 discuss that for just a bit. 14 Then I wanted to discuss, buyouts and 15 real-estate values. I had a few questions on that with 16 regard to the McIntosh's and maybe up front, the Cho -- 17 Cholowski's, who I didn't know weren't com -- coming right 18 now, but I've got a few -- few questions there. 19 And then on public consultation, there -- 20 there's been some criticisms of what Agrium's done by -- by 21 way of public consultation, and I wanted to address some of 22 those with you, the noise issue and SNAP with Ms. Henkelman, 23 I wanted to talk about that, and I want to be defensive of 24 Agrium's public consultation. That's why I'm engaging in -- 25 in the discussion, because at the end of the day I want to

99

1 argue that they did a good job. 2 And, finally, I want to know what we can 3 accomplish from your perspective out of this Proceeding, like 4 how -- how can this Board in its decision, help -- help you. 5 And I want to -- that's how I want to conclude our -- our 6 conversation, what previously was my cross-examination. 7 So, with -- with that said, the first quest -- 8 questions I had was with respect to the -- Cholowskis, and I 9 believe -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong, the 10 Cholowskis were here for about forty-eight (48) years? 11 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: I believe that's 12 correct, and it's pronounced Cholowski. 13 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Chol -- oh, sorry, 14 Cholowski, sorry about that. 15 And, so they would have been the only family 16 that was residing in the area before the Redwater Plant was 17 built? I think everybody else who's introduced themselves -- 18 MR. WARD SAWATZKY: I can answer that, I 19 think. No, my family was on this prop -- on SW-26. My 20 father had that property before me and that's where I was 21 raised. 22 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay, and -- 23 MR. WARD SAWATZKY: And also Leonard Kropp was 24 in the area. The plant was constructed in 1969. 25 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Oh, indeed, yes.

100

1 MR. WARD SAWATZKY: So, it would be 2 Cholowskis, Kropps, Sawatzkys, Henkelmans -- 3 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Right, indeed. And Mr. -- 4 Mr. Henkelman, I believe you discussed this in -- in your 5 opening statement. You owned the land since, I believe 1942, 6 when your -- when your father pur -- purchased it, but you -- 7 MR. PERCIVAL HENKELMAN: I grew up there too, 8 I -- I grew up and went to school across the -- across the 9 road from our place. 10 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Right, and then you moved 11 back about ten (10) years ago, and your daughter moved there 12 thirteen (13) or fourteen (14) years ago. 13 MR. PERCIVAL HENKELMAN: Hmm hmm, correct, 14 correct, yeah. 15 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay. And Mr. Ziegeman, I 16 believe you -- you, as far as residing in a house, you've 17 been about ten (10) years that -- that you've been where you 18 currently are? 19 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: Did you say Ziegeman? 20 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Oh, sorry, sorry, Mr. Saw 21 -- sorry, Mr. Sawatz -- or no, Ziegeman's ten -- ten (10) 22 years, I believe you -- you said you were there. 23 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: Eleven (11), and it's 24 Mrs. Eleven (11) and it's Mrs. 25 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Mrs. -- And, Mr. Sawatzky,

101

1 about seventeen (17) or eighteen (19) years that you've been 2 at your current location? 3 MR. WARD SAWATZKY: I've been there for 4 eighteen (18) years -- 5 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Great. 6 MR. WARD SAWATZKY: -- with my family. But 7 before that, I was raised on that property. 8 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Correct, correct. And Mr. 9 Henkelman, I -- I appreciate that you were originally raised 10 there and then moved back about ten (10) years ago for 11 retirement purposes. Good. 12 And as far as the -- and I'm -- you're going 13 to correct me again on there, Chol -- Cholowski -- 14 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Cholowski. 15 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Cholowskis' are concerned. 16 My -- my understanding is, and I just recently gained this, 17 when I asked, I think when I -- did -- or understood this 18 when I asked your counsel where -- where they were. I take 19 it they're in the final discussions with -- about having 20 their property sold and moving -- moving out? 21 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: That's correct, I 22 believe it is finalized with Shell. 23 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay, so Shell has 24 purchased their -- their prop -- property? 25 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: That's correct, two (2)

102

1 quarter sections. 2 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay. Now, Mrs. Bartlett 3 and I believe this was discussed, you purchased your property 4 from the Marquardts in about 1998? 5 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yes, I did. 6 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay. And did you know 7 them before you bought your property? 8 MS. TIA BARTLETT: No, I did not. 9 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay. Did you talk to them 10 before you -- bought your property? 11 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Ten (10) minutes, I flew 12 out from BC and then flew back out again. 13 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay. And you indicated 14 you knew that they were moving just to the north -- 15 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yes -- 16 MR. BERNARD ROTH: -- before you purchased the 17 property? 18 MS. TIA BARTLETT: -- yes, yes, I did. 19 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay, and did you -- did 20 you see Agrium's facility or did you -- 21 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yes, I asked them and the 22 realtor what type of plant it was, and they told me that it 23 was a fertilizer plant. 24 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay. And the gyp-stack 25 was there at that -- that time?

103

1 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Oh, yes. 2 MR. BERNARD ROTH: And did you discuss with 3 the Marquardts, did they relay any concerns that they had to 4 you about whether -- 5 MS. TIA BARTLETT: No, I -- I mean you're 6 there for ten (10) minutes you're -- actually my husband and 7 Mrs. Marquardt talked about motorbikes because her son did 8 major dirt biking and so they discussed that. 9 And -- and I, you know, a lovely family, they 10 were moving down the road, their son moved down the road, I 11 would have not have thought of anything else. 12 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay. And Mrs. Marquardt, 13 you never thought, you never indicated any concerns that you 14 might have had to the Agrium plant to the Bartlett's before 15 they purchased your home? 16 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: One (1) of my concerns 17 at the time, was the gravel pit that they were proposing. 18 And I did mention that to her husband. 19 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay, but, nothing about 20 Agrium. 21 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: No, that was very 22 visible. 23 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay. Indeed. And I 24 believe, in fairness, Mrs. Bartlett, you described your first 25 year there, as grand, in your opening testimony you had --

104

1 you had -- 2 MS. TIA BARTLETT: It was truly was. It -- it 3 was. 4 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay. And I believed, also 5 -- Ms. Henkelman, you were fairly fair about this too, 6 really, a lot of the concerns that are driving your 7 intervention today, have been what you described as basically 8 astronomical industry development? 9 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Oh, there's definite 10 connection, yes. 11 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Right. And that is post- 12 Agrium development that's caused this along with the zoning 13 issues that have become associated with it? 14 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Well, we were 15 complaining about Agrium though before our land was re-zoned. 16 We had issues with Agrium before the land was re-zoned. 17 MR. BERNARD ROTH: And -- indeed, but, as far 18 as what you're doing today and the objections of -- a lot of 19 it is, I take it, due to the astronomical industry 20 development that you've noticed in recent years and the re- 21 zoning. 22 I believe the -- the development and Shell 23 Upgrader process, preceded the re-zoning? Shell applied in 24 1998? 25 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: I think that's correct.

105

1 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay. 2 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: No, we're here for 3 Agrium. 4 MR. BERNARD ROTH: No, indeed, but, your 5 problems aren't strictly related to -- 6 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: They are connected with 7 land use and other industries, yes. 8 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Right. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Now, just as far as you -- 13 you were -- in that there was another public hearing process 14 with respect to the Shell Upgrader and I believe, there was - 15 - you spoke of a number of them, Ms. Henkelman, there was 16 quite a long list? 17 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Yes. 18 MR. BERNARD ROTH: And I guess I just view the 19 -- reports of the public hearing processes and I take it -- 20 no one from this group, as I recall, had been -- intervening 21 in those proceedings? 22 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: No, we were not. 23 Actually I don't think any of us even understood the process 24 at that time. I know I didn't. 25 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay.

106

1 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: I did attend the 2 Hearings, but I was not part of them. 3 MS. TIA BARTLETT: And I was not here during 4 that time, it had been basically completed when I moved out 5 here. 6 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Right. Now, to the -- 7 that's kind of where Agrium fits within the scheme of things. 8 Now, I wanted to talk a little bit about the - 9 - the buy-out situation. And I believe one (1) of the things 10 that occurred during the public consultation process, is you 11 asked Agrium to represent you before the County of 12 Strathcona, to see if there was any possibility of extending 13 the buy out to the north, to -- to your group? 14 MS. TIA BARTLETT: It had already been 15 basically finalized that the buy-out was done with -- with 16 them. We would have like to have been included. But, the 17 buy-out of the twenty four (24) people when I came was just 18 in the finishing processes, with their lawyers on -- on the 19 finalization of those twenty-four (24). 20 We were not, at that point, able to -- to go 21 in with those twenty-four (24). 22 MR. BERNARD ROTH: No, indeed, and my -- my 23 point was just as far as the public consultation process that 24 took place on the current application, one (1) of the things 25 that Agrium did, and what was on the slides, is Agrium went

107

1 to the County of Strathcona to discuss with the County 2 whether there was any possibility that the County would -- 3 would extend another buy-out to the north? 4 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yeah, that was Greg 5 McGlone. Greg Phillip McGlone, actually he went forth. I 6 had spoken to him and Ms. Andrews in October of 2002 and -- 7 and he had taken that to Agrium at that time and came back 8 with -- I didn't get anything back from that other than he 9 had went. 10 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Right. But you had made 11 the request that he go to the County to make the request that 12 the County extend the buy-out to the north? 13 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yes. 14 MR. BERNARD ROTH: And he -- 15 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yes. 16 MR. BERNARD ROTH: So, just as far as if 17 we're talking -- and I believe -- 18 MS. TIA BARTLETT: But they didn't follow 19 through with what they did with us either. When they wanted 20 -- when they asked for a purchase. So this is why I was 21 speaking to him. 22 MR. BERNARD ROTH: And we'll get to that a 23 bit -- a bit later, Ms. Bartlett. And Ms. Ziegeman, I 24 believe you raised this in your opening statement. Like, the 25 issue is, well, who should buy -- buy you out. I take it

108

1 that as far as the re-zoning process, the party that you 2 identified that was the most appropriate was the County; 3 correct? 4 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yes. 5 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay. And I guess if it 6 wasn't the County the issue is, well, who from industry is? 7 Which company buys -- buys you out. Do you agree there's an 8 issue here? 9 MS. TIA BARTLETT: It's the company that is 10 causing us the most grief right now is what I had told 11 Agrium. Is that they were causing us the most grief, the 12 most hardship, the most health issues and I said, if you're 13 not able to get the County to buy us out then you're 14 responsible for this. 15 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay. And the Cholowskis 16 were intervening basically as part of this group as well and 17 now it's not Agrium but it's Shell who's -- who's purchased 18 the Cholowskis lands; correct? 19 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: The Cholowskis live 20 directly between Shell and Agrium. 21 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Right. Right. Now, Ms. 22 Marquardt, just as far as your -- your home, I understand you 23 sold your home to the Bartletts; correct? 24 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: Yes. 25 MR. BERNARD ROTH: And then a home was

109

1 purchased and moved onto your property from -- 2 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: We purchased a mobile 3 home. 4 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay. 5 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: Our son purchased the 6 -- that quarter section and he suggested we sell our acreage 7 and put a mobile on his property -- 8 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay. 9 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: Which I did not want 10 to do but finally agreed to and, consequently, we sold to 11 Bartletts and moved down the road where I thought we would be 12 very happy. As long as he couldn't see us, he was okay with 13 that. 14 MR. BERNARD ROTH: And I understand that he 15 purchased one of the homes that the County bought from one of 16 the landowners in -- 17 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: No. He bought it 18 privately from Jake De Bon (phonetic) -- 19 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Oh, okay. 20 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: -- who had lived there 21 since the early '60s. 22 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay. And this was one 23 (1) of the homes on the -- on the land that was moved off 24 that the County had purchased? 25 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: No, no, no. He --

110

1 Jake de Bon built his own house on that quarter section where 2 our son lives, and us. 3 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay. 4 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: And then Brent 5 purchased a home and moved it onto that property -- 6 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay. 7 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: -- and got rid of the 8 original small home which wasn't big enough for a young 9 family. 10 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay. And he just -- he 11 did that in about 2001? 12 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: Two (2) years ago. 13 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Two (2) years ago. Good 14 deal. Now, we'll come back to some questions on real estate 15 values and buy-outs a little bit later. What I wanted to 16 discuss now was a bit about public consultation. 17 And in paragraph 16 of your submission you 18 list out a bunch of issues that you have with public 19 consultation and what Agrium had told you. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 MR. BERNARD ROTH: I -- I believe this is 24 your -- your submission -- 25 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: That's right.

111

1 MR. BERNARD ROTH: -- Ms. Henkelman? Now, I 2 guess, had you ever have gone to Agrium before you wrote this 3 submission and just asked for explanations on -- on these 4 particular items and asked them to clarify these points for 5 you? 6 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: I'd have to read the 7 points first. Are you talking about number 16? 8 MR. BERNARD ROTH: I'm talking -- yeah, 9 there's a number of -- there's a number of itemized issue -- 10 issues there, where you wanted basically explanations of 11 issues that were raised in the -- in the EIA relative to the 12 NPRI, and there were a number of other concerns you had after 13 reading the EIA. 14 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: I'm sure that some of 15 them were brought up, yes. 16 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay, like I was kind of -- 17 when -- Agrium had suggested about a -- a month ago that we 18 -- Agrium would like to sit down with you and try and address 19 as many concerns as possible, do you -- were you aware of 20 that? 21 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: I am indeed, they 22 apparently went to our lawyer and she did inform us about 23 that. 24 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay, and I'm just 25 wondering, like a lot of these questions I know could have

112

1 been quite easily answered in a discussion, and I'm just kind 2 of curious as to why -- what do -- 3 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Well, an easy answer 4 would have been nice, because obviously we had a very limited 5 time to prepare for this. We have been extremely busy in the 6 past month, even finding an evening or an afternoon together, 7 all the residents together, I don't think it would have 8 happened. 9 MR. BERNARD ROTH: But the possibility of 10 resolving those concerns in advance, might have made your 11 preparation a little bit easier if you didn't have to worry 12 about getting an expert, or speaking to those -- those 13 points? 14 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: I think unless Agrium 15 packs up and leaves, they won't -- they won't satisfy any of 16 our questions. 17 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 MR. BERNARD ROTH: The other thing that I 22 guess I just found a little bit of an issue, you talked this 23 morning about not having funding to review this before the 24 Intervenor Funding Process. And I know I was speaking with 25 Ms. Klimek as early as last summer, and nobody had ever

113

1 requested, I believe, of Agrium, or certainly not through us, 2 any Intervenor funding in advance for expert's reports? 3 MS. TIA BARTLETT: No, we had not asked, I -- 4 I guess maybe we should have, but I would have not thought 5 that they would have paid, with the comments we've had from 6 Agrium before, that there would be any financial -- we've 7 been very fortunate, it took us a very long time to get Mrs. 8 Klimek, it took over a year to find someone who would act on 9 our behalf, with, at this point hasn't received anything from 10 us. 11 You know, and -- and Cheryl and I felt really 12 bad, you know, I mean this was an issue that -- to have a 13 lawyer when you're just the little people is, and you know, 14 it's not like we all have great big jobs that we can afford 15 this. 16 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Well, no ... 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: I also wanted to 21 respond that, I mean, we are lay people, we don't understand 22 these processes. We are definitely getting smarter the older 23 that we get and the more that we go through. I would have 24 never thought to ask Agrium for money. 25 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Indeed. Okay, but as far

114

1 as your criticism of them -- of them there, I guess you were 2 looking for them to offer it to you, you're not sugg -- I 3 guess the only point I want to clarify is the way the 4 submission reads is as if you had requested it and they 5 haven't given it. 6 MS. TIA BARTLETT: No, that was the -- there 7 was -- we do have three (3) experts who were on the Panel, 8 which we did not get Intervenorship for. One (1) being Mr. 9 Baker and we have -- what the residents have footed funding 10 out for him, because we're not sure if we are going to get 11 Intervenorship status for Dr. Krook, sorry, Dr. Krook. 12 So, at this point, unless the Board grants us 13 money for these other three (3), we will be footing out our 14 own personal money for those other three (3) experts. 15 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Now, the McIntoshs were 16 part of your group originally; correct? Correct? 17 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yes. 18 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Sorry, we do have to -- 19 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yeah, I know. 20 MR. BERNARD ROTH: And we can be very 21 conversational -- 22 MS. TIA BARTLETT: I do sign language too, so, 23 I could provide this in sign. 24 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Thank you very much. So, 25 how long did they have their property listed, do you -- do

115

1 you know? 2 MS. TIA BARTLETT: It was from October to -- 3 approximately seven/eight (7/8) months, I -- according to my 4 letter, yeah, six (6) months, six (6) months. 5 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Six (6) months before it 6 sold? 7 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yes. 8 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay. 9 MS. TIA BARTLETT: And they had people there 10 who were trying to buy who were unable to. 11 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Oh, this -- 12 MS. TIA BARTLETT: And that's in one (1) of my 13 letters that you guys have. 14 MR. BERNARD ROTH: -- that they were renting 15 to or? 16 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Pardon -- no, the trailer 17 that they had there was a young couple who wanted to purchase 18 their home and were unable to because their bank would not 19 allow them to purchase the home in that area, because it was 20 zoned under two (2) different zonings. 21 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay. So they had a -- they 22 had a trailer on what I understand to be about a ten (10) 23 acre parcel? 24 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Nine point three (9.3) 25 acres, yes.

116

1 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Nine point three (9.3) acre 2 parcel. And -- so there's a new family, did the new family 3 also purchase the mobile home that's on the property, do you 4 know? 5 MS. TIA BARTLETT: There is a new family 6 there. I cannot comment on the conversation that I have had 7 with them. So -- I do know how they purchased it, but, I 8 cannot comment. But it was not done in the regular form that 9 the rest of us would purchase the home. 10 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay. And like I -- I 11 guess and maybe I -- so I understand you, you feel you're 12 under some confidential relationship -- 13 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yes, that are not part of 14 our group and -- 15 MR. BERNARD ROTH: I might be able to help you 16 out a little bit there -- just respecting confidentiality. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 MR. BERNARD ROTH: I understand exactly where 21 you're coming from, and neighbours would -- and just to 22 explain the process. 23 What ends up happening when you purchase 24 property, is you have to sign both the consideration you paid 25 for the property as well as an affidavit of value has to be

117

1 sworn. 2 And then that goes into the public domain, 3 which then I -- 4 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Okay, no this is the way 5 they bought the property, is what I'm not discussing. I'm 6 not discussing a purchase price, it's how they got the funds 7 to buy the property. 8 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Oh, okay -- 9 MS. TIA BARTLETT: And so this is -- if I can 10 just go back one (1) second with talking to CIBC in Toronto, 11 which is, I believe, might be in one (1) of the reports you 12 have. 13 When we were thinking about -- when we had had 14 enough and we were thinking about selling our home, well 15 we've always though about selling our home -- is I talked to 16 the CIBC in Sherwood Park. 17 And when I explained after the re-zoning had 18 gone through, which is an approved document that were zoned 19 heavy industrial, under their industrial heartland by-law, I 20 also said that my taxes though says that I am agricultural. 21 So, they had no idea, they had never heard of 22 this before, being zoned twice, how you can be zoned twice, 23 they said they wouldn't touch anyone. So they sent me to 24 speak to the bigwigs in Toronto. 25 I talked to them for an hour, explaining.

118

1 Again, they could not -- now this is just CIBC, I did not go 2 to any other banks. They could not understand how this 3 county was able to have two (2) zonings. 4 One (1) heavy industrial and one (1) 5 agricultural. And he told me unless someone was to buy your 6 property in cash, he says, we have no control on how -- you 7 know, that person purchasing. 8 If this was the CMHC, which is your Canadian 9 Mortgage and Housing, which most first time buyers have to go 10 under, he said that they would not grant that because we are 11 zoned, under an approved document, heavy industrial, which 12 means only heavy industry can buy your property. 13 So, that might answer the first question on 14 the people who are down the road. 15 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Right, the title might be 16 helpful too, because it does tell you how the property was 17 financed. So, it might be helpful, maybe to -- 18 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yeah, and that is true. 19 But, again it's -- it's -- they told me anyone who would 20 come in to get a mortgage, CMHC would not approve them. 21 So, I -- so at this point, to put my house up 22 for sale, to go through that and then have someone come in 23 and go rah, rah, we want to buy your home and then they get 24 all excited and then all of the sudden they -- which is what 25 happened to the first couple.

119

1 And the county is aware of this too, Charlene 2 Courie (phonetic) their senior planner is aware of that. 3 MR. BERNARD ROTH: This might help and this is 4 where cross-examination differs from what you'd have done, 5 because usually what I'd have done is you'd have told me that 6 and then I'd put the document to you and say, hah, there's a 7 mortgage on the property. 8 And so and that's not what I wanted to intend 9 to do to you, but -- 10 MS. TIA BARTLETT: But, you can -- 11 MR. BERNARD ROTH: -- no, no, I'll just 12 distribute this now, if that's okay, sir. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Roth, we'll make the 17 title abstract for plan 7621501, Lot A, Exhibit Agrium 15. I 18 am told that it's not Agrium 15. Agrium 34, my apologies. 19 20 --- EXHIBIT NO. AGRIUM 34: TITLE ABSTRACT FOR PLAN 7621501 21 22 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Would this document or any 23 other document show if someone had co-signed for this? Would 24 this be on this document or would this be something that 25 would be found or is that confidential?

120

1 CONTINUED BY MR. BERNARD ROTH: 2 MR. BERNARD ROTH: No, the issue would 3 probably be just -- 4 MS. TIA BARTLETT: I'm not a lawyer, I'm just 5 -- just asking, it's just a question. Would this document 6 show that? 7 MR. BERNARD ROTH: That's right and my normal 8 response would be this is cross-examination, you can't ask me 9 questions. I said this is conversation, right? So that 10 means that I have to answer. So I got to play by my own 11 rules. 12 No, no it wouldn't Ms. Henkelman but the issue 13 of whether it's CMHC insurable would be an issue of law 14 because it would be covered by the Canada Housing and 15 Mortgage Corporation -- or the National Housing Act. 16 And usually the issue there is -- if -- if the 17 -- as long as certain -- 18 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Can you show me the CMHC 19 on here? 20 MR. BERNARD ROTH: No, no, no, no. That will 21 be -- that will be in CMHC regulations and Canada -- the 22 National Housing Act of Canada Mortgage and Housing Act would 23 -- it would be covered there. 24 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: Could I add something 25 to this? I also talked to Dave Metz about how he got his

121

1 home. Do you realize his uncle is branch manager of the Bank 2 of Montreal? Would that have anything to with it? 3 MS. TIA BARTLETT: It's tough for us here. 4 Because we know information, not suppose to give it and --. 5 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: No, Dave never told me 6 that I couldn't tell anybody that. 7 MR. BERNARD ROTH: No, I -- I-- I'm sorry -- I 8 -- I-- that, if I could answer it I would -- would answer it. 9 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: Well to me this -- this 10 doesn't make any sense to us either. 11 MR. BERNARD ROTH: No in -- in -- indeed. I 12 guess could you just con -- confirm that the -- it wasn't -- 13 that the property sale wasn't industry or the County 14 purchasing this house. It was a pri -- a private sale, 15 correct? 16 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: Can you confirm that 17 his uncle didn't have something to do with it? 18 MR. BERNARD ROTH: No, no I -- I 19 unfortunately I -- I -- I can't. I guess the other question 20 I had is, do you consider one hundred and twenty-three 21 thousand dollars ($123,000) fair market value for the 22 property? 23 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: Absolutely not. 24 MS. TIA BARTLETT: No. Not according to what 25 the other twenty-four (24) people were bought out for and not

122

1 according to what my submission was to Agrium in Agrium in 2 March of 2001. 3 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: And how the value of 4 property has gone up since those other people have been 5 bought out. 6 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Now I have a little bit of 7 a philosophical question in the discussion. Let's -- did you 8 invite Mr. Metz to join your group? 9 MS. TIA BARTLETT: It was Mr. -- Cheryl 10 Henkelman and myself, we offered them all of the information 11 that we had and they expressed that -- that they had just 12 moved there. They were not really wanting to at this point. 13 They wanted to enjoy their land. 14 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Now, I guess this is 15 another philosophical question. Let's say they had -- let's 16 say they changed their mind and de -- decide that they want 17 to join the group or on the next hearing or even on -- on 18 this one and want to be bought out. You say this is not fair 19 market value but should the industry or County be paying them 20 more than one hundred and twenty-three thousand five hundred 21 dollars ($123,500) to buy out? 22 MS. TIA BARTLETT: That would be up to the 23 Metz's. I -- I am not -- my husband does go snowmobiling 24 with him when he's home. I don't speak with them. My 25 daughter rides with -- they're a very young, young couple

123

1 and, you know, that's up to them. That's not my business at 2 that time. We informed them of what was happening in this 3 area. 4 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Now would you agree with 5 me that -- that -- and you're going to the analogy of what 6 maybe Shell has paid for some houses that it bought for its 7 -- its upgrader and what the County may have paid. 8 But would you agree with me that generally 9 speaking industry has significantly increased real estate 10 values in -- in the area generally? 11 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: We apparently live in 12 the $21 million neighbourhood -- billion dollar 13 neighbourhood. 14 MR. BERNARD ROTH: So there are -- are lots 15 of employees who want homes and that pushes up -- I know in 16 Ft. McMurray this is always one of the biggest issues and 17 it's not that land is being devalued but it's the rents are 18 always going up. So in the past there have been situations 19 where the Board has given intervener funding because of 20 escalating real estate costs rather than decreasing. 21 So I -- I guess my question to you is and 22 maybe there are other people out in the community that agree 23 with this, but has there been an upward trend in real estate 24 pressures associated with industrial development and jobs? 25 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Not in our area.

124

1 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay. 2 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Can I make this one (1) 3 comment -- comment, not going to ask you a question, is when 4 I -- when I spoke to Chris Micek back in March, we put on a 5 convenience fee, and I'm wondering why it is, because I can 6 see where you're going with this, why is it that industry can 7 take opportune moments of their lives to purchase land from 8 people to -- to do this, yet for us, who are living in these 9 health effects, for us who have to deal with this, for us for 10 having -- if it wasn't for us, we would not be here. We 11 would not be here. 12 And so I wonder why we are looking like 13 opportunists sitting here? 14 MR. BERNARD ROTH: We'll have to get -- and 15 maybe this is -- this is where the conversation gets a little 16 bit rigid and kind of goes to a quasi-cross-examination, Ms. 17 Bartlett, it's -- you paid a hundred and fifty thousand 18 dollars ($150,000) for your property in 1998, Ms. Bartlett -- 19 MS. TIA BARTLETT: And have added -- or 20 actually our house, if you -- is -- because we've added a 21 barn also, it has gone up, because we have added a five (5) 22 stall barn. 23 MR. BERNARD ROTH: And you've fenced it? 24 MS. TIA BARTLETT: We've fenced, we have 25 cross-fenced, yes.

125

1 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Yeah. And you did discuss 2 your conversations with Agrium, regarding what your 3 expectations for a buy out were? 4 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yes, I did, and I have it 5 all itemized by myself and my realtor, and I have it here if 6 you need to see that. 7 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay. I guess -- I have a 8 letter that you wrote to Agrium, that just kind of sets out 9 what your expectations were, and maybe I could give you that 10 letter? 11 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yeah. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Roth, the Panel is a 16 little concerned that we -- I don't know quite where we're 17 going with what might normally considered -- be considered 18 very personal information, and -- 19 MR. BERNARD ROTH: It's -- it's -- 20 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- I want to make sure that 21 the witnesses have no discomfort with this information coming 22 forward. 23 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. BERNARD ROTH:

126

1 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Yeah, I'll provide -- or 2 maybe -- we don't even have to put it. You basically 3 suggested to Agrium your expectations were three hundred and 4 seventy-five (375) to four hundred thousand dollars 5 ($400,000)? 6 MS. TIA BARTLETT: If I can itemize that, I -- 7 I -- now that you've said it, now I would like to have the 8 opportunity to itemize the value of our home. Now -- now 9 this was back in March of -- March 20th of 2001, and we have 10 added since then. 11 The value of the house -- and this was again 12 prepared with my realtor, and my -- this proposal is without 13 pre-justice and solely for settlement purposes. And I was 14 asked by Agrium, this was not me going forth, I was asked by 15 Agrium to put this together. 16 We have based our figures on building a new 17 home and having to rebuild our lives again on a farm, we are 18 unable to live in a subdivision, as we have a horse farm. 19 After spending three (3) weeks researching 20 other alternatives, it looks as if we may have to buy raw 21 land to get a comparable to what we are living on at this 22 time, and in an area where my thirteen (13) year old daughter 23 can continue to attend the same school without anymore 24 disruptions in her life. We would welcome you to bring an 25 appraiser and to see our home and lifestyle.

127

1 The value of our house at -- they put at a 2 hundred (100) square feet, and it's fifteen hundred and three 3 (1503) square feet, a hundred and fifty thousand (150,000), a 4 finished basement, fifteen thousand (15,000), a three (3) bay 5 heated garage, ten thousand (10,000). 6 At this point the land was being sold for ten 7 thousand dollars ($10,000) per acre, so we have a ninety- 8 three thousand (93,000) on there, a seven (7) stall barn, 9 insulated tack room, electricity, water and concrete, thirty 10 thousand (30,000). Fencing, riding, ring cattery (phonetic), 11 small enclosures, which we have added to was ten thousand 12 (10,000). 13 Lawyers, banking penalties, CMHC fees, 14 closings, expenses, so forth, ten thousand (10,000). Moving 15 expenses ten thousand (10,000), and an inconvenience fee of 16 fifty thousand (50,000), which came to three hundred and 17 seventy-eight thousand dollars ($378,000). 18 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Thank you. And, Ms. 19 Bartlett, just to follow up, and I believe, like you've 20 indicated before, you've -- you've questioned whether you 21 should stay for the fight, or your mother's counsel was that 22 -- just leave and you've chosen to -- and I take it just 23 leaving would result in you not getting the value out of your 24 property that you would like? 25 MS. TIA BARTLETT: No, I -- no, my mom told

128

1 me, I've been at my mother's bedside, and -- and it's all 2 right to cry, her response -- I've been with her, and I also 3 had surgery on January 28th, and I've been with her in the 4 hospital, she's just sixty-one (61), and she told me to 5 leave, to come here, to finish this fight. 6 I will be returning to spend the last three 7 (3) to four (4) weeks with her, I've been talking to her 8 three (3) to four (4) times a day, and you know what, she's 9 pooping. This is a wonderful, exciting thing for us. 10 You know, I mean, this is the minute things of 11 life. My mom pooped, and this was -- I cried, because this 12 is -- because we probably will get a few more days out of 13 her. 14 No, my mom did not, my mom told me to leave 15 from her bedside -- I was not -- I was not going to be here, 16 Cheryl was going to do my thing. 17 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay. And lastly, like 18 there's been a lot of news media stories and on the way up, I 19 was listening to the CBC and I heard one (1) them, and I 20 guess they characterized or part of the story was that -- the 21 group basically hasn't had a win yet, all your -- all your 22 fights so far have been losses. 23 And I want to know what you would consider a 24 win to be, as far as this process? What would win be? 25 MS. TIA BARTLETT: I have mentioned, I'm not

129

1 going to talk on the behalf of -- because I have mentioned 2 and it will probably come up in a letter. 3 Is I have mentioned that re-location for us, 4 at this time, from Agrium with the health effects and now -- 5 that was before I had seen the studies from our experts that 6 relocation at this time, is the only way for my family to 7 continue on. 8 Now, for the rest of the panel, it may be 9 different, but for myself, because it will be in writing, and 10 that is what I have told Agrium; that relocation is the only 11 way for us to carry on. 12 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Okay. So, if the Board 13 denies this application and Agrium shuts down, but does not 14 relocate you, that would not be a win for you? It would be a 15 lose -- 16 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Well, apparently not, 17 because that stack is incredibly contaminated. So no. So, 18 if they closed down, we are still sitting there with a mile 19 and a whatever long stack, which is almost a hundred and 20 fifty (150) feet tall. 21 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Right. 22 MS. TIA BARTLETT: So, my view has changed on 23 that. 24 MR. BERNARD ROTH: So we'd have two (2) 25 losers, Agrium would be a loser, but without relocation, you

130

1 wouldn't be winner either. 2 MS. TIA BARTLETT: No, no. 3 MR. BERNARD ROTH: Thank you very much, sir. 4 Those are my questions. 5 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Roth. 6 Mr. Mousseau...? 7 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: 9 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: I don't have many 10 questions, sir, but the first one (1) is for Ms. Henkelman. 11 I've been quiet for too long and its hard on a lawyer's 12 throat, so. 13 Ms. Henkelman, I think you said that you were 14 a member of SNAP and it wasn't working for you? 15 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: That's correct. 16 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: What would have worked? 17 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: I -- working one (1) on 18 one (1) with Agrium doesn't work. We have, I think, over the 19 years, we have discovered how defensive they become. I had 20 to write this down, for some reason it wouldn't stick. 21 But, every time we bring up something to 22 Agrium, it's like they try to prove that we wrong, instead of 23 trying to improve the situation. 24 Granted they have done some improvements, but 25 we don't notice enough benefits to be happy with those.

131

1 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. And I guess what 2 I'm trying to get at is, if SNAP was ever to revitalized are 3 there some steps that could be taken, say the use of a third 4 party mediator or something like that? Would that be 5 something that could be tried? 6 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: SNAP alone, no. I have 7 -- I mean it's no secret to Agrium, I did say that I would 8 consider coming back if there was like a community advisory 9 panel. 10 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. And would other 11 members of the panel be involved in this and I'm asking these 12 questions with full knowledge that, I think you've suggested, 13 that you really want to bought out. 14 But if that's not the case, would other 15 members of the panel consider being involved in a panel, a 16 community advisory panel like that? 17 Regardless of the outcome of this proceeding? 18 Anyone? 19 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Not myself. I mean after 20 hearing my daughter's -- I'll start to cry again -- after 21 hearing my daughter's submission, obviously my time from this 22 family -- I mean I always was trying to be aware of the time 23 that has been away from my family. 24 But, to go to another meeting -- usually the 25 meetings are during the day, they have been and thankfully

132

1 Ms. Henkelman has her own business, but I -- no, obviously, 2 my family is needing me at home now. 3 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. And the meetings 4 have been during the day, is that accurate? 5 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: That's correct. 6 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. 7 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Usually on-site at 8 Agrium. Usually. 9 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: So you have to travel 10 there during the day. 11 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: That's correct. 12 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: And I take it there's also 13 been some -- the open houses and such were at night, but for 14 these SNAP meetings they were there during the day? 15 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Yeah, we usually met 16 from about 9:00 a.m. 'til noon or 1:00. 17 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: And was that convenient 18 for you? 19 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Well, not for me. I 20 have -- I have livestock and so 6:00 a.m. comes early. 21 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. I think in your 22 presentation today you talked about inversions and you said 23 that they occur with some regularity in that area. And 24 realizing you're not a meteorologist or anything like that, 25 can you -- can you comment on the frequency of these

133

1 inversions; and we'll start with the winter and then we'll 2 talk about the summer. 3 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Sure, in the 4 wintertime we actually do have an awful lot of foggy days 5 around the industrial area. Tia works in Sherwood Park and 6 there's often times where she'll say, oh, it's nice and 7 beautifully clear in Sherwood Park but as soon as we hit our 8 area around the plants, we're socked in. 9 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. And is -- is that 10 also potentially related to the proximity of the river? 11 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: It could be partially, 12 except if you -- if you go like closer to Highway 15 it's 13 still also very -- where the industries are as well. It's 14 heavy. 15 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. So, in terms of 16 regularity, on a weekly basis during the winter, how often 17 would you get an inversion or say on a monthly basis if 18 that's easier? And just, sort of, a ballpark. I'm not -- 19 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Probably about ten 20 (10) days a month. 21 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: And you've discussed the 22 issue of odours and we haven't heard much about odours until 23 today. I'm wondering how often are there odour issues that 24 you get at your house? 25 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: It's probably more

134

1 often that we don't have odours at our house. We get 2 everything from a mercaptan odour, which is the additives 3 that you add -- okay, you know that. I don't need to tell 4 you that. 5 The gyp-stack, we can smell the phosphogypsum 6 if the wind is coming from the west, the northwest. 7 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. And I take it 8 that's with some regularity? Why don't we finish with Ms. 9 Henkelman and we can pass -- pass it on down the line. 10 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Actually, it's quite 11 regular. We -- I believe Agrium has said that the wind is 12 dispersed quite regularly, like in all directions. We feel, 13 like if -- if the wind comes from the south it seems to 14 either bounce of Agrium or bounce off the river. We get the 15 odours and we get the noise. 16 If it's from the west we get the odours and 17 the noise. If it's from the north more northwest, again, 18 it's from Agrium with the noise and the odours. 19 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. And with respect 20 to the odours again. Just if you can give me a frequency on 21 a weekly basis? 22 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: I would probably say 23 five (5) days out of the week. Now, that doesn't necessarily 24 mean I can smell it twenty-four (24) hours in that day but, 25 yeah, very often.

135

1 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. 2 MS. TIA BARTLETT: I don't smell because I -- 3 because of the problems I have now is for eight (8) months I 4 had zero smell, zero taste. 5 MS. ALYSHA BARTLETT: I agree with Cheryl on 6 that one. Like, you smell it, not all the time during the 7 day, but it'll come and you'll smell it. 8 MR. PERCIVAL HENKELMAN: Yeah, I'm kind of 9 old and I don't have too good a smeller anymore, but I -- 10 Cheryl tells me, especially when she's out feeding the horses 11 and she says, don't you smell that and then I usually can. 12 But I'm more inside and I don't spend as much 13 time outside as she does. 14 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Thank you, sir. 15 MS. HEATHER GARON: My family would have to 16 agree with Cheryl. Five (5) out of the seven (7) days, not 17 all day, but quite regularly. 18 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. 19 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: Very frequent and we 20 too aren't here all the time, in fact we go to Arizona for a 21 couple of months. But on average I'd say four (4) to five 22 (5) times, at least -- four (4) to five (5) days out of the 23 week. 24 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. 25 MR. WARD SAWATZKY: I've -- I've smelled it a

136

1 few times but not as regular as these other people. They're 2 a bit farther -- a bit farther to the east. 3 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. 4 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: And with everything 5 else that we have out in the area, like I said about our 6 incident last night, you never know, for sure, what all these 7 smells are unless you actually know the smell. 8 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. And I guess that 9 sort of goes to my next question; can you distinguish smells 10 from different facilities? 11 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Phosphogypsum has a 12 definite odour. 13 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: It's got a distinct 14 odour? 15 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Very distinctive. 16 Yes. 17 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. I want to talk 18 briefly about the noise and a couple of you, I think, 19 described it as a jet engine sound and if I recall correctly, 20 you told us that that was a newer noise, and that it wasn't 21 -- was that always there? Was the jet engine sound always 22 there, or did it sort of emerge after -- or at a certain 23 point in time? 24 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: I don't think anybody's 25 commented that it was a newer noise, it has happened on

137

1 occasion where I think a lifter, if I'm not mistaken, it's a 2 lifter on a stack, and then -- the -- 3 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: What -- what -- maybe if I 4 can take a page from Mr. Roth's book -- 5 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Okay. 6 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: -- I'll tell you where I'm 7 going. 8 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Okay, thank you. 9 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: And -- and it just -- it 10 sort of -- I was wondering if whether or not they've added a 11 piece of equipment that gave rise to a new noise that wasn't 12 previously there. And -- and that was just from discussions 13 with the other folks back here, who thought maybe it was 14 something that they'd added to the plant. But I take it this 15 has historically been the same noise? 16 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: I -- I believe Agrium 17 would just call it an incident. 18 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Oh, there are different 19 noises, I -- I didn't ment -- like I've mentioned, there's 20 the one (1) that sounds where it literally vibrates through 21 the house, where it's like a bass -- like when you have your 22 bass really low on your -- 23 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Right. 24 MS. TIA BARTLETT: -- okay, there's that, you 25 will get that noise, maybe not really loud, but you just get

138

1 this beating going through you. 2 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Yeah. 3 MS. TIA BARTLETT: And then you have the jet 4 engine noise, which is what, when I was writing this report, 5 listening to the other night. 6 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay, and that's since 7 you've been in your -- in your residence, that both -- 8 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yes. 9 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: -- noises have been 10 present? 11 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yes. 12 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay, okay. Now, how 13 about the flaring from Agrium, again I'm just trying to get 14 an idea of the frequency? 15 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Well, according to Agrium, 16 the one (1) video that I do have, they didn't have an 17 incident on one (1) of their flarings, and it was a very 18 large flare. 19 We see the flares from we are (sic), not -- 20 not as much as we do from Shell, and I will say that, and I'm 21 not sure if Cheryl or anybody else sees the flares more, but 22 other than that, maybe three (3) or four (4) incidences of 23 huge flaring, which was not when it was reported to Alberta 24 Environment that was a typical night. 25 And if I showed you that video, and if I told

139

1 you that was a typical night, you probably would be getting 2 us out. 3 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: So, it's three (3) to four 4 (4) flaring a night. 5 MS. TIA BARTLETT: No, that was the night that 6 we had that big video, but the -- 7 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. 8 MS. TIA BARTLETT: -- no, there's always like 9 a little flare. 10 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Right. 11 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Like they always have 12 flares. 13 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Right. 14 MS. TIA BARTLETT: They always have flaring 15 going. 16 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: I think what we were 17 getting at were these larger flaring incidents? 18 MS. TIA BARTLETT: No, probab -- from my -- 19 from mine, there was probably three (3) to four (4)incidences 20 that were this large. 21 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: My line of questioning's 22 been cut off. 23 Just to -- to skip back a bit to the two (2) 24 types of noise we were talking about, we'll start with the 25 jet engine noise --

140

1 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Hmm hmm. 2 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: -- how -- how frequent is 3 that? 4 MS. TIA BARTLETT: That's at least twenty (20) 5 times out of thirty (30) in the month at my home. 6 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay, and the other noise, 7 the -- the low bass noise? 8 MS. TIA BARTLETT: The -- the low bass noise, 9 I -- it usually comes with the jet engine noise at one (1) 10 point, but I would say the low -- the -- I would say ten (10) 11 -- ten (10) to fifteen (15) times out of the month you'll get 12 that. 13 The reason I'm saying that one (1) is probably 14 on a Dba level, probably would not register as high as that 15 jet engine one (1), but it does cause enough stress to -- to 16 send us downstairs. 17 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay, and these noises, 18 they're periodic, are they periodic in nature, or are they 19 continuous, so when you hear the jet engine, it goes on and 20 on and on, or does it come on and off and on and off? 21 MS. TIA BARTLETT: You'll have both. You -- 22 you will have both. You will -- I will wake up where 23 sometimes you think the dryers going on downstairs, and -- 24 and you wake up and it's Agrium. My daughter would like to 25 speak.

141

1 MS. ALYSHA BARTLETT: From -- after I get off 2 school I spend about from four o'clock to eight o'clock 3 outside, Agrium you're always hearing a growling noise, but 4 then there's this -- then like beeping sound, I don't know 5 what the beeping's from. But then you'll hear an awful lurch 6 and then it just roars, like -- and you'll hear that quite 7 often when I'm outside with the horses. 8 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. I wanted to ask you 9 briefly about the pitting of glass, and I think we heard from 10 Mr. Walberg that his observations out -- it was just on the 11 windshields, is -- is that an accurate description of where 12 the pitting occurs, or is it on -- 13 MS. TIA BARTLETT: The Marquardts have 14 mentioned from our home, I probably don't keep my windows 15 clean enough to be able to see the pitting, and right now -- 16 and that has not been a focus for me. So -- so if they had 17 experts, other than -- and it's nothing against you Darcy, 18 want a Kleenex, is -- it's not against -- it's not against 19 Darcy, but it's -- we need experts in this. 20 And so, again I haven't -- but Ms. Marquardt 21 probably could answer to that. 22 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: Yes, I'll speak 23 regarding that. Like I said, it was about five (5) years 24 after we were in our home. And I do like clean windows. And 25 the west side of our home, was -- all the windows had this

142

1 fine pitting on them. 2 And it wasn't due to lack of cleaning, because 3 I persisted, but it was definitely glass etching. And I did 4 mention also that we brought this issue up, every time we had 5 a chance, with Agrium. They never addressed it, they never 6 looked at them. 7 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: And this was on the 8 house -- 9 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: The was on our house on 10 the acreage. 11 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. And I just want to 12 -- with respect to your vehicles, you've complained about the 13 pitting on the windshield. Is there pitting on the side and 14 the back windows, as well. Have you looked for that? 15 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: Well, you don't usually 16 look out the back window that closely when you're driving. 17 But definitely on the windshield, front of the vehicle. 18 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: But, you haven't noticed 19 it on the other windows. 20 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: Actually on the side, 21 on the driver's side, the way we parked our cars. That side 22 was also exposed. Definitely the windshield. 23 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: And I guess the question 24 is, the side that was exposed, there was pitting on that 25 side, as well?

143

1 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: Yes. 2 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. Thank you. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Those are all my 7 questions. 8 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Mousseau. 9 Dr. Powell...? 10 11 QUESTIONED BY THE BOARD: 12 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 13 Ms. Henkelman, in your submission, you've included an excerpt 14 from the by-law, which I take it, is from Strathcona County? 15 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: That's correct. 16 DR. ROBERT POWELL: I'd just like to 17 understand the nature of the additional restrictions that 18 this by-law places -- may place on your properties and -- so 19 I guess my first question is, does this -- as you understand 20 it, does this apply to all of the properties of all of the 21 people who are sitting here today? 22 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Yes, it does, anyone 23 located in the industrial heartland. 24 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Okay. And could you 25 describe your understanding of how this restricts your use of

144

1 your property? 2 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: I live in a mobile 3 home. If I chose to build a house, I would probably, if they 4 considered it even, I would have to sign a waiver. 5 DR. ROBERT POWELL: And do -- has anyone been 6 -- I'm just looking at the language here, under section (e) 7 that deals with the waiver, it isn't entirely clear to me 8 what that might consist of. Has anyone been asked to sign 9 such a waiver? 10 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: I actually asked about 11 the waiver, and they said that they couldn't show it to us 12 unless I was applying to build a house on the property. 13 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Okay. Second line of 14 thought, I guess, Mrs. Bartlett, you expressed that you'd 15 changed your mind about what disposition you'd like to see, 16 at least in terms of whether you could be satisfied in situ 17 or whether you would like to be moved away. 18 And I guess I'd like to canvass all of the 19 people again, in terms of what disposition they would like to 20 see. And just to be clear, this Board has to decide whether 21 to approve to not to approve the stack extension, that's what 22 before us at the moment. 23 There are -- there is also the issue that -- a 24 separate but joint issue, in some way, of whether you are 25 able to sell your properties or have a buy out and that sort

145

1 of thing, which we may have more limited ability to deal 2 with. But I would like to hear your views on both of those 3 things. 4 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Morally, I would have a 5 major problem, attempting to sell my land to another human 6 being living on that property. Re-location, in my mind, is 7 the only answer. 8 DR. ROBERT POWELL: And excuse me, but, with 9 respect to the approval or non-approval of the stack 10 extension? 11 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: I hate to fight so hard 12 to leave the home that I love, we can't stay. If -- are you 13 asking -- are you asking me if it is approved? 14 DR. ROBERT POWELL: I'm asking you whether you 15 have a view as to whether a view as to whether this Board 16 should approve or not approve this stack extension. 17 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: I would pray that you 18 would not approve it. 19 MS. TIA BARTLETT: And again you've heard my 20 comments and also with the BA and Terreson coming fifty (50) 21 feet away. I think there would also be a change in trying to 22 sell our home at this time to the public because we are going 23 to have this new industry coming fifty (50) -- fifty (50) 24 feet away is their -- is their land purchase. 25 I think for the Board my personal opinion is

146

1 for the rest of the public, not just our self, we are not 2 that far from Ft. Saskatchewan or the capital of Edmonton -- 3 of Alberta, with it being Edmonton, I think that the Board 4 really needs to seriously think about what is in the existing 5 pile. 6 And I know that this is for the extension but 7 this is what we've been fighting and all our information from 8 Florida and that, they really need to take a look at what 9 they have been putting out and the compliances that maybe are 10 not in place right now. 11 DR. ROBERT POWELL: So, excuse me. But you - 12 - you indicated that you would -- you would need to see a 13 buyout. You -- you would not be -- 14 MS. TIA BARTLETT: I need to see to be 15 relocated, yes. 16 DR. ROBERT POWELL: And what about -- if 17 perhaps I'll ask a hypothetical question. If you weren't 18 concerned with the buyout -- in fact let's -- let's say that 19 -- that you were bought out and all of these people were 20 bought out or in some other way satisfied, do you have a 21 position with respect to approving or denying the stack 22 extension? 23 MS. TIA BARTLETT: I think it should be 24 denied for the rest of the public until this existing stack 25 has been thoroughly, which I have been asking for quite a

147

1 long time from Alberta Environment, thoroughly investigated. 2 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Thank you. 3 MS. ALYSHA BARTLETT: I would definitely like 4 to move. I've been putting up with this for a long time and 5 I think it's time for me to get on with my life. And I 6 wouldn't approve that new stack. 7 MR. PERCIVAL HENKELMAN: I never thought I'd 8 say it, but I'm afraid we are going to have to move from -- 9 from our farm that was in the family for eighty (80) years. 10 So that -- that's an answer to your first question and -- and 11 the second about the stack. 12 The Town of Bruderheim is not that far away, 13 it's in -- it's in the windward side of the stack and there's 14 still -- there's still many people that have been involved. 15 So I have -- would have a real problem with it. 16 MS. HEATHER GARON: My family would like to 17 move. We could not sell, morally, to anyone. We probably 18 would not -- we could not see selling to anyone, morally. 19 And no, I would not approve the stack. I think it affects 20 more people than we can see at this point. The research 21 isn't there to see how many people it actually affects. 22 MR. ERICH MARQUARDT: No, no, no approval. 23 MR. WARD SAWATZKY: You've heard, I've read - 24 - sorry Erich. 25 MR. ERICH MARQUARDT: I would like a

148

1 relocation please. 2 MR. WARD SAWATZKY: You've heard me say in my 3 -- sorry. 4 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: Well, we never thought 5 we would say this but because this was our retirement home, 6 we sold in good faith, we sold at what we realize now was not 7 value enough to replace what we have now. We don't -- but 8 that is our own financial predicament. But I do think 9 relocation is the only answer knowing what we know now, 10 especially in our grandchildren. 11 And I don't think it should go ahead. There 12 isn't -- until they can prove that it is safe to be there. I 13 have always had concerns with that gypsum pile and I know now 14 it is not safe. Expansion shouldn't be allowed, in my point 15 of view. 16 MR. WARD SAWATZKY: You've heard me say that 17 I'm -- I'm against the new extension and I think it's 18 relatively clear to everybody here that industry and 19 residents do not mix. So I -- I feel relocation is the only 20 way that -- because as Cheryl has pointed out next up is BA 21 and Terreson. 22 I've sat here all week and quite frankly I 23 don't have the time in my line of work to be coming to these 24 things, to be part of open houses. It consumes a lot of time 25 and energy. Right now I'm just wondering what's going on at

149

1 home. My cows are calving right now, there's nobody there. 2 I -- I don't have the time to sit through 3 another one of these hearings against another company, 4 especially what I know now from phosphogypsum stacks. I'm 5 very concerned. That's my livelihood, I don't know what to 6 do now. 7 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: I totally agree with 8 everybody else on the Panel, with the extension of the gypsum 9 stack and what's already there, I'm concerned about the 10 health of my family. 11 As I've showed you in my pictures, I have not 12 wanted to leave, I thought that was going to be where my kids 13 would get married, and I kind of did all that for them, and 14 where am I going to find -- where is my family going to find 15 another home like what we have, and what -- on the river, to 16 enjoy the elements that the river can bring, instead of all 17 that the industry feels that it brings to them. 18 There's -- there are people that love and 19 enjoy being on the river, and I -- I don't know where I'm 20 going to go after that, but I feel that without a proper 21 study of what has been brought forward as evidence to the -- 22 to the gypsum stacks, that it shouldn't be approved, and 23 relocation is the only answer for everybody involved. 24 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: I -- could I make one 25 (1) more comment?

150

1 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Certainly. 2 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: I know without a doubt, 3 that Cindy and Brent want relocation. 4 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Thank you. Can I ask you, 5 did -- did any of you participate in the health study that -- 6 that we've -- we've heard of, but I don't -- I don't believe 7 we have any paper on that particularly? 8 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: I actually don't know 9 if we should comment on that, because those studies were 10 supposed to be completely confidential. 11 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Oh, I see. 12 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: The -- the names were 13 not released. 14 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Okay, then, I apologize. 15 I didn't want to ask for personal information. I guess I was 16 trying to -- there was a sense that perhaps some other kind 17 of study might be more beneficial than the one (1) that was 18 done. And I -- I don't really have a sense of what was done 19 or what might be done that -- that would be an improvement on 20 what was done? 21 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: I think Sharon wants to 22 answer this one (1). 23 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: I have no problem 24 admitting that I was on that study and a few other neighbours 25 up the road, perhaps, may have been on the study. Not many

151

1 people participated, because of what Tia said, I think it was 2 Tia, we weren't given our own information. I did it more for 3 -- we needed to serve credibility for our area and I wanted 4 somebody to prove something to us that it -- that it is safe. 5 Fort Air Partnership says that it is, but they 6 didn't have enough people on our side of the river taking 7 part, and I think that if there was more information 8 available to us as well, that -- and more in depth testing. 9 I -- I -- you know, I work in a refinery and I 10 had to wear those little -- those little filters, and I walk 11 through an acid plant everyday, I walk through everything, 12 and they said they were going to let anybody that's 13 overexposed know those things. I was never notified that I 14 was overexposed. 15 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Well, what kind of 16 distribution of the results of this study was done? Was it 17 back to the people who were involved, or was it more broadly 18 distributed? 19 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: Well, it went back to 20 the people who called for it, Fort Air Partnership, and then 21 it was -- their results were released to the public, but 22 nothing individually. 23 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Okay. 24 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: It was us that the 25 testing was done on, why can't it be us that get the results

152

1 before it goes to the public, of our own results. 2 DR. ROBERT POWELL: So, it hasn't been made 3 available to the people who were involved in the study, but 4 it -- it has -- 5 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: Just through -- 6 DR. ROBERT POWELL: -- oh, through the public. 7 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: -- just through the 8 public -- 9 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Okay. 10 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: -- to the public on what 11 the overall study did. 12 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: They -- they averaged 13 the whole area, and clumped it together. 14 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: Excuse me, our son, 15 Brent, participated in that too. He wore the monitor, and 16 likewise, he was never given his own personal results. 17 DR. ROBERT POWELL: And was this -- was this 18 monitor, just to be clear, was this a monitor for fluoride or 19 for other -- 20 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: I don't remember what 21 all we were monitoring. 22 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: They weren't told. 23 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Okay. 24 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: I -- I believe they 25 wore a necklace of, what, about five (5) different --

153

1 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: Yeah, there were four 2 (4) or five (5) little filtering systems. 3 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: And they also set up, I 4 believe, a monitoring system inside your home as well as 5 outside. 6 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: Some people wore a -- 7 another apparatus and some people didn't, so what's the 8 consistency of that? I'm not sure what that apparatus was -- 9 was for. 10 DR. ROBERT POWELL: And this -- this study was 11 the -- the Fort Air Partnership, which -- which includes 12 Agrium and -- 13 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: Well, it -- includes 14 public membership, it includes Alberta Environment -- so 15 government, industrial and public. 16 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Okay. Thank you, I think 17 those are my questions. 18 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Leggett. 19 MS. SHEILA LEGGETT: Thank you very much. 20 Just a point for my own clarification, when I look at Tab 1 21 of your first book of your submission, it's this map with the 22 red dots and the black dots and green dots on it. And in the 23 immediate area of where you're residing, I see that there are 24 a number of land-holdings that are industrial, but, I also 25 see a number of personal names there.

154

1 And I'm wondering are there any other 2 residents that live in this immediate area? 3 MS. TIA BARTLETT: There is, there's Leonard 4 Kropp -- who -- we don't have the map. 5 MS. SHEILA LEGGETT: Oh, we can -- 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 MS. TIA BARTLETT: The only other actual 10 residents, there are other properties that are owned by 11 people, but, they do not reside on them, but, the other -- 12 there's only two (2) other residents which is a Mr. Kropp and 13 you'll see Mr. Leichtner -- 14 MS. SHEILA LEGGETT: Mr. who? 15 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Leichtner. And the rest 16 are -- are just properties zoned by -- private people but who 17 do not reside on their properties. 18 MS. SHEILA LEGGETT: And in the process of 19 forming -- forming your group to deal with this application, 20 have you been in touch with both the two (2) other residents 21 and the other landowners in the area? 22 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Not the other land owners - 23 - Cheryl's uncle is one (1) of them. I -- I forced myself to 24 go to Mr. Kropp because he's not a good neighbour, and 25 actually had to have a restraining order for Mr. Kropp.

155

1 But, I made myself go and phone him and when 2 this EIA came out and I did submit a letter to him that we 3 were meeting with our Counsel, and so against all my will, 4 but I knew that that was what we were supposed to do. 5 And he said that he did want to come. He did 6 not show and I think that was enough opportunity for him to 7 be aware that we were, at this point, getting Counsel for 8 this. And Cheryl can talk to you about Mr. Leichtner. 9 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Mr. Leichtner and his 10 wife Margaret, have lived there, I actually am not certain 11 how long, but, many, many years. His wife, Margaret, is the 12 resident that has passed away from lung cancer last -- I 13 think it was last October or November. 14 They're very quiet individuals. He did tell 15 me to keep him -- I guess, abreast of what was happening, 16 but, he did not want to be involved, well, I should say, 17 physically involved. 18 MS. SHEILA LEGGETT: Thank you. I wonder, I 19 think we've heard this in bits and pieces but, from you as a 20 panel today, we've heard repeatedly that there should be a 21 proper study, more study, that sort of thing. 22 Could you -- and I -- and I recognize that 23 you're not technical experts and I'm not expecting a 24 consultants proposal from you. But, what I would like to get 25 from you, are what you feel are the key elements that would

156

1 be required in that proper study. 2 So, we don't need a lot of detail, but, just 3 the key things that are uppermost in your mind that you think 4 should be involved. 5 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Well, in regards to 6 noise, we have asked for a monitoring station for years. One 7 (1) that actually will collect data for maybe a full month 8 even, preferably longer, of course. 9 But, we've never gone longer, I believe, than 10 five (5) days. With -- with the odours in the air, I would 11 say we definitely need to do a more extensive fluoride 12 testing of the area with the humans, the animals, including 13 wildlife, if that's possible. 14 Of course, I don't want it open hunting out 15 there either but -- 16 MS. SHEILA LEGGETT: Are there any other 17 components that any of the other Panel Members would like to 18 add? 19 MS. TIA BARTLETT: It is basically, also as I 20 had wrote to Mr. Singh, back in October 27th, of 2002, 21 exactly the same things that Cheryl has said. 22 That we believe that our -- to come to the 23 poor health, the dead trees, pitting on vehicles, livestock 24 problems, et cetera. 25 And I had asked for just anything from the

157

1 pile, like just like a -- and again I'm not -- but I thought 2 a great big core sample, you know out of -- out of the pile, 3 just to see what's in the middle of this now, when you're a 4 hundred and twenty (120) some odd feet up and apparently they 5 don't do that. 6 And maybe it's obviously not feasible but just 7 what exactly, truly is -- now we have learned that -- you 8 know, we have learned this over -- over this hearing, some of 9 the components that are in there. 10 But we've also seen new components that we 11 were not aware that were in there, were never told of us. 12 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: And I would like to 13 add, I think time is of essence. If Carson is showing signs 14 of fluorosis at twenty (20) months, I don't think we have 15 another five (5) to ten (10) years to sit and wait for more 16 results. 17 MS. SHEILA LEGGETT: And isn't that always 18 the catch in studies? You know, as scientists we say we need 19 to study it more and that sort of thing and that's why I 20 wanted to get the key drivers from you, because put any 21 scientists in a room and ask them design a study and -- and I 22 speak from personal experience, we can come up with a whole 23 bunch of great ideas. 24 But, you know, what are the key drivers for 25 you right now that are -- are uppermost concerns?

158

1 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: Time. 2 MS. TIA BARTLETT: And not modelling. Like 3 modelling to me means -- I know that they're saying that it 4 means something, but modelling to me, when we're looking at 5 our pony who has no teeth, but you're modelling that the 6 fluorosis might be, or whatever might be, that means nothing 7 to me. 8 I'd asked Dr. Rogers at the last meeting, when 9 they were explaining the fluoride for the EIA and -- and it 10 was -- I'm sorry, I -- I don't know your name, but -- but 11 yes. 12 And yeah, when -- and she was sitting there 13 and I was grilling Mr. Rogers at this time, saying why didn't 14 he come out? Why was he not coming out, looking at my 15 daughter who now has mild fluorosis and looking at Ms. 16 Garon's children also, who have -- have -- one (1) daughter 17 has the -- moderate to severe, and he said he did not need to 18 do that, this was a model. It was a risk assessment. 19 And I continually said, but we have problems. 20 We have physical problems. And so I don't -- I don't 21 understand the modelling process. 22 I mean, I'm understanding a little more now, 23 but I -- I don't understand why when you have physical trees, 24 children, human beings, animals, all in this, why that's not 25 looked at and I had asked Alberta Environment the -- exactly

159

1 the same thing. 2 And when I had token -- spoken to -- not Mr. 3 Singh -- Tony Mack from Capital Health, and when he told me 4 there was not enough to do an epidemiology study, and I said 5 but when there's so many of us with these pre-cancerous cells 6 and I understand now what an epidemiology study has to be, 7 but if all of us have the same things, then why as -- yeah, 8 Mr. Limeback said, is a cluster. 9 That word was never said to me. I just felt 10 that I guess we just didn't count because there wasn't enough 11 of us, but now Mr. Limeback has mentioned the word "cluster". 12 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: I'd like to add too -- 13 sorry -- I thought -- I think that also they need to, when 14 they do the study, they need to look at what's in the area. 15 Not just on -- on Agrium's side, but on the downwind and the 16 north wind of things and the whole area. 17 Look and see who's raising their cattle in the 18 area. Look and see who's raising dairy. It -- it's easy to 19 see. There is a deer farmer. Go to him. See if -- if you 20 can get samples from him. I mean, you can only ask. 21 Nobody came to us when -- when we were raising 22 strawberries. It's -- it's really easy. Go to the Chamber 23 of Commerce and ask if there are any market gardens in the 24 area. 25 Take samples from the people's areas -- yards,

160

1 as well. 2 MS. SHEILA LEGGETT: I think we've all gained 3 an appreciation through this Hearing or at least I certainly 4 have, of the complexities of trying to work within this area. 5 There are so many factors that need to be evaluated and -- 6 and considered and -- and again, going back to my training, 7 that makes any scientist's job a nightmare; trying to tease 8 apart various effects and that sort of thing. 9 Would you, as a group, be prepared to be 10 involved in that type of a study, should it be implemented? 11 And what role would you see yourselves playing? 12 MS. SHARON. ZIEGEMAN: You mean after we're 13 moved away? 14 MS. SHEILA LEGGETT: Just a hypothetical 15 question on if there was a study to be done. 16 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Who would it be by? If 17 it's by -- if it's by people that Agrium is sending out, I 18 will not. I will not partake in any study that Agrium feels. 19 I -- I would partake in an independent Alberta Environment 20 study, or Capital Health, but I would not partake if -- if -- 21 Agrium was sending out their own people. 22 MS. SHEILA LEGGETT: Okay. Any other 23 comments from that? 24 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: I'm sure Cindy would 25 like to participate and have the children in that as well.

161

1 MS. SHEILA LEGGETT: Great, thank you. 2 MR. WARD SAWATZKY: Excuse me -- 3 MS. SHEILA LEGGETT: Yeah? 4 MR. WARD SAWATZKY: I have a comment. I 5 would just really like to enjoy getting on with my life. 6 These things are time consuming and we have kids that are 7 very active. They're playing hockey, school sports, there's 8 just not enough time in the day any more for me, personally. 9 I don't know if anybody else feels like that 10 here. But we do have other things going on in our life that 11 need to be addressed also. One of them is family values, 12 which has been greatly neglected here for a very long time. 13 MS. SHEILA LEGGETT: Thank you for your 14 comments. That's all my questions. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I wanted to follow up a 19 little bit on -- on the concept of -- of a proper, 20 independent study and to some degree this hearing is 21 considering studies done by many parties. 22 And I'm interested in what comments you can 23 provide the panel on what confidence you have in the current 24 process. And, in answering the question, of course, we've -- 25 we've heard and I've seen many of you in the room throughout

162

1 this week, and you've had access to documentation that I -- I 2 appreciate has been a -- a challenge to go through. 3 But those -- those documents have been 4 prepared by various participants, including yourselves, but 5 they have been reviewed by others. And others who, at least 6 from the panel's perspective would be viewed as independent 7 of Agrium including Alberta Environment, Alberta Health. 8 What confidence do you have in that process? 9 MS. TIA BARTLETT: I'm just going to speak on 10 the noise at this point. When they do the noise studies, 11 Agrium is always aware of it. 12 We found out about a year and a half ago, when 13 we used to phone in our -- our complaints to the St. Albert 14 EUB, it takes them forty (40) minutes to get out to our place 15 and -- and I know Agrium and -- this is just an observation, 16 by the time they would get out to our place, it was 17 considerably quieter. 18 Not -- not totally quieter, but it would be 19 considerably quieter. We did not know until -- sometimes 20 you'd speak to Joe Blow at -- at these places who has no idea 21 who you are and Agrium is always told when the EUB is coming 22 out to do monitoring. They are phoned first. 23 I know they cannot shut down an entire plant, 24 but I'm sure that there can be small, little things but where 25 it's not as -- as noisy as we have perceived it earlier.

163

1 I think, for myself, and I have asked for it 2 and I even looked at getting our own monitor at six (6) to 3 eight hundred dollars ($800) a day, -- one (1) of the fights 4 with the husband -- so that was not -- and again it could not 5 be submissible because it would be our own private study. 6 But just for my own mind, you -- you start to 7 doubt yourself when Agrium tells you there is no problem. 8 The levels are low. We're not in exceedance. And so Cheryl 9 and I said, well, let's get our own monitor, because may -- 10 maybe we are -- you know, paranoid about the noise and maybe 11 it's not as bad as what -- what -- but it is bad. 12 So, for me I would like to see studies where 13 Agrium is not always aware that there's going to be people 14 there. You know, so that in my mind, and maybe I'm being 15 paranoid, but they're not shutting a little switch off. 16 You know, that -- that -- that closes down 17 some of the noise that is there because they know someone is 18 going to be there. 19 So that's just on the noise for me and do -- 20 do I have great -- no, I haven't, not now. Not when I see -- 21 if I showed you this little radon piece of paper that I have 22 and our radon expert's not here and I won't be here to see 23 that -- I'm sure he's going to -- or would have put 24 incredible doubt into my mind on probably what the radon is 25 going to be.

164

1 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms. Bartlett. 2 In -- I'm not quite sure that you understood my question -- 3 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Oh, sorry. 4 MR. CHAIRPERSON: My question is, and let me 5 give a little more background -- 6 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Okay. 7 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- is -- commencing with 8 Monday we heard from Agrium's experts and since that time 9 we've had the pleasure of hearing from your experts, as well. 10 It's -- it's clear to most of us that there is 11 a divergence of view between those experts. At the end of 12 the day the Panel has to determine what they feel is the 13 appropriate -- are the appropriate conclusions drawn from 14 that various evidence. 15 But in addition, we have other participation, 16 and the Board brings a lot of expertise -- 17 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Of your own, okay. 18 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- to -- to this review, and 19 -- and we won't hear from them as, in terms of providing 20 evidence, but they have certainly assisted Mr. Mousseau with 21 his questioning of -- of participants. 22 We do have Alberta Environment, we expect to 23 hear from them tomorrow, as -- as well as Alberta Health and 24 Wellness and they've assessed the information and they've 25 looked at the information of Agrium, and I'm sure they've

165

1 looked at the material provided by your group. And what if 2 at the end of the day, the Panel's assessment doesn't agree 3 with your group's assessment? 4 What confidence do you have in the process to 5 reach whatever conclusion they should arrive at? 6 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Well, I haven't had much 7 confidence, as you'll also find, and it was in my statement, 8 with Alberta Environment and Capitol Health, just because you 9 forever -- you constantly, and I have letters and letters, 10 and I would -- if I brought everything that we had, we would 11 have books, like Cheryl and I have binders and boxes, we have 12 fourteen (14) boxes at home, filled with letters and 13 correspondence. 14 I've just given you a small, you know, a tiny 15 bit there, just on -- there hasn't -- I don't know -- I don't 16 -- they haven't done their job, they haven't done their job 17 in our area, so Alberta Environment, Capitol Health, Alberta 18 -- well, they have not done their job, we've asked them for 19 five (5) years, and I have received nothing from them. 20 We had to go at one (1) point to get 21 something, and I had to now phone FOIP and so I was going to 22 have to pay twenty-five dollars ($25) a submission, another 23 fight with the husband of course, and -- and I -- I didn't, 24 you know, I'm going, because what am I going to do with this 25 now. I mean, if it's something that -- so you know, I hate

166

1 to say this, because I know this is an unbiassed Board, but 2 Alberta Environment to my -- for my personal, and Ministry of 3 Health have not done their job in our area, with us. 4 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I still don't think you've 5 answered the final part of my question. 6 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Maybe you should give me in 7 brail. 8 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And that was, are -- has 9 this process reached a stage, because of course once the 10 Hearing ends then -- 11 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Hmm hmm. 12 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- the next step is, in 13 terms of what you'll see from us, is a decision. 14 And you may have varying degrees of optimism 15 as to what may -- what you may hope to see in that decision. 16 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Hmm hmm. 17 MR. CHAIRPERSON: But what level of confidence 18 do you have with the process that -- that you've seen unfold 19 to this date? 20 MS. TIA BARTLETT: I don't. I don't. 21 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Okay, and can you expand on 22 that? 23 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Number one (1), it's taken 24 us five (5) years to get to where we are. It started off 25 with noise. If it wasn't for Agrium asking for an EIA, we

167

1 would not be here today. Cheryl and I would still be 2 fighting, we would still be having -- I mean, the Marquardts, 3 all of us here, would still be having to deal with what we're 4 dealing with. 5 It's only because of -- and -- and we have 6 fought hard, like very hard, just for this Agrium, and if it 7 wasn't for them coming forth with wanting to expand their 8 stack, we wouldn't be here, we would still be fighting, and 9 -- and then we'd be fighting BA. 10 But -- but it's -- it's Agrium, and we -- our 11 health concerns would still be continuing on, and I probably 12 still haven't answered your question. 13 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Well, we're -- 14 MS. TIA BARTLETT: I don't have great 15 confidence, I'm sorry. 16 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Having said that, these are 17 important decisions, I think -- I think we all agree on that. 18 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Hmm hmm. 19 MR. CHAIRPERSON: How are they better made? 20 MS. TIA BARTLETT: I think the Government, 21 when people come with concerns, I don't think that the people 22 should have to try and find their own counsel, I don't think 23 it's right that Cheryl and I are having to do the homework 24 for the County, for the Government. 25 Cheryl and I have brought forth information

168

1 that our County, was truly unaware of, that was happening in 2 our area. And -- and visa versa on this whole by-law issue 3 also, is that we have been given -- we are just the people, 4 we're not just the people, we are the people. 5 And everything that we've done again, 6 financially, meetings, if you don't -- we have to go, we have 7 to be informed. We have to be empowered with that 8 information, so that when we do come to those Hearings and 9 reviews that we're able to give that to you. 10 But to sit here and have to try and find Ms. 11 Klimek, was very hard. I went through every single Sierra 12 Legal Club, and I found out from my licensing daycare lady to 13 -- and then ended up with the Alberta Environmental Lawyer 14 Association. 15 That again took phone calls and phone calls 16 and phone calls. And she has been very wonderful. And -- 17 because she has helped us with some of our letters, because 18 it is a -- a process by people who are experts in this field, 19 and we are not. 20 We have become, but we are not. So, we need 21 more help from our government and not to be perceived the 22 enemy, which has happened in this county, is that we've had 23 zero (0) -- zero (0) support from this country on our issues. 24 We are the enemy to them. And they have given 25 us no support, and as -- has been, frankly, here also.

169

1 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I don't mean to extend this 2 question, you are answering my question and I appreciate 3 that. But if we take that to the next level and I were to 4 suggest to you one (1) of the things that the NRCB, 5 hopefully, does is applies expertise to the decision making 6 process where that expertise is called for. 7 And, of course, we all recognize that part of 8 the challenge in these processes is that there are a variety 9 of expert opinions that come forward. 10 Some of the concerns raised are concerns that 11 deserve a lot of attention because they are serious concerns. 12 And at sometime throughout the proceedings, we see 13 assessments where you look at them very carefully. 14 And you want to apply the right level of 15 expertise in making those decisions. And not everybody is 16 going to agree with those decisions. And is it possible for 17 people, and this same question could apply to Agrium, but 18 you're here and they're not at the moment. 19 If that decision is contrary to what your 20 interpretation of that evidence was, what level of confidence 21 would you have in the Board making that decision? 22 MS. TIA BARTLETT: I think in this situation, 23 because they did not come and see us and we had asked for 24 them to come and look at us and to talk about us personally, 25 about our situations and our health concerns, in this

170

1 situation, I'm not going to feel that confident. 2 In -- in -- to carry this over, if this is to 3 happen again, I think I would be more confident. You know, 4 if they took steps, like we have suggested, where they do 5 come out, where they do talk to us. Where we are able to -- 6 I don't doubt Alberta Environment or Capital Health, they 7 just didn't do their job, in this case. 8 In this case, I feel they didn't do their job. 9 So, I think we are unique, we are in an Alberta industrial -- 10 we are in the largest in North America, there's only three 11 (3) Alberta industrial heartlands. 12 So, this is I think, a unique -- well 13 especially for Alberta, with this situation, we are the 14 guinea pigs, Agrium probably also is the guinea pig in this 15 situation, also. And so will BA, so will the rest of the 16 other industries coming into this area. 17 And as I've pointed out before, the EUB has 18 been taking -- you know -- we are not the only ones who 19 believe we should not be there. The EUB also has brought 20 that up in literature. 21 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And with all of these 22 questions, I'll give other an opportunity to comment if they 23 should chose to do so. 24 But can I just finish this train of thought. 25 And I wanted to follow up on your last answer. You said,

171

1 they, several times, and it wasn't clear to me, who you were 2 referring to? 3 When you said we tried to meet with them or 4 they? 5 MS. TIA BARTLETT: That was Alberta 6 Environment and Capital Health, is that -- 7 MR. CHAIRPERSON: When I asked you whether you 8 had confidence in us making the decision, you said, no, you 9 would not -- 10 MS. TIA BARTLETT: No, because Alberta 11 Environment and Capital Health did not make, in my opinion, 12 they did not see us -- the -- the responses that we were 13 getting back, I would respond back. This was not enough. 14 You know I was not getting material, they were not doing a 15 human study. Again, this may change the next time. 16 Maybe hopefully it's not us but if the next 17 time this happens I'm sure their eyes are open to what has 18 happened to us and -- and I'm sure if in -- another hearing 19 comes up that I would feel confident if they were able to do 20 the steps that we have suggested. 21 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I have more questions. But 22 if anybody else wishes to comment on those -- that general 23 question which was -- 24 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: I would just like to 25 add that yes, we have some huge trust issues starting from

172

1 the industry and going straight up. When you have the 2 government and you have industry that are helping to fund 3 regulatory divisions it -- it -- we're afraid that, kind of, 4 everybody's in bed with each other, so to speak. 5 MR. PERCIVAL HENKELMAN: Having worked with 6 the church for sixty (60) years, you can imagine I've done a 7 lot of negotiation and -- and I think -- I think you have a 8 good point about the need for us to do further negotiation 9 with the government agencies and I -- I think you've been 10 very fair. 11 You -- you've given us all opportunities to 12 speak and -- and I think there just needs to be a building of 13 trust. It just hasn't been there. Whenever we find that 14 there's a protocol to call the plants before they make a 15 sound check or something like that. 16 We're just not -- we're just not convinced 17 that we've been fairly dealt with in the past and -- but that 18 doesn't say it can't change. And I -- I -- I feel confident 19 that it can. 20 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: I would like to make a 21 brief comment about -- I just feel the difficulty that Dr. 22 Limeback had defending his points of view with the expertise 23 that he has, what chance do we have as lay people? And it -- 24 it does definitely lower your confidence in your opinion 25 making a difference to the panel.

173

1 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I've heard several of you 2 speak of the lack of trust between the residents and -- and 3 Agrium and perhaps beyond that to various agencies and levels 4 of government. And what I can assure you is this is 5 something that I've heard at other hearings in other 6 circumstances. 7 When that -- is there a way to rebuild that 8 relationship or those relationships? Because I think they -- 9 they become with many parties -- it may start with -- with 10 the applicant or -- or industry as is -- as is the case in 11 this situation. But in dealing with that, your relationship 12 with -- with other agencies, again, that may start to fail 13 through a lack of trust. 14 What happens when we get to the point where 15 we're saying we do want to rebuild it? How is that done? 16 MS. TIA BARTLETT: I think in our situation, 17 five (5) years of no trust to sit here for another five (5) 18 of building trust is not an option. I think for I -- I don't 19 know, I'm not at this point -- there's huge trust issues 20 here, not just little trust issues. There are big trust 21 issues and I at that point with Agrium, I'm comfortable 22 speaking as I have said before, talking with the EUB, talking 23 to Alberta Environment, which again haven't been, you know, 24 much help at this point. 25 But to actually have Agrium -- we've gone

174

1 through how many managers even at the plant. With Mr. Beynon 2 not even informing us that he was going to Calgary. Maybe he 3 didn't have to inform us but I had a letter, a direct letter 4 into him in April, when did he leave, he left in March so it 5 was about in February and then I had phoned to ask if Mr. 6 Beynon could give his response because he hadn't responded to 7 my letter which was at a SNAP meeting Cheryl had asked to. 8 And she had found out that Mr. Beynon had gone 9 down to the Calgary office. So -- and then we've had Mr. 10 McGlone and now we have Mr. Watson. 11 And so it's kind of hard too, you know, I mean 12 because you meet with these people, Mr. McGlone met with me, 13 and Ms. Andrews, and you know, you have not promises, but 14 yes, we're going to keep this going. 15 You know, we're going to get -- you know -- 16 and then boom, now we've got Mr. Watson, who's -- you know, 17 poor Mr. Watson, he's come into quite a little thing with us 18 because he -- you know -- I'm sure he did get the information 19 on us, but that's hard. 20 You know, and I'm not blaming Agrium, I mean 21 these happen all of the time that you go through that. But 22 for us, five (5) years of losing it and another five (5) 23 years of trying to gain it, is not an option at this time, I 24 don't think. 25 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: And industry in this

175

1 area is steamrolling. We're dealing with past issues, but we 2 still have the future to look forward to. 3 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: And we have to consider 4 all the homework that those two (2) ladies have done over the 5 past five (5) years. I don't have time to do that either, 6 for that everything that's coming in, I don't -- I know the 7 issues, and I know the time that they've put into this. 8 And with everything that's being compounded 9 into our area now, it just makes more and more that we need 10 to keep phoning and we need to keep -- it's making us have to 11 do research again. And before you can build a trust -- 12 you're -- there's other applications then, that when will it 13 ever for us? 14 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: May I please add? I 15 was just going to say that we have lost to a lot of 16 applications that we have put in statements of concern for, 17 but we're not losers. 18 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Henkelman, I was hoping 19 that you might choose to respond to this, because you just 20 mentioned it in your last response? 21 MR. PERCIVAL HENKELMAN: Yes, I do feel that 22 we should have meeting with environment -- Alberta 23 Environment, we should have meetings with people who can come 24 and assure us that we can trust them. 25 And that there is a trust built up -- like I

176

1 say, negotiations work better than anything -- and I would 2 like to see negotiations. It would really be great for us to 3 get together and spend some time with them explaining what 4 has happened in the past and what could happen in the future. 5 I believe that could go a long way to build a new -- a new 6 relationship of trust. 7 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Agrium is very clear on 8 their relocation response, okay. If we could get the 9 government, the county, and the local industries together, I 10 think we could come up with a decent solution. 11 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Henkelman, I had one (1) 12 question arising specifically out of your presentation this 13 morning. And I -- did I understand correctly, you phoned in 14 an odour complaint and the local fireman responded? 15 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: And this is what 16 Alberta Environment is so proud of. Yes, they -- when we 17 have an odour complaint, we used to call Alberta Environment, 18 you still call Alberta Environment, they would in turn, send 19 someone out from Edmonton, or if someone was in the area, 20 they would try to get them out quickly; that was taking a 21 long time. 22 And so, they developed -- they as in Alberta 23 Environment and the heartland, they developed the heartland 24 odour protocol. 25 The fire hall is very close to us, it takes me

177

1 maybe six (6), seven (7) minutes to get there. Their 2 response time has been very poor and they'll come out with 3 fire trucks and the paramedics and they stand there with 4 their noses in the air. 5 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Do they turn off the diesel 6 engines? 7 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Actually they don't, 8 that's the real clincher. 9 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I'm a little confused about 10 the health study and obviously I don't want to breach any 11 confidential information, but for some reason, was this 12 conducted by the Fort Air Partnership? Who commissioned the 13 health study, do we know that? 14 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: I think Fort Air. 15 MS. TIA BARTLETT: When I spoke to Steven 16 Probert, because he's a member of the -- from out of Capital 17 Health, he had told me it was just a conglomerate of, now 18 Sharon's been on it, she'd be able to go, but he sort of 19 represented it as a Capital Health thing, that we've already 20 done our study, we are not spending another hundred thousand 21 dollars ($100,000) just to do you people -- if you want to 22 hear what he said. 23 And I told my lawyer, but -- but it was not a 24 nice conversation. He said that our credibility was totally 25 -- now, I was not speaking on behalf of the Marquardts and --

178

1 and Sharon, but our credibility was lost. And so that was 2 the end. That was the end of -- of the public health, for 3 them coming to see me. 4 Now, regarding the actual study, Sharon can 5 speak to you on that. 6 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Yeah, I'm very interested to 7 -- as to who -- who conducted the study and who commissioned 8 the study? 9 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: Well it was so long ago 10 it seems. Fort Air Partnership and Capital Health and 11 Alberta Environment, I believe were the -- the ones. 12 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And -- and were results 13 published as a -- from -- from that study? 14 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: Yeah, there was a public 15 hearing on -- or not a public hearing, sorry, there was a 16 public information, I can't remember the date. 17 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And -- and do we know the 18 geographical scope of -- of that study? 19 MS. TIA BARTLETT: I believe in my report it 20 was a fourteen (14) mile radius, because it went over to 21 Bruderheim, around down through Fort Saskatchewan, up the 22 river valley and Redwater to us. 23 So, from our pinpoint it was like a fourteen 24 (14) mile study. 25 MR. CHAIRPERSON: It -- it centred on this

179

1 very area? 2 MS. TIA BARTLETT: No, it's not centred on 3 that, that was just -- just on ours. So, no, this was not. 4 MR. CHAIRPERSON: So, I just want to 5 understand that answer, it was a fourteen (14) mile radius? 6 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yes. 7 MR. CHAIRPERSON: So, we have a twenty-eight 8 (28) -- are the -- 9 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Probab -- yeah, around 10 that. 11 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And -- 12 MS. TIA BARTLETT: And a hundred and thirty- 13 eight (138) people. 14 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And it centred -- where was 15 the centre point of that circle? 16 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Was it close to Shell, is 17 that where they -- you know, what we -- I -- we didn't 18 partake in it, because when I spoke to the physician when I 19 -- because we were going to partake in it, and when I spoke 20 to the physician and he told me that we would not be getting 21 our individual results unless he saw cancer, that -- that I 22 didn't continue. 23 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: I have a copy of that 24 report, I can get that to you probably by Saturday. 25 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I think we might be

180

1 interested in seeing it, but if -- if we have both the 2 Capital Health authority and Alberta Health and Wellness 3 coming, it might be -- 4 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: You can probably get it 5 from them, yes. 6 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- better to come -- come 7 from there. Now, I take it at least some of you have 8 reviewed that report, and -- 9 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: If you can understand 10 it, yes. 11 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Well, tell me what you drew 12 from that report? What were the conclusions of the study as 13 you interpreted them? 14 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: They basically said 15 that the residents in the area could breathe easy. When we 16 did -- quite a few of us actually went to the open house when 17 they were discussing the results. 18 Our major concern was the lack of amount of 19 contaminants that they checked for. What they checked for, 20 they said the air quality was okay. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 MR. CHAIRPERSON: The notion of relocation, 25 and we have a re-zoning that has taken place, and there is

181

1 some boundaries on -- on where that re-zoning is, and there 2 are residents living within and beyond those boundaries and 3 there's probably greater and lesser intensity of industrial 4 activity, depending on where you are within the boundaries of 5 that zoned area. 6 The question of relocation, and beyond your 7 unique circumstance; how should that be visited in similar 8 circumstances, in terms of -- how do you make the decision as 9 to who gets -- who should be offered relocation -- 10 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Well, I think a president 11 has already made -- a precedence has already been made with 12 the twenty-four (24) who were bought out. I mean, they 13 were -- 14 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Can -- can you tell me where 15 those twenty-four (24) were? 16 MS. TIA BARTLETT: They're -- oh, down -- like 17 they -- they were -- they were down here, the twenty-four 18 (24) that were bought out prior. 19 MR. CHAIRPERSON: So just -- I just want for 20 the record, down here doesn't read very well -- 21 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Oh. 22 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- but it's below the -- 23 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yeah -- 24 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- Shell/Scotford 25 (phonetic) --

182

1 MS. TIA BARTLETT: It's south of Shell. 2 And east of Dow. So I think -- which we have spoke to the 3 county on numerous occasions, is that -- and the EUB, is that 4 they need to -- there needs to be a whole -- now that they've 5 got -- and Larry Wall (phonetic) and the rest of them. 6 There is an Alberta industrial heartland here 7 and they needed to take responsibility when they decided to 8 re-zone us heavy industry which they did not responsibility 9 enough in -- in discussing what do we do with the people when 10 we put them in now a heavy industrial zone? 11 And so, for future, I -- personally, I think 12 as they continue to encroach, and I believe this was what 13 Anne Brown is fighting for, she does not want to be in the 14 position that we are in. 15 When you're in industrial heartland, they 16 chose the land that they need to chose for whatever industry 17 that they have and so those -- yes, I believe the next group 18 of people who are encroached on need to be relocated. 19 They shouldn't have to. Our county has 20 decided we are in this industrial heartland. It was not by 21 choice of us. This is going to continue to happen. I mean, 22 they say twenty (20) to fifty (50) years. 23 This is going to continue to happen and, as 24 you continue this, then other people go, jeez, are we next? 25 Are we going to have to go through what Cheryl and Tia and

183

1 the rest of the group have had to go through? 2 MR. CHAIRPERSON: What -- what's your 3 understanding of why the decision was made for the people 4 that were relocated by the county? And I don't -- I'd better 5 back up for a second. I understand those people were 6 purchased by the county -- their property was purchased by 7 the municipality? 8 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yes, for ten million 9 dollars. 10 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And I also understand that 11 there have been various acquisitions by -- 12 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yes, Shell -- 13 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- industry -- 14 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yep. 15 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- directly -- 16 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yes. 17 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- from land owners? 18 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Yes. 19 MR. CHAIRPERSON: What's your understanding 20 of -- of why the county made the choice to buy out those 21 residents? 22 MS. TIA BARTLETT: What I was told from 23 people from Shell, was Shell basically went to the county. 24 They were building an upgrader, this was not their 25 responsibility. They were given the permits to build where

184

1 they are, and they basically went, now -- and the county 2 could beg to differ, but this is what I was told. 3 That the -- that Shell went to the county and 4 said, you need to deal with these twenty-four (24) people or 5 we will move our upgrader somewhere else. 6 And so, I'm sure the county had a panic. I 7 mean -- and this is all -- all -- not gossip, but this was -- 8 was told to me, hearsay. And, so that is why I believe now I 9 have piles -- and Cheryl -- piles of things that said this 10 was a win-win -- where the county and the Mayor said this was 11 a win-win situation for industry and the residents. 12 Right from day one (1) we have asked the 13 question five (5) years ago, in June, of what made us 14 different. They've never, ever responded with that. 15 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And in this situation, 16 you're advocating a buy-out. And we have one (1) county 17 who's made the decision in one (1) circumstance to purchase 18 property or acquire property and it -- as you suggest, 19 perhaps that was because they would have additional tax 20 revenue and it was within their vision of -- of 21 development -- 22 MS. TIA BARTLETT: Hmm mmm. 23 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- within that county. 24 What happens when the county boundary runs between, as it 25 does in this case, or as I believe it does --

185

1 MS. TIA BARTLETT: There's four (4) different 2 municipalities involved. 3 MR. CHAIRPERSON: How do you -- how do you 4 think those decisions, or even those considerations should be 5 approached? 6 MS. TIA BARTLETT: I guess they should have 7 thought of that before the four (4) of them all sat down and 8 decided what they were going to with their precious Alberta 9 industrial heartland. 10 This should have been thought about way before 11 they decided to do this. I mean, this is something that they 12 did not think about. Or, they thought about it and -- and 13 this was not in any of their planning. There's nothing in 14 any of their zoning. 15 Believe me, we went -- we went to every zoning 16 meeting. We went to every public consultation. We had 17 private consultations to state something needs to be put in, 18 into this by-law that states you have to deal with the 19 people. 20 You cannot expect people to live with what 21 we're living with. You can't expect people to spend 22 thousands and thousands of hours trying to fight industry, 23 and the industry is coming. We never expected to have 24 another one billion dollar upgrader within a year, fifty (50) 25 feet away.

186

1 We're going to have to fight this. We're 2 going to have to fight Terreson. Shell's mentioned they may 3 be building another upgrader. I mean, this is not going to 4 stop for us. I mean, this is going away from Agrium and 5 Agrium is our -- our focus here, but, that is where we are. 6 And you did ask the question what we -- and 7 you know, and it should have been in their -- their bylaw and 8 it was not -- and we asked and asked and asked. 9 So, if you want to talk about a trust issue, 10 there we are again. 11 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And -- and Ms. Bartlett, if 12 the reason to relocate people is -- is a -- a health concern, 13 or a fundamental health concern and I'm not -- I don't want 14 to impart anything on the residents next to Scotford, because 15 I don't know what the reason is. 16 But, certainly one of the reasons you -- you 17 have advanced for relocation. And if -- if there was a 18 determination by somebody in a position to buy you out, that 19 there was -- it was appropriate for health reasons, should 20 that be mandatary -- mandatory? 21 You suggested that people have the option of 22 -- of accepting it or not, but, if there were true health 23 concerns, should it be mandatory? 24 MS. TIA BARTLETT: I -- I believe so, I -- I 25 do believe that, yes.

187

1 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I may only have one (1) more 2 question. And -- and again I don't mean to limit my 3 questions to Ms. Bartlett, but, it -- it seemed to be a nice 4 focus and if others have comment, please make it. 5 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: She's a mic hog. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I -- I'm wondering, it's -- 10 it was interesting to me, the other day, we saw a map with 11 some resident's identified on it, that seemed to be within 12 what we might consider an emergency response zone or what I 13 think was categorized as one (1). 14 Are all of you, within the emergency response 15 zone -- well let me ask the -- let me ask it this way, it 16 would be easier for you to answer. 17 Does anybody have emergency response materials 18 from Agrium? 19 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: All of the residents up 20 here, are in that circle. But, two (2) of the residents are 21 not located on the map. Their residences are there, but, 22 apparently the industries or the emergency response teams 23 don't know they exist. 24 MR. WARD SAWATZKY: I'd like to add to that 25 please. I don't recall Agrium ever coming to me and talking

188

1 to me about an emergency response system. And I -- I believe 2 that's the same for the Ziegemans. 3 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: Correct. 4 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And can you -- can you just 5 summarize for me, what is in your emergency response 6 material? 7 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Yeah, we usually get a 8 fridge magnet. They -- we have been handed a video for 9 shelter and place, which is not terribly reassuring. 10 We have -- yeah -- we do have a lot of fridge 11 magnets, don't we actually? We have had a fair amount of 12 material, you know, if there is a spill, if there is a 13 release, whether or not, the industry itself will call us 14 directly, or if we hear or see something we're supposed to 15 call the NR care line. 16 They do talk a little bit about evacuation. 17 But, quite frankly, what I've heard it's a little scary. 18 Apparently if evacuation has to occur, someone in Sherwood 19 Park, has to meet and decide on whether or not, the residents 20 need to be relocated. 21 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Henkelman, just given 22 your location, there's a -- you -- are you lim -- are you 23 within more than one (1) company's emergency response zone? 24 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Yes, I am. 25 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And which leads me to the

189

1 question, is there, to your knowledge, a coordinated system 2 between the company's in terms of how they notify 3 individuals? 4 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: It's through the NR 5 care line. 6 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Okay. And is that one (1) 7 of these automatic dial systems that does mass dialling and 8 identifies what the situation is -- 9 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: That's exactly right. 10 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- and what the response 11 level is? 12 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: That's correct. But if 13 I'm out in the field with my horses, that doesn't help me 14 much. 15 MS. HEATHER GARON: Can I also comment? It 16 doesn't help the children very much either, if they're home 17 alone without their parents. Most kids are told not to 18 answer the phone, and if they do, I'm sorry, but when I was 19 little, I wouldn't know what to do. 20 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I think those are all of my 21 questions, just let me make sure. It always occurs to me 22 after a Panel leaves, that I've missed something. 23 MR. PERCIVAL HENKELMAN: Nice that it happens 24 to young people. 25 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I like that, young -- young

190

1 people. 2 Those are all of the Panel's questions, thank 3 you. Ms. Klimek...? 4 5 RE-DIRECT-EXAMINATION BY MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: 6 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: I have just three (3) 7 follow up questions. And there's been a lot of talk about 8 Terreson and BA Energy, and I would just -- Cheryl or Tia, 9 could you point out on the map where that would be, because 10 we've been referring to it a lot. 11 One (1) of you could show it on the front map, 12 and one (1) of you could show it on the -- and on that map, 13 Cheryl, show where you are located with respect to that? 14 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Okay, this is my 15 quarter section right here. Well, actually it's my father's 16 quarter section, I just happen to hang out there. 17 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Oh -- Tia, just wait a 18 minute, let Cheryl go first. 19 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Okay, that's our 20 quarter section. 21 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: And where's your house 22 on that? 23 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: Right in there -- 24 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Okay. 25 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: -- right in the centre.

191

1 And these five (5) -- whoops, I'm sorry. These five (5) 2 quarter sections are what have been purchased by BA Energy 3 and Terreson Pipelines. 4 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Now, Tia, you can... 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: I believe they're the 9 big green dots on your map. 10 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. 11 12 CONTINUED BY MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: 13 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Sharon, I just wanted to 14 direct you to one (1) question. You mentioned earlier you 15 are on a dead-end road; is that correct? 16 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: That's correct. 17 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: And you have one (1) way 18 of getting out of your house then; right? 19 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: Yes, we do. 20 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: And if something were to 21 happen to Agrium and it went across the road, has anyone 22 discussed with you how you should remove yourself from the 23 area? 24 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: Never. 25 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Okay. Now, I'm going to

192

1 direct this to anybody who wants to answer it, because Mr. 2 Roth brought up a lose/lose situation. 3 Now, let's assume for a moment you aren't 4 going to be relocated, is your life -- could you address the 5 issue of whether your life would be better or not with this 6 expansion there or not there. What happens to your quality 7 of life if you're forced to stay there? 8 Could you maybe address that to address that 9 concern? 10 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: Quite frankly, our 11 quality of life will be in the toilet. 12 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Okay, anybody else want 13 to address that? 14 MS. TIA BARTLETT: I agree. 15 MR. PERCIVAL HENKELMAN: There's certainly no 16 advantage to us, them being directly across the road. And 17 there will be a necessity even to widen the road, which would 18 take part of our property, the power lines on the other side, 19 and so -- 20 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: I'm talking about the -- 21 not the BA Energy one (1), Percy -- 22 MR. PERCIVAL HENKELMAN: Oh. 23 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: -- but if Agrium were to 24 go ahead? 25 MR. PERCIVAL HENKELMAN: Oh, oh, yeah, okay.

193

1 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Sharon...? 2 MS. SHARON ZIEGEMAN: Well, it totally affects 3 our family, because we do a lot of gardening, we do a lot of 4 outdoor activities, we have a small hobby farm with -- with 5 small animals. I -- I've read my report, my submission, and 6 my whole submission is about how it affects us. 7 I -- we raise our own chickens, we eat our own 8 meat, we eat -- we eat all this, we eat this. And now with 9 all the findings of fluoride, I don't know that I can feed it 10 to my family anymore, what -- what do I do with it all, what 11 do I do with my chickens, what do I do with my eggs? I don't 12 know what more I can add to that. 13 MS. CHERYL HENKELMAN: We simply can't live 14 with anymore impacts, period. 15 MS. EVELYN MARQUARDT: And we live directly 16 across from that gypsum pond, extension means more expansion, 17 more of everything that we are objecting to. We can't take 18 anymore of it. 19 MR. WARD SAWATZKY: The future's been taken 20 out of our hands by just more than one (1) entity, industry 21 for one (1), Municipal Government for another, for my family, 22 there's no future for it there, for the family farm to 23 continue. We're just going to be continually bombarded, like 24 I said before, I'd just like to get on with the rest of my 25 life.

194

1 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Those are all my 2 questions for this Panel. Oh, the pictures that we had of 3 Sharon and Barry's farm, Mr. Roth has arranged to have them 4 photocopied and we do have colour photographs for everybody, 5 so if that could be entered as the next exhibit. 6 MR. CHAIRPERSON: It will be NSCRG-15. 7 8 --- EXHIBIT NO. NSCRG-15: Photographs of the Ziegeman farm. 9 10 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: And, Mr. Chair, that 11 concludes our evidence. 12 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you, 13 Panel. 14 MR. DARIN STEPANIUK: Mr. Chairman, I hope I'm 15 being helpful. There was some reference to the -- the report 16 from the Fort Saskatchewan Area Community Exposure and Health 17 Affects Assessment Program. It's my information that that 18 report is available on Alberta Health and Wellness' web page. 19 I know our -- I suspect that Mr. Mousseau is probably going 20 to want to read that tonight, so -- 21 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Stepaniuk, I'm -- I 22 assume that there are printed copies available in Edmonton as 23 well, and given that we're expecting to see Alberta Health 24 and Wellness tomorrow, I would hope that copies could be 25 tendered, if not tomorrow, then at least we can get an

195

1 undertaking to get paper copies? 2 MR. DARIN STEPANIUK: I -- I spoke to Mr. 3 Mackenzie, and I think we're bringing fifty (50) paper 4 copies, but just in case someone wants to do some homework 5 tonight. 6 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I think we should break for 11 lunch. It's -- why don't we come back at 1:15 -- 2:15, 12 sorry. 13 14 --- Upon recessing at 1:05 p.m. 15 --- Upon reconvening at 2:24 p.m. 16 17 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Can -- can we ask people to 18 take their seats and Mr. -- Mr. Neufeld, just before you get 19 started; on Monday, we talked about the notion of the Panel 20 doing a site tour visit. 21 And we were hoping that the various 22 participants would get their wish lists of things we would 23 note and -- and observe and report back on, and that those 24 lists be delivered to Mr. Mousseau. 25 I understand in talking to Mr. Mousseau at the

196

1 break that we haven't been able to collect that information 2 yet. 3 The reason -- obviously we haven't had time to 4 do that site visit yet. But, before we got, I want to make 5 sure that all parties have an opportunity, at least, to 6 comment on the things that we will be going out to observe. 7 And, so that really means, that information 8 should come in today, or perhaps first thing tomorrow 9 morning. If it's not in by that time and I suspect -- I 10 don't think we'll be sitting Sunday -- it is quite likely 11 that we will go ahead and do the site visit based on what we 12 have. 13 And -- and so it's -- get it in or you may 14 miss the opportunity. 15 Ms. Klimek...? 16 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Mr. Chair, I just have a 17 question out of that, so I can provide what you're looking 18 for. 19 When you say, what you want us to look at, 20 like what our clients would intend, that you would drive down 21 their road, but, do you want us to say, you should be looking 22 at this and this or just point out where the residences are? 23 I -- I don't know how detailed you want us to be? 24 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Well, I -- I think we're 25 looking for you to be as detailed as -- as you want to be.

197

1 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Okay. 2 MR. CHAIRPERSON: The limitations that I think 3 we're prepared to impose on ourselves, is -- is we don't want 4 anybody with us -- 5 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Okay -- 6 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- when we do the site 7 visit. We do not want to have to obtain permission so we 8 don't want to go on private property. We want to limit 9 ourselves to public roadways. 10 And -- and within that -- we're prepared to -- 11 really -- 12 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Okay, I understand what 13 you want. Thanks. 14 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Neufeld...? 15 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Thank you, sir. It 16 might be more fun if we give you clues. 17 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Make -- make them easy to 18 interpret. 19 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: I have a series of 20 undertakings. Mr. Chairman and with Ms. -- Mr. Fedunec's 21 assistance, I'm -- I'll take care of them now. 22 The first was an undertaking that was given on 23 February 24, and I'm sorry, sir, I don't have transcript 24 references, but, I could give you the times if you wish -- 25 wished.

198

1 MR. CHAIRPERSON: It -- it might be helpful 2 for at least my list. On some of them I did write down the 3 times. 4 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: All right. February 24 5 at 10:15, the first undertaking and the second undertaking 6 concerned the components of PM 10 and fluoride content in 7 product tailings and Mr. Fedunec has circulated a table 8 entitled, "Trace element analysis of several photo-gypsum 9 samples from Redwater, Alberta," and included about that 10 about four (4) pages in, sir, is a chart entitled, "Combined 11 gypsum samples weekly average analysis of C, A, S and F." 12 So I think in this one filing, sir, we've 13 answered both the first and second undertakings. 14 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And Mr. Neufeld, I had in my 15 notes at least that there was a response provided on the 24th 16 immediately after lunch. Is this expanding on -- on that 17 answer and it may or may not be that an exhibit was filed at 18 that time. I -- I simply have a note that something came on 19 the record. 20 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: I'm sorry, sir, I'll 21 check back and -- and -- and get back to you on that. 22 MR. CHAIRPERSON: It would just be helpful 23 when we're trying to make sense of this is do we need to look 24 at both and -- and compare one against the other. 25 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Okay. We -- we will.

199

1 If we might give this or reserve an exhibit number for this. 2 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Well let's give it Agrium 3 35 -- 4 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Okay. 5 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- and -- and we'll 6 certainly enter it. Just one second, Mr. Neufeld. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: I'm sorry, sir, I think 11 that this might have -- I may have misled you on this. My -- 12 this numbering system that I've got is not necessarily the -- 13 the one that corresponds with -- with your list. Let me go 14 back. This would be in response, sir, to an undertaking 15 given on February 25th at 12:45 and it concerns the fluoride 16 content in product tailings. I'm sorry. 17 MR. CHAIRPERSON: It will still be Agrium 35. 18 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Thank you. 19 20 --- EXHIBIT NO. AGRIUM-35: Response to February 25th 21 undertaking regarding fluoride 22 content in product tailings. 23 24 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Neufeld -- 25 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Maybe what I'll do is --

200

1 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Neufeld, Ms. Leggett has 2 a question just to clarify exactly what we have here. 3 MS. SHEILA LEGGETT: Mr. Neufeld, just for the 4 record to be clear from when you introduced it, I'm 5 understanding that these are analytical results from a number 6 of samples of the phosphogypsum stack itself, not 7 particulates? 8 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Yes, they are. 9 MS. SHEILA LEGGETT: Thank you. 10 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: And perhaps the quickest 11 way to get through this, Mr. Chairman, without correlating 12 these back and I think -- I apologize, I think the fastest 13 way to do this is if we -- and I'm sorry, I'm not trying to 14 give you clues but if we get these on to the record and we 15 will certainly come back with a better description later on 16 as to exactly where these appeared on the transcript or I can 17 wait and do this later, sir. 18 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I -- 19 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: My problem is as it -- 20 as I speak, I've got all this stuff that just came in and I 21 don't have the transcript references to give to you which I 22 ordinarily would do which would make this a lot more 23 efficient. So if there's some urgency in getting this on to 24 the record, I'll do that but I think that perhaps the better 25 thing to do is just to wait and get you the transcript

201

1 references. 2 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 3 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Having said that, there 4 are one (1) or two (2) things that Mr. Smulski had requested, 5 because he's proceeding, that might be appropriate to put on 6 the record now. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: And again, I don't have 11 the transcript references, sir. I'm sure that if these 12 aren't responsive, we'll hear. The first is -- I'm looking 13 for a title, sir. The first is a map of intercept elevations 14 that he requested in respect of the -- the west interceptor. 15 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Agrium-36. 20 21 --- EXHIBIT NO. AGRIUM-36: Map of intercept elevations in 22 respect to the West interceptor. 23 24 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: The second is a map 25 showing the location of bore-holes, on the area of the gypsum

202

1 stack extension. For the purpose of identification, it is 2 entitled, at the bottom right hand corner, Agrium Drawing 3 Number 50-G-D13121. 4 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And, Mr. Neufeld, we had an 5 earlier exhibit, and again, I don't -- showing -- and without 6 looking at the exhibit, the test holes were all drilled under 7 the proposed gyp-stack area, and that came in earlier. Is -- 8 how does this compare to that? That's what I took that 9 undertaking to be, along with the analysis, the core 10 analysis? The logs. 11 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: All right, the purpose 12 of this is to match the logs that we made to Mr. Smulski, he 13 had requested logs as well, and we've given him a summary 14 document of those logs in hard copy. 15 I can also say that we had indicated the hope 16 that we would be able to provide him with an electronic copy 17 on CD-ROM, because the full data set is so large. That's not 18 available as yet. We don't propose to provide it to the 19 Board unless it's of interest to the Board, we will provide 20 the summary of the deep bore-hole logs, and this is a key to 21 that. 22 MR. CHAIRPERSON: That would suit us, thank 23 you. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)

203

1 MR. CHAIRPERSON: This is the same as Smulski- 2 3. 3 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: We'll check, sir, and if 4 it is we'll take it off the record, or -- or it'll be given a 5 distinction of two (2) exhibit numbers. 6 But, sir, I might just add, I don't know where 7 Mr. Smulski's going to go with his presentation. We do have 8 a summary of deep bore-hole logs, only two (2) or three (3) 9 copies available, if we get into that during his 10 presentation, we can make that available to the Board, but 11 we've made it available to him, I'm not sure what he's going 12 to do with it, I don't propose to enter it as an exhibit. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: And with that, sir, I 17 promise that when I come back tomorrow morning to enter the 18 balance of the exhibits, they'll be referenced to 19 transcripts. 20 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 21 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Thank you. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Capital Health Authority.

204

1 MR. GREG BOYER: Members of the Board, the 2 name Greg Boyer, I'm legal counsel for Capital Health. I 3 just wanted to make some brief submissions, simply for the 4 fact that Capital Health does not intend to make 5 presentations by way of evidence, the written submission, and 6 I call it submission only in a very general term, is the 7 letter of February 13th, 2004. 8 Although it could be read as saying it's 9 intending to participate, the intention was not to become an 10 Intervenor in the formal sense and make presentations, 11 advocate a disposition on one (1) side or the other, cross- 12 examine witnesses or argue at the end of the Hearing. The 13 intention was simply to -- more take a watch and brief 14 position. 15 Now, there has been some discussion today 16 about the Regional Health Study that has been discussed. I 17 guess Mr. Mousseau now has a copy of that Regional Health 18 Study. 19 For clarification the two (2) individuals that 20 are here from Capital Health never participated in that 21 Study. I understand that Alberta Health and Wellness, the 22 members of that agency who participated in that study are 23 here and would be available to the Board to answer questions 24 on it. 25 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Boyer, is it Boyer?

205

1 MR. GREG BOYER: Boyer. 2 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Boyer? 3 MR. GREG BOYER: B-O-Y-E-R. Thank you. 4 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Can I -- can I just ask one 5 question on that? Are -- you say there are some members from 6 Capital Health Authority who could answer questions on the 7 health study? 8 MR. GREG BOYER: No, the two (2) that are 9 here had no knowledge or participation in that study. They 10 didn't participate in that process. Members from Alberta 11 Health and Wellness who were in that study apparently are 12 here and would be part of the presentation of -- on -- on 13 behalf of Alberta Health and Wellness. 14 Capital Health role was rather limited in the 15 government review team and some discussions today from the 16 panel as you heard, members of the community have concerns 17 about the objectivity or the confidence in the process and 18 Capital Health thought it best to remain as objective and 19 independent in the process so that if there was a decision 20 from this Board which requires further involvement from 21 Capital Health, that it maintain as objective a position as 22 possible. 23 That's why it's not advocating a position in 24 this submission this letter. It's simply putting some 25 information to the Board saying it wasn't -- it was involved

206

1 in the process although there's some qualifications as are 2 seen in that letter that if there were new information arisen 3 and as I understand from the presentations through this 4 hearing process, there may be new information that could 5 affect the assessment process. 6 But it's ultimately for the Board to determine 7 whether if there is a decisions and conditions put on a 8 decision that the role of Capital Health be kept as 9 independent so as to ensure the objectivity and as much 10 confidence is possible for the residents and for all 11 participants in the process. 12 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Boyer, I think I'm 13 interested in hearing from some other party -- from the other 14 parties to the hearing as well. I must confess that I had 15 some questions that I -- I would've like to have posed to the 16 Capital Health Authority. 17 Some of them relate to the mandate of the CHA, 18 some of them relate to the mandate and some of the statements 19 that -- that are indeed in the letter we had received from -- 20 MR. GREG BOYER: Hmm hmm. 21 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- the Capital Health 22 Authority. It may be that those questions can be answered by 23 Mr. Stepaniuk's client. I'm not certain of that. But I -- 24 perhaps if other parties have any -- any comment on -- on 25 what you're suggesting maybe that's a good starting point.

207

1 MR. GREG BOYER: It sounds fine. 2 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Klimek. 3 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: Sir, on behalf of my 4 clients, I would certainly like an opportunity to cross- 5 examine Capital Health. They have forwarded a submission 6 indicating they intended to participate. And in that 7 submission they refer to having worked on the government 8 review team. 9 I would like to understand from Capital Health 10 what participation they took to that and why they took that 11 type of participation. What went on in their decision making 12 process? I don't even know what they took. It's not a 13 situation where we have access to the government's files. In 14 an appeal you get to see what every brings and all that. 15 So I think when a party indicates that they're 16 intending on participating, that -- that brings certain 17 obligations with it and one of it is to show up and be cross- 18 examined. Secondly, you have heard from my clients today 19 their dealings with Capital Health, what they expect of them 20 to do and I would like to know what they're going to do with 21 that. 22 And furthermore, to recall Dr. Roger's saying, 23 it's not Agrium's problem, it's the health professional's 24 problem what's going on here. And if that is the case I 25 would like to know what perhaps they're going to do about it

208

1 and that would be under their mandate. 2 And if these two (2) individuals are not 3 capable of a -- of answering those questions, perhaps Capital 4 Health should be getting someone here who can because I think 5 it's important issues in the public interest that you need to 6 understand and out of -- to also understand what happened 7 historically but if you're going to write a decision saying 8 it should go ahead on these conditions, in order for you to 9 pick those conditions, I think you need to know what is 10 available to you in writing those conditions. What is 11 Capital Health's mandate, what is it prepared to do, what can 12 it do, because that may factor into your decision-making 13 process. 14 So I would submit that we -- they've been here 15 for the whole Hearing and if they didn't want to participate, 16 they should have indicated that earlier because frankly I 17 think it would have brought an application at the outset to 18 have them compelled to be here. 19 The EAB has taken that opportunity in a 20 previous hearing to have them show up to explain their 21 concerns and in the public interest, I don't know how you can 22 make a decision on conditions if you don't know what's 23 available to you in that mandate and it appears they would be 24 the best the people. 25 I don't know how Alberta Environment can

209

1 advise you what Capital Health can and cannot do. They 2 clearly say they have jurisdiction over this area and I think 3 that's information you need before you when you're coming to 4 your conclusions and furthermore, I'm just -- I'm getting the 5 sense that as they're watching that they may be somewhat 6 concerned about what they have to say. 7 Well, maybe that's where they should be put on 8 the hot seat to deci -- to indicate what they can and can't 9 do for these people. 10 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Smulski...? 11 MR. KEN SMULSKI: In regards to this panel 12 here? 13 MR. CHAIRPERSON: In regard to the appearance 14 of Capital Health Authority. You heard -- 15 MR. KEN SMULSKI: I -- you know, I think from 16 their perspective they basically provide somewhat of an 17 overview in the situation and that -- that would be my 18 comment. 19 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Yeah, I think, Mr. Smulski, 20 Mr. Boyer -- Boyer who is acting for Capital Health Authority 21 was suggesting that their intent was not to put forward a 22 witness and we're asking parties whether they have comment on 23 that position. 24 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Well, he knows his position 25 a lot better than I do and I think that would be fine with

210

1 our people. Thank you. 2 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 3 Mr. Unger...? 4 MR. JASON UNGER: Yes? I would just add that 5 I think since health has obviously become -- or is and always 6 was a major issue in regards to the -- the extension and 7 their -- their venue being that arena there, I think it would 8 be helpful to know their mandate in relation to how that 9 relates to the parties that are involved and the concerns 10 they've raised. 11 And I would just -- just point to the last 12 line of their submission with some -- just an indication of 13 question I would raise where they suggest that continued 14 exposure for residents be monitored on continued ba -- 15 continued basis and possibly just getting an understanding of 16 what underlines that assertion. 17 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 18 Mr. Stepaniuk...? 19 MR. DARIN STEPANIUK: I'm going to offer some 20 information for you, sir. I think it is important that the 21 parties -- specific parties' needs have to be considered as 22 well. It is my understanding that Capital Health had 23 intended to participate from the outset in terms of a 24 watching brief. I suspect that the letter that's been 25 submitted was submitted without the assistance of legal

211

1 counsel. 2 They may -- may not have been aware of I think 3 it's rule 11-1-D or something in the NRCB rules, that say you 4 can indicate in your written submission that you just intend 5 on participating by way of cross-examination and argument. 6 So maybe there's been a technical slip up 7 there but you're -- you're free to vary your procedures. I 8 think my understanding is that they've -- they've come into 9 this proceeding on that basis, they didn't prepare on the 10 basis that they'd be giving evidence in-chief and being 11 cross-examined. 12 They didn't come with counsel at the outset, 13 so I think they're going to be suffering some hardship if 14 they're forced to participate in a -- in a fashion different 15 from that which they've prepared. 16 I can tell you that in terms of -- I do agree 17 with Ms. Klimek in terms of perhaps this issue should have 18 been brought to your attention earlier. 19 I can advise that I -- I was involved in some 20 discussions with -- with the Capital Health people before 21 their counsel were involved, about this, and I offered to 22 bring this to the Board's attention, that there may be some 23 disconnect in terms of perhaps the Board's and parties' 24 expectations, versus their intentions. But they wanted to 25 try and get some legal counsel to help them sort that out,

212

1 and it's my understanding that it's taken today -- until 2 today to get to -- to that. 3 So, I just wanted to provide that information 4 to you, sir. 5 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Before you leave, Mr. 6 Stepaniuk, and this may be a question that I should be posing 7 to Capital Health Authority, but your remarks make me recall, 8 earlier in the Proceeding, we were talking about scheduling 9 and talking about a time that we were expecting, or hoping to 10 hear from the Capital Health Authority. 11 I'm a little surprised that it's coming up at 12 this point in the Hearing, and -- and clearly when -- at 13 least when the Panel read the letter, I -- I think it's fair 14 to say we were expecting the Capital Health Authority to 15 appear. 16 And, can you help me, and -- and perhaps Mr. 17 Boyer can help me as well, in explaining the relationship 18 between your client, Alberta Health and Wellness and the 19 Capital Health Authority? 20 And, I'm asking that question, because there 21 may be a potential -- well, there may be a potential to pose 22 these questions to your client, as opposed to Capital Health 23 Authority. 24 I'm looking for a way out of perhaps having to 25 deal with this, with finality at this point.

213

1 MR. DARIN STEPANIUK: I'm not sure what I can 2 offer, sir. Of course, Alberta Health and Wellness and 3 Capital Health Authority are not the same. Alberta Health 4 and Wellness is a Provincial Ministry. My understanding is 5 that Capital Health Authority is an arm's length separate 6 legal entity. They do have a relationship. 7 I can't speak in detail to that relationship. 8 Our main Alberta Health and Wellness witness, Mr. Alex 9 Mackenzie, deals with Regional Health Authorities. He knows 10 the Capital Health Authority people that are here. He knows 11 others in the agency. He has a working knowledge, I'm sure, 12 of their mandate and the legislation which they operate 13 under, but he doesn't speak for Capital Health. 14 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr. Boyer...? 15 We'll hear from you after this, Mr. Neufeld. Go ahead. 16 MR. GREG BOYER: The -- you had raised a 17 couple issues, one (1) was about this mandate -- Ms. Klimek 18 had raised the issue of the mandate. I think it's pretty 19 clear that the Public Health Act and the Regional Health 20 Authorities Act are the legislative bodies or vehicles that 21 create the authority of the Capital Health, at least in the 22 sense of the public health issue. 23 The two (2) individuals that are here are both 24 from the public health side of Capital Health. Yes, they are 25 here and they could speak to those issues. But specifically,

214

1 the interaction between the two (2) parties, I -- I think 2 it's best, as Mr. Stepaniuk said, to leave it to the actual 3 Alberta Health people who -- who have been involved in that. 4 I understand that Ms. -- Ms. Szmetan, who was 5 also involved in that process; she could speak to it. 6 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Boyer, there are several 7 statements in the letter or submission that we received from 8 Capital Health Authority, statements of mandate and -- and 9 statements of responsibility, and -- and I know the questions 10 that I would have of the Capital Health Authority would 11 relate to their response to that mandate, with respect to 12 this situation. 13 Is that something that only the Capital Health 14 Authority could answer? 15 MR. GREG BOYER: Well, these individuals could 16 speak to the mandate -- well, Ms. Szmetan wrote the letter, 17 so she can speak to what her understanding of though -- the 18 -- and -- and her practice or her instructions, in -- and her 19 role in the public health aspect. 20 And I didn't want to miss -- to -- to -- 21 present the wrong impression here. It's not the impression 22 that Capital Health doesn't want to be able to participate in 23 the sense of being available for questions, but the point is, 24 Capital Health does not want to advocate a position. 25 It is not advocating a position in support or

215

1 against and so, having these individuals here, they can speak 2 to the process in which they were involved in the government 3 review -- the review team, but Capital Health is not 4 advocating a position for or against. 5 There were some comments in the letter, as 6 you've seen, which said that if there are new concerns, maybe 7 continued monitoring is an issue, but that when the -- the 8 term cross-examination comes up, it -- it really is something 9 appropriate for a party who has a position they're trying to 10 advocate and the other side is trying to push them off that 11 position or get admissions that are not helpful to that 12 position. 13 Capital Health is not advocating a position 14 for or against the Applicant or the Respondent in this 15 Application. 16 MR. CHAIRPERSON: So I need to understand 17 that answer, but there is no objection then of Capital Health 18 Authority to answer questions related to the correspondence 19 that it sent -- 20 MR. GREG BOYER: If -- if it's the direction 21 of the Board that they be put up to answer questions, no, 22 there's no objection to that. 23 But, the idea was, if there was no objection 24 to them not making any present -- presentation, and I wanted 25 to make it clear that there wasn't an intention of making a

216

1 presentation in a sense of being an Intervenor taking a side 2 in these proceedings. 3 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Oh. I think we were clear 4 on that when the submission came in, Mr. Boyer, and certainly 5 we wouldn't ask the Capital Health Authority to take sides. 6 I -- I think we may have resolved this. Ms. 7 Klimek, are you comfortable with the answer we're getting? I 8 think it is the Board's position that Capital Health 9 Authority be available to answer questions with respect to 10 its submission. 11 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: My question -- I'm 12 happy with that position as long as they have some depth 13 within their submission. 14 I would -- and I guess we'll find that out 15 when they're cross-examined. I'm not suggesting they have to 16 advocate a position at all. I mean, what we want is some 17 factual basis of why they did what they did and how they -- 18 and what they -- what-- and although they -- you have an Act 19 that says they can do things. 20 Do they have the ability to do those things, 21 because I think those are important. We can all read the 22 legislation and say you can protect public health, but are 23 they prepared to do studies? Can they do this? Can they do 24 that? 25 That becomes -- somebody with some authority,

217

1 I think, would have to address those. I'd also, if it's 2 possible to address some of Mr. Stepaniuk's -- if you are 3 prepared to -- or do you think we're -- you have enough 4 information. 5 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Well, I think perhaps we 6 should hear from Mr. Neufeld next. 7 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Well, I guess, Mr. 8 Chairman, I can tell you I've no submissions on this. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Mousseau, do you have 13 any sage advice for the panel? 14 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Sir, I don't really have 15 any sage advice. It sounds to me as though Capital Health is 16 willing to speak to the contents of the submission that it's 17 filed. 18 The Board, of course, has the power to compel 19 witnesses. It can order a witness and if the witness doesn't 20 attend, it can get a -- it can obtain a -- an Order from the 21 Court at Queen's Bench. It doesn't sound to me as though 22 those measures are necessary at this point in time, sir. 23 But, I think if it comes to that, you -- you 24 go back to Section 2 of the Act and if the mandate of the 25 Board requires the attendance of those witnesses to get

218

1 certain information, then they can be compelled, but, as I've 2 said, sir, it appears as though the issue is -- is quickly 3 resolving itself. 4 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr. 5 Stepaniuk...? 6 MR. DARIN STEPANIUK: This may be all moot 7 now, sir. I've spoken with Mr. Mackenzie and he can tell you 8 about the Public Health Act and what a Regional Health 9 Authority's role is in terms of administration of that Act; I 10 offer that for whatever it's worth. 11 And, I guess, just have a general response to 12 Mr. Mousseau. I appreciate that the Board can compel people 13 but there still is the matter of fairness if people have come 14 here expecting one thing and you're going to tell them that 15 they have to another. 16 If they're not ready to do that, they may have 17 some difficulties. Do they have the right witnesses here, 18 are they prepared to do that, but Mr. Boyer can -- can speak 19 to that but I just want to -- I'm -- I'm picking a fight with 20 Mr. Mousseau and I'm sorry. 21 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: And what Mr. Stepaniuk 22 says is fair comment. Of course, if you are going to compel 23 someone, there is a process that must be followed. And I 24 wasn't suggesting a -- a decree from the Bench at this point 25 in time, sir, so.

219

1 MR. CHAIRPERSON: It wasn't going to come 2 anyways. The -- the Panel is -- well does believe that we 3 would benefit from hearing from the Capital Health Authority. 4 Now and again, we don't mean to mislead any parties to this 5 process as to exactly what this process entails. 6 And now in hearing Ms. Klimek's comments it -- 7 it sounds to me as if the information she may be seeking from 8 the Capital Health Authority may go beyond the contents of 9 the submission. That was certainly not the Panel's intent or 10 at least to my knowledge it wasn't the Panel's intent. The 11 questions that we have I think will be confined to the 12 submission that we have received and reviewed. 13 With that in mind, I'm going to ask Mr. 14 Stepaniuk and Mr. Boyer to briefly meet perhaps off the 15 record and then come back and put it on the record at -- at a 16 later date or later time, perhaps not later date and I'm 17 going to put forward a suggestion. 18 Mr. Stepaniuk on Monday, you requested that 19 the Alberta Crown be in affect the final panel next to of 20 course what evidence we're going to receive on the 11th of 21 March. And it seems to me that with Alberta Health and 22 Wellness sitting with the Alberta Crown, it may be that many 23 of the more detailed questions could be posed to Alberta 24 Health and Wellness. 25 And then if the answers are satisfactory,

220

1 there may not be a need to ask Capital Health Authority those 2 questions, but that would really mean that the Alberta Crown 3 step back and behind the Capital Health Authority submission. 4 MR. DARIN STEPANIUK: I can tell you right 5 now that we're not going to have difficulty with that if -- 6 if that's -- I think Ms. Klimek's the one who can advise if 7 she has any difficulty with that. But we're prepared to not 8 be absolutely -- we're having Dr. Resnikoff come in later and 9 so on. So we're already not dead last from the get go. 10 MR. CHAIRPERSON: So with that I -- I would 11 expect that we may hear from Capital Health Authority 12 sometime tomorrow afternoon. That would be our hope. And 13 with that -- oh, Ms. Klimek. 14 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: This is just with 15 respect to scheduling. It may be difficult if you're going 16 to have all the cross-examination if you hope to be done 17 tomorrow if they come tomorrow afternoon. I'm just giving a 18 head's up that I have a fair few questions for Capital Health 19 and they all do relate to the submission. So I'm just giving 20 you a head's up on that. 21 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Do you have an idea as to 22 time? 23 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: I'm not sure you want 24 to hear my ideas. That's the time I've been wrong on every 25 other on. I thought my panel would be an hour this morning.

221

1 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Let's hear them. 2 MS. JENNIFER KLIMEK: I think about an hour 3 to an hour and a half. 4 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Stepaniuk. 5 MR. DARIN STEPANIUK: Again, I -- I am trying 6 to be helpful, sir. I just note that if we're talking about 7 tomorrow afternoon for Capital Health. It's going to be 8 tomorrow night is my prediction. I suspect the Crown's going 9 to be on the stand all day and into the evening tomorrow. 10 So if Capital Health thinks that they're going 11 to be able to show up tomorrow afternoon, I think it's going 12 to be into the evening and then if Ms. Klimek has got an hour 13 of questions for them, it'll be a long day. 14 MR. CHAIRPERSON: It may be. With that, Mr. 15 Smulski, I think we're -- it's -- it's your time. 16 Mr. Smulski, in terms of presenting your 17 direct evidence, it's probably easier if -- if you sit. Go 18 ahead. 19 MR. KEN SMULSKI: I -- I realized that, I 20 thought what I'd do, I'd give a -- just a few minute 21 historical on the facility, we'll sit -- we'll sit the 22 people, swear them in, and then I'll provide the -- let them 23 speak, and then I will go over there after. 24 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Now, Mr. Smulski, just in 25 terms and -- and in terms of getting your direct evidence in,

222

1 if you choose to stand there, that's fine. But I just want 2 to understand, rather than ask -- just asking questions of 3 your Panel, you will be giving evidence as well? 4 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Yes, and what I'd like to do 5 is let them speak, then I have a small working model of 6 what's going on out there. I'd like to just put it in the 7 centre of the floor. I think it's also going to answer much 8 of the questions of that group this morning. You know, I 9 thought on this a lot, I'd like a little leeway, I think we 10 can get through this a lot quicker for all parties, and I 11 just want some leeway here. 12 And believe me, we'll see it all much clearer 13 for all -- from your perspective of our Chair and Panel, from 14 these people here. And I worked on this for a long time, and 15 I'd ask just for a little patience and leeway, and I believe 16 that after we see it all, everybody will be very pleased. 17 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Please proceed. 18 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Do you want me to get them 19 sworn in first, or do you want me to -- okay, then -- 20 MR. CHAIRPERSON: As well as -- and we'll 21 swear you in at the same -- oh, Mr. Boyer, I'm sorry? 22 MR. GREG BOYER: And -- I pardon, I appreciate 23 the -- in speaking with Mr. Stepaniuk, he has suggested that 24 given the time lines and what the experience has been for 25 this Panel, with witnesses, is it more realistic to set

223

1 Capital Health to the March 11th date that is available and 2 is planned right now, and then not have running out of time. 3 I mean, if cross-examination for Alberta 4 Health and Wellness runs into the -- the late evening, and 5 then to start with another witness and a bunch of cross- 6 examination, it may be more -- and then -- then have an issue 7 raised that is more appropriately addressed by another 8 witness. 9 Maybe the March 11th date is the -- and if 10 there can be some direction from the parties as to specific 11 areas, maybe there's another witness who should be brought 12 forward by Capital Health? 13 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Well -- well let me ask you 14 that question, Mr. Boyer, if -- if we were in fact to make a 15 determination at this point in time that Capital Health 16 Authority would appear on March the 11th, and -- and 17 questions were to come forward that would -- were to identify 18 a need to bring in other people, when would we do that? 19 MR. GREG BOYER: Well, I guess if -- if it 20 could be done before March 11th, I mean, if it's specifically 21 about the -- and -- and a number of people use -- have used 22 the word submissions. Well, I -- I think that an over 23 generous word for the -- for the letter. 24 But cre -- I understand the Panel to say that 25 the questions they have are related to what's in the letter.

224

1 The author of the letter can probably speak to that most 2 directly, but, Ms. Klimek has suggested a -- an hour to an 3 hour and a half, maybe a longer period of cross-examination. 4 If her cross-examination goes beyond just 5 specifics, which are identified in the letter, if it -- 6 perhaps in advance, then I could arrange for the appropriate 7 witness to be there on the 11th as well. 8 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Well, maybe -- what I was 9 hoping we would do, and -- is carry through the Alberta 10 Crown's submission tomorrow. And -- and I don't know about 11 your intentions, Mr. Boyer, but Ms. Szmetan has been through 12 -- here throughout the Hearing, and I -- I would almost 13 prefer to address this after we've heard from the Alberta 14 Crown. 15 We'll know what time of the day we're at, 16 we'll have a pretty good idea of what Alberta Health and 17 Wellness has been able to address in terms of -- of the 18 response to the questions. 19 We might be able to, at -- at that time, 20 obtain an idea from Ms. Klimek as to what matters might be 21 outstanding, in terms of Capital Health Authority. And then 22 have a pretty good idea as to where that might lead us in 23 terms of Proceedings tomorrow. 24 I'm -- I'm reluctant to move things on to 25 March the 11th, because that calendar could fill very

225

1 quickly, in terms of timing. 2 And, when we were canvassing for dates, it was 3 very difficult to find dates in the future as to when we 4 could get all of the parties in -- in the same room and so I 5 really would prefer to leave that to tomorrow. 6 MR. GREG BOYER: All right, so -- tomorrow 7 afternoon, then? 8 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. 9 Smulski. 10 MR. KEN SMULSKI: We're going to present 11 three (3) expert witnesses. One's involved in hydro geology, 12 the other is -- got a strong construction background. The 13 third is got a strong geo-technical background. 14 All of our witnesses are people we will call 15 for. We've taken extreme care and caution to not conflict 16 anybody in their positions. As you'll note, we'll provide 17 their resumes. They're from out of area. 18 Dr. Ho has worked with us since 1992, so he's 19 been retained by us since that time and I've -- I have -- the 20 only conflict we would have is we would put forward a -- a 21 farm operator that's worked for us for years, to just -- some 22 observation of work in the fields. 23 But, I think right now, what I'd like to do is 24 call these three (3) up, let them present all their 25 professional observations and evidence and -- in review of

226

1 the report, then we'll take a short break. Just a couple of 2 minutes. We'll put the model in front. I'll explain it and 3 then I'll go over there. 4 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Please proceed 5 MR. KEN SMULSKI: I'd now like to call on my 6 experts to take -- to go over here and we'll swear you in. 7 Starting with your -- with the Chair's left, starting 8 immediately to the back of the room, is Mr. Mike Fields. 9 Sitting next to him is Paul Machibroda and sitting next to 10 him is David Ho. 11 You want to swear them in now, or after -- 12 MR. CHAIRPERSON: We'll swear them in now and 13 we -- Mr. Smulski, we'll have you sworn at the same time, 14 just so we don't have to interrupt the proceedings. 15 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Stand here? 16 MR. CHAIRPERSON: It's probably better if 17 you -- we'll let the Court Reporter direct you. 18 19 PAUL MACHIBRODA, Sworn; 20 MICHAEL FIELDS, Sworn; 21 DR. DAVID HO, Sworn; 22 KEN SMULSKI, Sworn; 23 24 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR. KEN SMULSKI: 25 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Initially, this plant -- in

227

1 the beginning this plant was, you know, started in -- its 2 period of inception was 1967. It was commissioned in '69. 3 The original operator was Esso Chemical, which my 4 understanding was -- and I stand to be corrected, was a 5 partnership between Esso Resources and McCall Frontenac. 6 It operated the facility until the mid '90s 7 and then it -- my understanding is that it was sold to 8 Sherritt and then Sherritt on to Veridian on to Agrium. 9 Originally, that -- the site location -- this 10 is very interesting. It was located there because it was the 11 furthest south of the county of authorial. At that time, 12 that division was county authorial, was bisected almost by 13 that Highway 643 -- actually our half section east, half of 14 19 which we'll refer to later. 15 I'm just making a point now. It was 16 actually -- that was in Thorhild. The western parts of our 17 property were in Sturgeon. At that time, Sturgeon was -- MD 18 of Sturgeon Number 90, today, it's presently Sturgeon county. 19 The first industrial activity upon 20 commissioning of the plant that that area saw was the spur 21 line that CN constructed originating here from Fort 22 Saskatchewan and the -- the bridge that you cross when you 23 come out on 15, it feeds, now that part of the Alberta 24 heartland industrial area, the north side of the river. 25 That plant location was chosen in that county

228

1 because of, I believe, Dree (phonetic). I stand to be 2 corrected there, and there was an economic incentive in the 3 late 60s between the -- the present Alberta government and 4 some Federal funding, and so it was the closest sight to 5 Edmonton within the county of Thorhild. 6 And they were in a -- what they called a low 7 economic activity area or it qualified, so it was -- that was 8 the site location and, at this time, I'd like to turn it over 9 to Dr. David Ho, who has a short presentation. Thank you. 10 DR. DAVID HO: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman 11 and Panel Members, Ladies and Gentleman. Please allow me a 12 few minutes to pull up my slide presentation, please. 13 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Smulski, be -- just 14 while the slide presentation's coming up, we've had a 15 replacement materials filed by you. We had your submission. 16 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Oh, my oversight, yes. 17 MR. CHAIRPERSON: The question that I have 18 is, are there materials that are either been supplemented? 19 MR. KEN SMULSKI: No. 20 MR. CHAIRPERSON: So there are no new 21 materials. Have there been any materials removed? 22 MR. KEN SMULSKI: There's been no materials 23 removed. One of the P. Machibroda reports was incorrectly 24 invoiced to one of our other companies and all our work on 25 this project is under SV Half Diamond Ranch which is operated

229

1 under the J. Smulski estate. 2 So it was invoiced to one of my companies and 3 so we just -- when we exchanged the documents it -- that's 4 the only thing that changed was the invoice on the top. None 5 of the scientific content and we have changed nothing -- I -- 6 I just want to check here my oversight to all, is we have a 7 Table of Contents, has that been provided to everybody? 8 Because we have that here. 9 MR. CHAIRPERSON: It's in the front of the 10 binder that I have. 11 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Mr. Neufeld, can you 12 comment? Maybe we'll just -- I'll get Darcy to distribute 13 those. Darcy, the Tables of Contents. 14 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Mousseau...? 15 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Sir, I hesitate to 16 interrupt at this point but I noticed another camera has come 17 up and it's my understanding that it's a camera that's been 18 hired by Mr. Smulski to film this presentation. 19 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Not -- not. Pardon me, go 20 ahead. 21 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Maybe you should tell us 22 why the camera's here and then we can -- my oversight again. 23 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Just of the model, just to 24 take a few pictures because what we thought we would do for 25 the benefit of all because I think it will help us all

230

1 understand everybody's perspective. We're going to just film 2 the model, not the exchange, the professional exchange of the 3 people, just film the model and a few places, get the film 4 developed, turn it to the NRCB. 5 And it will be released to all the Intervenors 6 and Applicants because I think what it will show if a good 7 observation of what's really going on and how we can all 8 reach some conclusion, but we're not going to film during the 9 professional exchange. Just a few things when I walk around 10 the model and explain it and -- and that's it and a couple of 11 other areas. 12 And that's why he's here because I thought it 13 would be a benefit because we won't be able to replace the 14 model but we can always -- all look at the film and then we 15 can get a better understanding of what's being presented 16 between the scientific data and my historical observations 17 and -- observations and my thoughts towards the future. 18 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And that's the only time 19 the camera will be recording? 20 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Yeah. In respect to the 21 procedures followed previously, I thought that was best for 22 all. 23 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Neufeld, you're moving. 24 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: This mike's at the 25 right level, sir. Just a couple of comments there. I don't

231

1 have a problem if his -- if he wants to videotape the I guess 2 the presentation with the model. The idea being everybody 3 would get a copy of that? 4 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Well, I thought because 5 when you see it and then you relate it back to the parts with 6 some of our comments as we go through. I think it really, 7 you know, I've got a great historical perspective here. I 8 mean being out there all the time and as it relates to 9 everybody's situation I thought it of benefit to all. We 10 turn it all -- you know, we just turn the tapes over to the 11 NRCB. 12 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: I don't have a huge 13 problems with -- with that. I've got a bit of concern if 14 we're going to hear three (3) or four (4) hours of new 15 evidence that could and should have been in the submission 16 with the aid of demonstrative evidence or demonstrative 17 models. I've got a bit of an issue with that, sir. 18 We might have to take consideration as to how 19 we want to respond to that if at all. But that -- that would 20 be my -- my concern. 21 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I'll watch whether you get 22 on your feet, Mr. Neufeld. And Mr. Neufeld, I take it that 23 you've had an opportunity to look at this binder. What I'm 24 going to suggest is that we in fact replace this -- the 25 original binder with this binder. And there -- then we only

232

1 will be referring to one (1) package of information. 2 MR. KEN SMULSKI: The ones that I've 3 exchanged for the Panel and the Board. 4 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Indeed and it was entered 5 as Smulski-1. 6 MR. KEN SMULSKI: May I ask this. Mr. 7 Neufeld, have you got our Table of Contents? Because we -- 8 we can just distribute it as -- as we start. In respect to 9 Mr. Neufeld's request of just the tape running during the 10 presentation of the model, that's why we have somebody 11 engaged that's non-press. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Mousseau...? 16 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: And I think maybe it may 17 be worthwhile confirming with Mr. Smulski that what the 18 differences between the old and the new binder might be? 19 If he could -- if there are any differences in 20 terms of the materials in there -- 21 MR. KEN SMULSKI: The only difference is we 22 note is the table of contents is in and the one engagement 23 from P. Machibroda on his most recent letter, it was invoiced 24 to one of my companies, Five Star Trading, and it's invoiced 25 to the proper entity, SBF Diamond Ranch. And that's the only

233

1 change. Everything is the same. 2 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: The contents of the 3 letter haven't -- 4 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Everything is -- everything 5 is the same right throughout the whole book. Everything is 6 consistent. And as I indicated, the photos that we will show 7 later, we're going to burn on disc for everybody's facility 8 and computer, we'll provide that. 9 The photos that are in the book, we'll burn 10 them on a CD-ROM and they'll be available that way as well. 11 Everything is consistent. 12 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay, sir, thank you. 13 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Mousseau. 14 Please proceed, Mr. Smulski. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. KEN SMULSKI: 17 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Now, I will call on Dr. 18 David Ho of AN-GEO Environmental Consultants Limited to 19 present his -- 20 MR. DAVID HO: Mr. Chairman, Panel Members, 21 ladies and gentlemen, my presentation deals with the 22 groundwater impact to the land west of the existing gypsum 23 stack which is basically Mr. Smulski's property. 24 There are three (3) parts to my presentation. 25 First of all what I would like to do is to point out to you,

234

1 you know, like our concerns and then I would like to give you 2 some illustration of what has been gathered up to today which 3 are supporting our concerns and towards the end I would like 4 to share with you briefly about what we plan to do next. 5 The fundamental concern that we have is about 6 the existing stack and this proposed extension of the stack 7 would change the nature of flow over Mr. Smulski's land in 8 two (2) regard. Number 1 is the quantity, the amount of flow 9 which would pass through Mr. Smulski's property. 10 The first number one issue which would lead to 11 the quantity in the change of quantity of flow, from a 12 technical point of view, is because of what we identify as 13 the damming effect, which is basically that when you have 14 this tremendous height or thickness of gypsum tailing sitting 15 on top of the ground, it's going to compress the soil 16 underneath it or the ground underneath it. 17 And when the natural groundwater flow come 18 across this condensed ground it'll be redirected in a 19 different direction; that's what we mean by damming effects. 20 And secondly, of course, in all -- like, in 21 all this tailing which have put into the existing stack and 22 in the future or the proposed extended tailing pond, you 23 know, like particularly for the existing tailing pond, all 24 the seepage coming out of the tailing based on Agrium's 25 submission, they have stated that the range of water content

235

1 within the tailing is between 15 to 20 percent water, okay. 2 And all this, over time, as the tailings start 3 to consolidate which is basically a physical process of 4 compressing itself by its weight, more of this contaminated 5 seepage would come out and they would also merge and add on 6 the flow that's going to pass through Mr. Smulski's property 7 as well. 8 What this would lead to is the second concern 9 as well, the quality of the -- all this change in nature of 10 flow as well as all the contaminated seepage which is going 11 to come out, you know, like, from the tailing pond and how 12 would it progressively affect the quality of the soil on -- 13 on the Smulskis land as well as the ground water quality? 14 And I have mentioned before about, you know 15 like, what is going to come out from the gypsum stack is 16 going to actually continue for a long time as the 17 consolidation continues and it will keep on coming out with 18 time. It's not going to stop, say, tomorrow or in the near 19 future. 20 And, of course, on top of that, you know, it 21 seems before the existence of the gypsum stack, the 22 groundwater flow has its natural course, which I'll show it 23 to you in a couple of slides, and now and because of this 24 damming effect, then all of a sudden the natural groundwater 25 flow which thirty (30) or forty (40) years ago now has been

236

1 changed. And this change in flow direction is also going to 2 impact about the groundwater quality which is going to pass 3 through Mr. -- Mr. Smulski's property, as well. 4 The illustration that I'm going to show to you 5 are based on the -- two (2) type of information; first of all 6 is from our own data. Mr. Smulski has pointed out to you, 7 our initial involvement date back about twelve (12) years ago 8 in 1992 and then we sample and we install monitoring well on 9 Mr. Smulski's property and we went back to do the monitoring 10 again in 1994 and then the last time was 1996. 11 And on top of that what we have done is now we 12 try to pull out all the information that Agrium has presented 13 in the Submission to you and try to reprocess their data to 14 show the -- our interpretation of the situation for your 15 consideration. 16 This is a -- a diagram just to -- to 17 illustrate it, now this is the existing tailing pond and of 18 course the orange -- the yellow part is where the proposed 19 expansion is going to be and the shape that the red three- 20 quarter sections are the land owned by Mr. Smulski which is 21 immediately to the west of the existing pond. 22 Now, within the Agrium Submission they have 23 provided several of the cross-section and I'll make use of 24 those and by the way -- just to reiterate this, this is where 25 our so-called our site or Smulski's land where we are -- our

237

1 concerns are and of course here we have the cross-section D-D 2 point, E-E point, F-F point. Okay, and all this cross- 3 section, by the way, were provided within the Agrium 4 Submission. All this are Agrium's information and their 5 data. 6 Now, let's take a look at the northern most 7 cross-section which is cross-section D-D point. To this end 8 is the west end, to this end is the east end and of course, 9 the Smulski land will be on the west side. 10 Now, in the proposed extension, what they're 11 going to propose to do is in -- they are going to put fifty 12 (50) metre by the time the whole thing is done on this part 13 of the land and this still, ladies and gentlemen, is 14 essentially per this scale here. 15 So I just want to show you the relative 16 magnitude of the stuff that they're going to put on top, okay 17 and if you look at the natural topography, by the end of the 18 day if the extension is permitted to go ahead, they're going 19 to end up with this huge amount of weight of tailing sitting 20 on top of the natural ground and you can imagine anything 21 that naturally come this way from the west or the east is 22 going to be dam up. 23 Now, this is another cross-section, again to 24 east to west, cross section E and E-E point, okay and 25 likewise, if by the end of the surface light they're going to

238

1 put fifty (50) metre -- 48.8, I just rounded it up 2 approximately fifty (50) metre on top of the ground and 3 likewise, as you can see, you know, like the ones you best 4 establish, all the natural flow from the west towards the 5 east again will be dam up as well. 6 Now this is the existing stack right across 7 the middle of Mr. Smulski's property. Right now there's 8 about approximately thirty (30) metre of tailing sitting on 9 top of the natural ground, okay, and this scale again, you 10 know, is the vertical scale is right to scale and as you can 11 see, the natural ground slopes from the west towards the east 12 and any groundwater flow, you know, is going to be block up 13 because of this compression of the ground on the east side. 14 Now, this again is another the water table 15 contour including in Agrium submission to you and this is 16 their portrait about which way the groundwater actually would 17 be flowing if the Redwater facility does not exist at all. 18 Okay? So this is supposed to be the natural groundwater flow 19 and of course what I have done here is to yellow highlight 20 outline the existing tailing pond, this is the proposed 21 extension and the red shaded area is where Mr. Smulski's 22 properties are located. 23 It's quite clearly to illustrate that the 24 natural groundwater flow in the whole area is from the 25 northwest towards the southeast. So, of course, you know, if

239

1 the Redwater plant was never built back in 1969, all the 2 natural groundwater flow would flow smoothly from the 3 northwest towards the southeast to turn up at the 4 Saskatchewan River right across Mr. Smulski's property. 5 Now, of course we all know -- know the plant 6 start operation in 1969. Back in 1992 you know when Mr. 7 Smulski first came to us and asked us to assess the 8 groundwater condition within his property, we get onto his 9 property and we installed a whole bunch of monitoring wells. 10 And this is one of the result finding it's 11 actually quite -- you can actually see the flow. Proceed 12 from the northwest towards the southeast until it comes 13 across this gypsum stack and then everything bends towards 14 the south. And that's quite a -- that's very consistent with 15 we could -- and the reason is, you know, like natural flow 16 once it run into the compressed ground it will just bend and 17 turn southward. 18 After what we have found back in 1992 I 19 presume that from what I can understand is that Mrs. Smulski 20 brought some of this problem to the attention of Imperial Oil 21 at the time who was the owner of the facility. And right 22 after that you know and it's also has been documented in 23 Agrium's submission to you in Book 2. 24 And they also acknowledged the fact that was 25 leakage of pore water have occurred through the bottom of the

240

1 stack and to further control the elevated piezometric 2 pressure levels near the parameters of the gypsum stack which 3 is in layman's term you know try to alleviate the increase of 4 the water pressure within the soil mass. 5 A decision was made you know to construct what 6 they refer to as a west groundwater interception trench 7 basically runs from north to south right across you know like 8 along the east side of Mr. Smulski's property on the other 9 side of the highway. And the construction for that west 10 groundwater interception change start up in the fall of 1992. 11 And by the way when we did our 1992 study, we 12 did our study in the late summer and Imperial Oil 13 subsequently in the fall they started construction of the 14 west groundwater interception trench. So the next question 15 is, what has that groundwater interception trench done? Has 16 it made the situation better or has it changed the situation? 17 Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to share 18 with you, you know like, we were asked to go back in 1994 19 again to do another round of groundwater assessment on Mr. 20 Smulski's property. And again what we have observed was very 21 much the same as 1992. We were asked to go back again in 22 1996 and likewise 1996 the findings were exactly the same. 23 Not much has changed at all. 24 Now let's come closer to the reason, this is a 25 copy of the groundwater flow to potential provided by Agrium

241

1 in their submission to you. And this based on the 2 groundwater monitoring data in May of 2002, so we are now 3 looking at two (2) years in the past. And based on what 4 Agrium has submitted to you, what I have done is based on the 5 establishment about the distribution of the flow gradient. 6 Actually you can actually see that the 7 regional area water flow again once it hit the tailing pond 8 it started bend turn south within Mr. Smulski's property and 9 what it also show you is there's also flow coming out from 10 the existing the tailing pond onto the Smulski's land. Come 11 over here, come across here, come out here. 12 Now in the application -- in Agrium's 13 application to extend this gypsum stack storage area, what 14 they have proposed to do is before they do the construction 15 of the new tailing pond, they are going to construct a slurry 16 along the northern side of the existing tailing pond with a 17 little bit of a south link attached to it. 18 In Agrium's submission for your consideration 19 they also have asked their consultant to do what they call 20 hydro geological modelling to try to forecast what would 21 happen after the slurry wall is put into place. And this 22 diagram was extracted from their submission. 23 And again based on their own modelling 24 results, you're going to see that you know, the slurry wall 25 or the construction of the slurry wall if anything is going

242

1 to make the situation worse for Mr. Smulski because he can 2 think about this. If whatever come out from this tailing 3 pond cannot go north, where would it go? 4 You split east and west, for a minimum you're 5 looking at another 12.5 percent more it's going to come onto 6 Mr. Smulski's property and likewise if you look at their 7 modelling results, that's exactly what it shows you. More is 8 going to come out and again the natural groundwater flow will 9 come from the northwest, once it hits the tailing pond just 10 as if in the last twelve (12) years, it will turn south. 11 Right across Mr. Smulski's property. 12 Now, as far as in Agrium's submission to you 13 they -- when they talk about the impact to the groundwater 14 quality by the existing stack and I quote, they say that 15 "the sulphate impacts are observed in the 16 shallowed groundwater three (3) to seven 17 (7) metres deep." 18 Okay? When we were drilling on Smulski's 19 land, the thickness of the surface deposit or the surface 20 soil from the north end, it range -- it start up at about 21 five (5) metre and towards the south end of the Smulski's 22 property it's more than ten (10) metre. 23 So even if you take what Agrium's application 24 say, the impact is going to be limited to within the top 25 three (3) to seven (7) metre and that's essentially going to

243

1 be what is going to hit the Smulskis' operation the most 2 because this is where the soil that they use for farming. 3 Now, as far as Agrium's application in the -- 4 in their address to impact the groundwater quality by the 5 stack extension and, of course, you know, if you allow them, 6 south of the proposed slurry wall, which of course includes 7 the Smulskis' property, their assessment is their 8 "...impacted by the leakage of pore water 9 from the stack would be mostly to shallow 10 groundwater between the upper seven (7) 11 metre below ground level." 12 BGL stand for, I presumed, below ground level. 13 Okay? And, again, as I said it to you before, you know like, 14 between the top seven (7) metre, that's exactly where the 15 topsoil is above the bedrock -- between the Smulski property. 16 We also have some concern about Agrium's 17 assessment basis as well. Our first number one concern is, 18 you know like, in Agrium's assessment they always assess the 19 impact to the groundwater quality with respect to a baseline 20 range. And the one they use is between twenty (20) to eleven 21 hundred (1,100) milligram per litre okay? 22 And, of course, now they propose to use 23 sulphate or total sulphate as an indicator to assess, you 24 know, what had been the impact or what will be the impact. I 25 submit to you that, you know like, their baseline range

244

1 twenty (20) to eleven hundred (1,100) milligram per litre, as 2 you can see, is a very wide range. 3 Locally, if we focus onto Smulski's property, 4 it could be -- we could be at the lower end so if it is 5 around fifty (50) to start with and if now, you know, based 6 on Agrium's test result on the side of the Highway 645, 643 7 they are measuring, you know, groundwater of sulphates, you 8 know, anywhere between about three hundred (300) milligram 9 per litre to about five hundred (500). 10 So, of course, if you look at the range that 11 they refer to, twenty (20) to eleven hundred (1,100); well, 12 everything is within the so-called baseline condition. 13 But what if Mr. Smulski's property started 14 with something like fifty (50). We are talking about -- we 15 could be talking about ten (10) times higher than before, you 16 know, he received the impact from the existing stack, let 17 alone the extension that's going to come. 18 The other thing that we have concern about is, 19 you know like, as I have seen in -- in your question to 20 Agrium, question 55 and question 56 you have asked Agrium 21 "Why did they not use signature assessment 22 parameters?" 23 Things like the oxygen isotope 18 or the 24 sulphur isotope 34 or deuterium which is basically heavy 25 hydrogen because of the fact is after what Agrium does with

245

1 the processing material by the time it put into the tailing 2 pond, those would be identified as signature chemical 3 parameters which would actually show anybody that if anything 4 come from the operation get outside the premises. 5 From what I can see, you know, for the 6 information available to me, Agrium's reply to your question 7 55 and 56 which were basically what I just posed to you now, 8 the replies were, number 1, their position was simply one 9 sentence: 10 "Whether you look at the isotopes or not, 11 it does not change the health effect of 12 sulphur sulphate or SO4." 13 Okay. Now, I don't -- I don't want to go into 14 about debating, you know, whether that's true or not true or 15 totally true or half true; okay? Assuming that that's 100 16 percent true, then how about those isotopes effect to other 17 ecological parameters? Has that been looked into? 18 Maybe those are the questions that maybe 19 should be asked next. And, of course, the second part of 20 Agrium's reply to your question 55, 56 was I quote 21 "They will only consider it if the sulphate 22 SO4 level cannot otherwise be explained." 23 I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, if 24 they're allowed to take this route, then where -- I don't 25 think it would be fair for the principle of protecting the

246

1 environment because there's one thing about to say that, you 2 know, how much is the total sulphate content has gone up, but 3 more important, incidentally, I understand that what we are 4 here today is to try to minimize any environmental impact by 5 their operation. 6 And we can do that measurement, essentially, 7 while assisting those specific signature parameters which 8 would give no question at all where it come from, you know, 9 if it showed up outside of their premises. 10 Now, after I have all this I would like to 11 reiterate, this is what is happening as recent as 2002, stuff 12 coming out from the existing tailing pond get onto the 13 Smulski's land, the natural run of -- the natural groundwater 14 flow, once it hit the tailing point, it will -- it has been 15 redirected and flows south right across the Smulski's 16 property and now what Agrium want to do is to ask you to 17 allow them to make another just as big tailing pond further 18 up north and I submit to you that, you know, if you allow 19 them to do that more of the same is going to happen. 20 And to me maybe if I may allow to use the 21 word, the sad thing is, you know, like this is not the end of 22 what we're going to see. If this extension is allowed to go 23 ahead, as you can imagine, more ground will be compressed on 24 land to the east of the Smulski's property and there will be 25 more damming of the natural groundwater flow and more of

247

1 those natural groundwater flow will be directed south right 2 across the Smulski's property. 3 And secondly, a secondary consolidation of the 4 stack or the gypsum tailing takes time and this is even also 5 acknowledged in Agrium's submission, okay, and more -- when 6 the stack consolidate more, more of the contaminate seepage 7 will come out and get into the ground and of course, where 8 would it go? It would get onto the Smulski's property. 9 And whatever the worst impact that we have 10 seen up until now, unfortunately for a long time to come in 11 the future more is going to come. I understand and I have 12 -- Mr. Smulski's, he told me that, you know, like he has 13 planned to do more soil and groundwater sampling and testing 14 and what we propose to do is, you know, like doing the 15 spring, fall of this year when the groundwater flow is 16 probably going to be the highest, okay, we'll get onto the 17 site, we'll do more soil and groundwater testing. 18 And hopefully, you know, like once we get, you 19 know, the additional soil and groundwater test results we can 20 now go back and maybe make use of what Agrium has submitted 21 to you and the historical data and now we can see after -- 22 since 1969 to now, you know, like it's close to about thirty- 23 five (35) years and since our first involvement is about 24 twelve (12) years. 25 Where they, you know, like all this reversing

248

1 -- all this adverse impact, maybe we will get some better 2 picture as to up to day what is happening within the -- the 3 land, you know, just adjacent to the west of the gypsum stack 4 and that ends my presentation. Thank you very much. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Smulski, we should enter 9 Dr. Ho's overheads as -- as an exhibit. 10 MR. KEN SMULSKI: I agree. 11 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I just lost my exhibit list. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 MR. CHAIRPERSON: It'd be Smulski-6. 16 17 --- EXHIBIT NO. SMULSKI-6: Slide presentation of Dr. David 18 Ho. 19 20 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Sir, I also have a copy of 21 that document that we exchanged with the billing if you want 22 me to just perhaps forward it to Ms. Schlemko and she could 23 just acknowledge that. Just the change on that name on the 24 -- for the proper billing. 25 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Sure. One other question,

249

1 we just -- in reconciling one to the other quickly and -- and 2 not many of us have done that but can you direct us in the 3 previous materials to this -- they're conference reprints 4 from the 47th Canadian Geo-technical Conference, where we 5 would have found those in the original materials. 6 MR. KEN SMULSKI : The way we designed the 7 book and I'll just clarify this is that the front part, 8 Section 1, is all the work that Dr. Ho has done as -- as well 9 as the conference work that he did and as well as P. 10 Machibroda Engineering work and so if you go to Section E, or 11 it's -- in the first section it's -- I'll find it for Mr. 12 Neufeld -- it's second from the last of the first section. 13 If you go to the very front of the book, Dr. 14 Ho's work starts in '92, '94 and then '96 and it's right 15 there at the end of his work. It's presented to the 16 conference in Halifax. 17 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Correct, thank you. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. KEN SMULSKI: 20 MR. KEN SMULSKI: And that document that we 21 discussed of exchange, is just immediately following that. 22 Now I'd also like to note that he's modelled on those three 23 quarter sections as when we filed our Statement of Concern, 24 there's other quarters in -- you know, half a mile off the 25 proposed expansion and we also have holdings north.

250

1 So, there's some other concerns on the 2 modelling, and I'd like to now move forward to Mr. 3 Machibroda's presentation. Or do you think -- Paul do you 4 think we should go with you first or Mike? Let's go with Mr. 5 Machibroda's presentation. 6 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: Thank you. Mr. 7 Chairman, Members of the Panel -- am I on -- and ladies and 8 gentlemen. First of all I would like to go back historically 9 a little bit to see where I come from so I think that may 10 help everybody to understand as to what we are presenting. 11 First of all, we were contacted by Mr. Smulski 12 exactly a year ago, February 27th, and that's the first 13 submission, the written submission and effectively I'll go 14 through that particular submission and then we'll go onto the 15 next submission which is dated February 12, 2004. 16 We're -- specifically we were asked to go to 17 the website back in February 2003, to review what Agrium had 18 proposed in the way of an extension of their gypsum pile. We 19 reviewed the information at that time and we were reviewing 20 it really from the geo-technical end. In other words, how 21 will the construction or how can the construction be improved 22 or is there to be nothing that was missed in the 23 construction. 24 And we addressed it from that point of view. 25 And our short submission at that time effectively addressed

251

1 certain items that relate both to the construction of the 2 pond as well as the hydro geology of which we did not get 3 involved and comment to any great extent except in the way 4 that it may be impacted by the geo-technical work. 5 First of all, in what Mr. Smulski had asked us 6 to do was: what would the impact be after construction of the 7 pond, that is off the tailing's pile on his property? And we 8 had replied in the written submission and that is in Item 1 9 of that submission. There's a first couple of paragraphs 10 that state, first of all, that the construction off the 11 tailing's pile and the loading of the land will occur and 12 therefore it's going to change the direction of the 13 groundwater flow through that particular area. 14 So here's where we turn over to Dr. Ho who has 15 explained it at some length and we do agree with that. The 16 other items that we were concerned with, were predominantly 17 operational concerns and I'm sure that Agrium would have 18 their people looking at it very closely in terms of how they 19 operate the pile and it's a function, really, that is an 20 engineering function that will continue on during the 21 operation. 22 So I don't think that we can fairly comment on 23 it except that we did say that we should be looking at the 24 hydraulic loading of the slurry deposition of the tailings, 25 since that is definitely an add -- additional load. Even

252

1 though it last -- does not last continuously because the 2 water eventually does drain out of that pile, reducing the 3 load, ultimately, as the process continues. 4 We had a couple of other items that, again, 5 related to more so to the construction of the pond and please 6 note at this time that some of the information that we've 7 heard since Monday certainly was not available to us a year 8 ago. 9 So we had made some assumptions and had taken 10 the best information that we had and made comments on that. 11 So if you turn to page 2, item 2, first of all, talks about 12 "glacial till liner should be placed in 13 lifts and compacted." 14 Again, that's a design feature. There could 15 be different items that may be addressed by the design 16 engineers and I don't think that we would want to state, at 17 this time, that there isn't any other way of constructing 18 that pond. 19 Seepage from the containment area was the item 20 number 3. Again, we recognize that there is seepage. We 21 must recognize that we should be collecting it and returning 22 it back to be reprocessed or stored. 23 We had also indicated at that time that the -- 24 that the preliminary design did not include an under-drain. 25 and, again, I think we heard on -- on Tuesday from the design

253

1 people and they certainly have, I think, looked into that 2 particular design feature and I'm sure that it will be 3 covered in the design under the normal high density 4 polyethylene type of construction. 5 And I think that brings me to the end of the 6 first submission which was submitted on February the 27th, 7 2003. And we can now turn to our second submission which was 8 the more recent one of February 12, 2004. And for this 9 particular submission we had been provided with all the 10 information that Agrium had provided to the Board. 11 And the -- the time was relatively short but 12 we went through as much of it as we possibly could and -- and 13 we brought out a few more questions in connection with what 14 we had seen in the latest submission. 15 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Excuse me, Paul, to 16 clarify, it's in the statement of concern, his letter, when 17 we filed our statement of concern that you're all searching 18 for and that would be in Section 2. It's filed with our 19 statement of concern when we -- we attached P. Machibroda's 20 comments on the statement of concern. That's what you're all 21 looking for. 22 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Easily apparent that we 23 were all struggling. 24 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Yes. 25 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

254

1 CONTINUED BY MR. KEN SMULSKI: 2 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Bit it is there and I just 3 ask Mr. Machibroda to continue and then we'll -- 4 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: Okay, we'll carry on 5 with the February 12, 2004 submission. Now, this one we 6 certainly had a lot more information provided to us at that 7 point in time and we had addressed certain items. 8 In the first paragraph -- or the second 9 paragraph rather, we addressed the drainage trench which had 10 been installed and designed and installed in 1997, a 11 reference had been made to it, with respect to collecting the 12 water and drainage water from the tailings pile. 13 That interceptor ditch, we understand, is now 14 to be abandoned and replaced with other drainage systems. We 15 have some concerns from the geo-technical end in that -- I 16 should say the geo-technical as well as the hydro-geological 17 end since if that system is operating and removing water, it 18 provides us additional stability with respect to the pile, 19 but secondly, it also continues to move water that does drain 20 out of the pile in an adjacent area. 21 I think that it's important to maintain an 22 intercept to ensure that we do collect any seepage that does 23 occur. 24 We also understand that the proposed new stack 25 is to be constructed and is to include piling of the gypsum

255

1 overtop of the -- that drainage system. We have some 2 concerns with that in that we will, undoubtedly, lose the -- 3 the benefit of that particular drainage system which I think 4 will impact then the groundwater conditions in the immediate 5 area. 6 If the north -- particularly the north trench 7 is eliminated, it is understood here that the new 8 construction will involve the installation of a slurry trench 9 which will, basically, separate the flow of water from the 10 existing pile to the new stack pile. 11 One of the things that we have concern with, 12 as far as the slurry trench is involved, is that we need to 13 monitor as to the performance of that slurry trench. I did 14 not see any provision along that slurry trench that indicated 15 that there would be monitors. Normally monitors involve the 16 installation of monitor wells or piezometers on each side of 17 the trench so that we know what the groundwater position is 18 on one (1) side relative to the other. 19 Secondly, such monitors provide us with 20 information with respect to the performance of the slurry 21 trench. In other words, if the slurry trench is stopping 22 water from flowing from the south to the north, then, 23 therefore, the groundwater in the monitor wells would be 24 higher on the south side and lower on the north side and that 25 is a very simple measure that is normally done with slurry

256

1 trench installations. 2 We, therefore, suggested in our submission 3 that there should preferably be a buffer zone between the two 4 (2) piles at the location at which the slurry trench will be 5 constructed and that buffer zone would allow for maintenance 6 and it would allow for monitoring that may be required during 7 the operation, at least for some length of time after which, 8 provided that the monitoring indicates that the system is 9 operating properly, then the in-fill of that particular 10 section could then be considered which would then bring this 11 particular area of tailings as into one (1) pile as opposed 12 to separate -- two (2) separate piles that would be initially 13 used. 14 On page 2 of the submission, we note that the 15 height of the proposed stack will be 48.8 meters or, roughly, 16 a hundred and fifty (150) feet and that amount of tailings 17 will impart a load of approximately ten thousand (10,000) 18 pounds per square foot in that particular area in terms of 19 loading. I'm doing a very quick calculation right now. I 20 think it's in that order. 21 In any case, we -- that kind of loading will 22 definitely result in consolidation of the -- certainly the 23 upper soils. And the consolidation of these soils, of 24 course, is going to change the direction of the existing 25 groundwater flow.

257

1 The next -- paragraph 2 on page 2, we refer to 2 cross-sections that were provided by Agrium and we indicate 3 that there is some question in terms of the amount of 4 discontinuity in some of the prime strata that are -- that 5 exist in this particular area. 6 Since then, as of yesterday, I've been handed 7 some drill logs from the area. We did not know that -- to 8 the extent at which there were test holes and test pits 9 drilled and then we -- we were informed that there were about 10 a hundred and forty (140) test pits drilled and I think that 11 was on Monday and a number of deep test holes, as well. 12 And so I've had a little chance to look at 13 some of the -- some of these drill logs that have been 14 provided and we refer here again to stability of -- and a 15 possibility of deep-seated failures -- that is deep-seated 16 sheer failures in terms of the load of the pile. 17 My concern prior, without ha -- having seen 18 that particular information which has came which was 19 relatively new was that it would be very unusual to have 20 conditions -- soil conditions that are so uniform that -- 21 that you can go in and lump them into one -- into one pile. 22 As I looked at the logs and I looked at a few 23 of them and I -- and I could turn, I'm sure that if you all 24 have this particular batch of logs, we have one particular -- 25 I look at borehole number BH-5, monitor well 92-28-36 and I

258

1 look at the drill log, one of the things that I am just a 2 little bit concerned about on that particular one is that we 3 -- we have, within the drill log, indications of statements 4 like "slick inside it", for example. 5 Slick inside it, to me suggests that we have 6 pretty highly fractured conditions and I specifically hear 7 referred to the installation of the slurry wall. If we've 8 got highly fractured conditions, have we done enough work 9 really to be able to establish that, in fact, we are going to 10 be able to seal it and have that as an effective wall. 11 I look at -- I look at other items and again, 12 on -- on test hole number 11040-TH01 and that particular 13 drill log suggests that you have, at a depth of about ten 14 (10) feet below ground surface, we have bentonite. It says: 15 "Bentonite, silty, trace of sand, very 16 stiff." 17 Bentonite is known to be the material that has 18 resulted in a good number of slides that occur particularly 19 along the -- the North Saskatchewan River and in other places 20 and certainly throughout a lot of places in -- in northern 21 Alberta. So, we -- we do have some of those concerns. 22 Now, I -- I'm not sure as to how detailed, we 23 probably need some additional detail with respect to being 24 able to finalize the design. Now, I realize, I think the 25 Board has to realize that this is an ever going process at

259

1 this point in time that it is a design thing, it's something 2 that is evolving and is being developed, you know, to a 3 further extent but I do wish to point, at this point in time, 4 that, yes, there are some additional items that need to be 5 looked at. 6 Again, as I look at another bore hole number 7 11040-TH12, again, the drill log within the clay shale 8 indicates that there's a bentonite lens; those, to me, are 9 scary. I think that they need to be looked at very closely. 10 So I think those are the items with respect to 11 the stability. Those are the items with respect to perhaps 12 additional work needed near ground surface to be able to 13 address the engineering properties of those files and what 14 will be required to be done for the dykes, as well as what 15 preparation needs to be done in the construction of the liner 16 and so on. 17 We also pointed in our letter, the last 18 paragraph, we suggest that although there have been -- there 19 is a submission on the basis on which the analysis was done. 20 We're not completely comfortable with the amount of work that 21 was done to evaluate some of the hydraulic conductivities 22 within the soil and we think that this should be expanded a 23 little bit, particularly along the east side of the proposed 24 expansion -- that is between the proposed expansion and the 25 riverbank, as well as the little projection to the south of

260

1 the main road, that little triangle that we see at the bottom 2 on the drawing. 3 I think, ladies and gentlemen, that is my 4 submission and I'm sure I'll have to answer some questions. 5 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Thank you, Paul Machibroda. 6 I'd just like to add the comment that Mr. Machibroda's had 7 considerable experience himself and with his firm in the 8 potash industry in const -- pond construction and one of the 9 earlier comments was the level of monitoring on those ponds 10 compared to what we see presently and what's proposed and, 11 you know, he was chosen because of his pond construction 12 experience, plus being out of area to give a more objective 13 comment. 14 They do operate here in the province of 15 Alberta with a branch, and we've had some experience with one 16 -- with their firm and -- with another project I was involved 17 with. And so it was a good compliment to bring forward the 18 proper information. 19 So, you know, when we look at Dr. Ho's work 20 and Paul Machibroda's work on this project, it raises, you 21 know, some questions to -- as far as where we can go, what we 22 can do and, basically I'm here to pri -- try and pri -- 23 provide some solutions as well as, you know, observatory 24 comment and I think from my earlier indications to the Chair 25 and the Panel and the people within the room that, you know,

261

1 we've had the public statement of no comment. 2 These people are instructed that way as well 3 as our -- our employees, so just in respect to everybody 4 within the room, because of the technical nature of it and 5 what have you. 6 Now, I'd like to call on Mr. Mike Fields who 7 previously, is got a considerable amount of experience in 8 slurry wall construction, he was with a contractor that, that 9 was one of their fortes. They'd done work at -- for Alberta 10 Power at Sheerness and as well as Forestburg, and he's got 11 some comments on slurry wall construction. 12 He's now an independent contractor in Northern 13 Alberta and does pro -- provide some consulting services to 14 various firms and after he speaks we can provide the 15 appropriate curriculum vitae. Thank you. 16 MR. MICHAEL FIELDS: Yeah, I'm the 17 construction guy so not quite as long winded as the rest of 18 the professors here. 19 I've been involved in the construction of four 20 (4) different slurry walls in Alberta. The concerns I have 21 in this one, it would probably be handled with the engineer; 22 the amount of log hole information available to it and the 23 concern I have in this one would be the sandstone that 24 appears in the drill logs and the ability to ensure that 25 you're through the sandstone into the clay shale.

262

1 I -- I'm sure Agrium will -- will be doing 2 additional test holes to confirm this but when you're doing a 3 slurry wall you're -- you're digging blind and it's -- it 4 would be difficult to know if you're in sandstone or through 5 the sandstone layer into the claystone. So I'm sure that 6 would be handled in the construction progress. 7 Another thing that I was -- you're -- they're 8 constructing an old and new pond but at the top of the pond 9 they're connected. And so, to me, the water would go 10 backwards from the new pond into the old pond and then back 11 on to Smulskis' land. 12 Also, when we constructed these slurry walls, 13 there was piezometers monitoring the -- the function of -- 14 the long term function of the slurry wall and I think this is 15 essential that you have piezometers to see how it is working. 16 I know one example of -- of a slurry wall that 17 was constructed in the '70s; there is some leakage in that 18 trench. So I -- I believe additional piezometers are 19 necessary. 20 The last comment I have; I took a drive out 21 there on Tuesday and the highway has been freshly paved in 22 between Smulski's land and the pond and already there's frost 23 heaves in it. It's rough, where it shouldn't be so, to me, 24 that's obvious there is extra groundwater coming from the 25 existing stack towards Smulski's land because the highway

263

1 should be smooth as can be and it's -- there is some 2 roughness in it. 3 And -- from the frost heaves, which means 4 there's additional water there that is being directed by the 5 existing stack. That's all I have except for additional 6 questions. 7 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Perhaps, Mr. Fields, you 8 can comment on some of the difficulties you encountered, 9 maybe at Sheerness or Forestburg with some of the -- and the 10 -- the extent of some of these projects that -- when you were 11 the superintendent which you were in charge of on, and some 12 of the difficulties you saw or some of the things in nature 13 -- what to watch for? 14 MR. MICHAEL FIELDS: Like in any drill -- in 15 any slurry trench construction you're -- you're digging a 16 trench through basically you're drilling mud and you're 17 digging blind. That's why I question the test flows. At 18 Sheer Ness (phonetic) we were suppose to dig thirty (30) feet 19 down between two (2) test holes that were a hundred (100) 20 feet apart. 21 The existing gravels went down fifty-three 22 (53) feet so we don't know exactly what you're hitting and 23 that's why I was concerned looking at the logs, the depths 24 and the extent of the sandstone layer that I perceived could 25 be a problem here.

264

1 But they cannot all be dealt with in the field 2 but every one of the slurry trenches that I was involved in 3 problems came up in the field that weren't anticipated by the 4 engineering, but they're usually dealt with in the field but 5 the slurry trench will stop any water going anywhere. It 6 seals it off completely, but here it is important to get a 7 seal on the bottom and that would be the more difficult part 8 of this project. 9 MR. KEN SMULSKI: And basically my comments 10 earlier the other day was you know, the slurry trench acts as 11 a impermeable barrier, it's basically a curtain down to the 12 bedrock. The piezometers monitor it effectiveness and its 13 performance. To the farm community we often saw in the mid 14 80's you'd have a sprayer boom. You'd have your main 15 pressure gauge on your -- on your divider valve and you go 16 out to the end of the boom and you have all your nozzles with 17 an end nozzle. 18 After a few years the farm population, through 19 AG Engineering, were installing pressure gauges at the end of 20 the boom and basically they would see the line drop across 21 their boom as a measure of effectiveness. That's how I would 22 present it to the farm people in the agriculture community. 23 The piezometer basically acts the same way. It's a measured 24 performance. 25 Now I would like to ask Paul Machibroda to

265

1 just add to some of these comments as far as the measuring of 2 the performance of the slurry trench and overall 3 effectiveness andf what can be done. 4 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: Well the reason for 5 installing this slurry trench is of course to stop flow from 6 one area to the other. And effectively then how do you know 7 whether in fact you have stopped the flow. 8 And you know that by the head differential 9 from one side of the slurry trench to the other side of the 10 slurry trench by simple measurement at the water levels in 11 monitored wells or piezometers each installed opposite each 12 other across the slurry wall. In other words, they're just 13 outside the slurry wall but in close proximity. 14 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Now I would like to ask Dr. 15 Ho if you have anything to add to these two (2) gentlemen's 16 comments. How it relates to your findings and your report. 17 DR. DAVID HO: No, I don't. 18 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Now I have some 19 observations visually that I'll just state which we're going 20 to show later through the model. If you look at the 21 northeast corner of the present pond, that particular area 22 was a cousin of my father's years ago and that particular 23 quarter section was all -- always traditionally known as 24 having very little water. 25 And upon Esso purchasing the property in the

266

1 late 60's early 70's I -- they continued to live there and 2 then when they left you know, as the pond expansion went 3 northward, we saw the changes in the vegetation and what have 4 you and we're going to show that with the model with my 5 visual. 6 And that -- if you go through the Agrium's 7 submission they talk of some wetlands. Those wetlands when 8 -- when they were constructed were constructed in the middle 9 of December because of the poor water conditions adjacent to 10 that site and using a low ground pressure crawler tractor 11 constructed approximately in December 15th. 12 And if I go back through some visuals, there 13 are some signs of seepage in that area through the aerial 14 photography. So we're going to try and co-ordinate all this 15 to bring forward a better project. And that's why we need 16 the model and we need Dr. Ho's work, Paul Machibroda's work, 17 Mike Field's, my historical observations. 18 That 564 we often mobilized our equipment from 19 our main operation which would be on the map number 14 would 20 be where we have site storage for equipment and as well we -- 21 we would mobilize to the northeast, far northeast of the map 22 as well. We had another operation going in County Lamont and 23 in the early 80's we had properties and Smoky Lake County as 24 well. 25 So we -- we were travelling that access road

267

1 continually other than when we would mobilize equipment via 2 highway by our haul trucks. So many times through the year 3 at different time periods of the year, I would travel 564 and 4 see the different impacts. 5 When I take you visually through what I've 6 shown in my report plus the model, we can relate it all to 7 what they've seen scientifically, it basically confirms to 8 what we've said since the mid-70's and if I've -- if I take 9 you through our filings and our letters of engagement to 10 Alberta Environment or Esso Chemical or their various people, 11 this all confirms this and as I said the other day, we had 12 not gone public with this. 13 It's very difficult when you bring forward 14 something like that at -- at -- if you were to go in a local 15 meeting or what have you. You know, for the information that 16 we contained it would be of little value because you need to 17 put it all together and coordinate it to totally understand 18 it. 19 So at this time, what I'd like to do is just 20 have everybody just evalu -- evaluate this at this time. If 21 anybody has any questions of filing or location, we can deal 22 with it. I'd like to bring forward the small mo -- I'd like 23 to take you first through some visual things that are in our 24 book. If we go to the back, the -- the remaining section of 25 our binders.

268

1 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Smulski, just so I'm 2 clear, we're -- we'll probably take a five (5) or ten (10) 3 minute break sometime soon. Can you tell us what's most 4 convenient for you? 5 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Well, I -- I think in 6 respect to the Chair and the panel and the people here, I 7 think we should take it right now because we can put the 8 model up -- the basic model, then I can walk you through our 9 -- our photos which are in the book and then provide some com 10 -- some comment on the model in relation to their work. 11 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: This may be an opportune 12 time, and I'm not certain if this is a concern of Mr. 13 Neufeld's or not, but it may be appropriate for his hydro 14 geologist and -- and the Board's hydro geologist to -- to 15 ensure that they agree with the model. 16 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Well, I think certainly Mr. 17 Neufeld will be able to question -- you're not suggesting any 18 of this happen before it be presented and -- and parties will 19 have an opportunity -- 20 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Well -- 21 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- to question? 22 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: -- I guess my -- the -- 23 and there will be that opportunity but I -- I guess if we're 24 taking a break now, they may want to look at the model and 25 then when we're preparing cross-examination it might aid. I

269

1 think the actual construction of the model may be an issue. 2 I don't know if it's an issue but it -- it'll give us a time 3 to -- to work on that. 4 MR. KEN SMULSKI: I'm fine with that and I'm 5 sure once they see it, I think it really depicts it well and 6 it's very simple and simplicity often is the best thing in 7 these -- these matters. 8 MR. CHAIRPERSON: With that we'll break. 9 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Thank you. 10 11 --- Upon recessing at 4:15 p.m. 12 --- Upon resuming at 5:02 p.m. 13 14 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I'm told we're ready to go. 15 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Mr. Chairman, we're going 16 to model early development on to current day and then future 17 with this model. 18 The bi-sectional line, if you look behind the 19 head of the Chairman is north. Up to the left corner is 20 Redwater. To the far right would represent the Vinca Bridge 21 where it crosses the Saskatchewan River. It corresponds with 22 the map we have provided by Agrium and the tables represent 23 the ground level. 24 The -- the Township 564 are the surveyor's 25 lats. The one of your right is going east. The one of your

270

1 left, if you're standing behind me is going west. And it's 2 interesting, when I was sitting -- the initial Monday morning 3 meeting, we're all sitting here and when you look at the 4 political viewpoints in the room, we're also aligned that 5 way. 6 Anyways, -- 7 MR. CHAIRPERSON: With the exception of the 8 Panel. 9 MR. KEN SMULSKI: No, and we're going to 10 cover that. The Panel was on the other side of the fence 11 observing all of us and here we had the regulatory body off 12 to this quadrant so it was a very interesting thing. I found 13 myself, kind of, being lighthearted later in the proceedings 14 when it hit me how we were all aligned. 15 But we all have to come to some conclusions 16 within the parameters and framework of these meetings in 17 order to move forward. So my suggestion is at that bi- 18 sectional point of 564 and Highway 643 that's where all the 19 decisions are made and somehow we have to come forward with 20 better decisions. 21 So we put this model in place to show 22 different viewpoints, to show the effect of the pond, to show 23 the role of regulators, Intervenors, what have you and we're 24 going to provide a little comment on that. 25 So we're going to first start with the initial

271

1 gyp pond and we're going to bring it up in lifts. 2 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Smulski, whenever 3 you're speaking, you will need to take the hands free mike 4 with you otherwise we won't get a transcript. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. KEN SMULSK: 7 MR. KEN SMULSKI: So we're just going to put 8 the initial pond which was down here and we can build it in 9 lifts. And if we take the -- Darcy if you'd like to come 10 over here, if you take these tubs, we can show some level of 11 static groundwater in blue. 12 And as we build the ponds, we'll see that the 13 stack -- the gradient of the water rose. And if we take Dr. 14 Ho's work with the various lift heights we can basically 15 model that with this. 16 Now, what I'd like to do is show you the field 17 operations prior to the plant. So, at that time, pre-'60s, 18 this is the type of technology that was used at the farm 19 level, also at the industrial site level technology as we 20 know it today and -- and environmental responsibility has 21 changed a great deal. 22 Likely at the inception of a plant like this 23 at that time, if we were to have an EIA much of the issue 24 that the present applicant is dealing with likely would have 25 been addressed and we could have done some plan design

272

1 parameters which would have helped them. 2 So, we will now bring forward some more 3 surface water and we're also going to show you the river in 4 blue here on the floor. At an angle like that shows in the 5 photo. The hose is going to represent an intercept system 6 and -- now, we will bring forward some more tubs, Darcy. 7 Lay them underneath. The short ones leave 8 those on the outside, Darcy. We'll use the short ones here. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 MR. KEN SMULSKI: So, basically, we have 13 static groundwater levels right now represented by the blue 14 tubs and we have -- if we were to take this broom handle and 15 cut it and put it up here where the emissions were, we would 16 see a lot more smoke and emission at this time than we do 17 presently today. 18 And it's all an evolution of process, 19 information, coordination between all regulatory bodies, 20 industry and these things. 21 So, we're also going to use this later to show 22 pipeline. When we put it underneath the table like this, it 23 will show a pipeline underneath the ground, except, we 24 couldn't find the appropriate length of conduit, so, I'm 25 going to ask you to use your imagination.

273

1 So, now, we're going to add some tubs and each 2 tub will represent twenty-five (25) foot lifts and we're 3 going to have each tub, basically, as a quarter section and a 4 across the road we're going to show some field operations and 5 we're going to go and show the corresponding changes with the 6 tubs, the blue tubs, and the elevated gradient and then some 7 impact here on the river and traffic levels and what have 8 you. 9 We've got all the basis here of a great 10 working model. Now, everybody wonders what these hockey 11 sticks are. This is the traditional groundwater flow at -- 12 prior to construction and the first, as we're -- if you look 13 on any aerial, the plant was designed from the south of the 14 site going north in the gyp ponds. 15 So, at this time everything was proper in 16 traditional groundwater flow and as we progressed, it started 17 to deflect. And if you follow the -- when I go back into our 18 binder, we see that our correspondence with Alberta 19 Environment or their various regulatory bodies corresponds 20 with this. 21 It didn't -- I never realized that until I 22 started to work on this model and everything started to 23 correlate. 24 Now, if we take the first cell of the gyp 25 pond, we have traditional groundwater flow which would be

274

1 represented by this. And then it would start to deflect a 2 little and it would start to back up so we can show it by 3 adding tubs and it will elevate. 4 So, at present state, as per Dr. Ho's 5 findings, we have some deflection and I don't know whether we 6 should suggest at the end of the meeting we acknowledge 7 Sherwood hockey sticks but it certainly seems to work the 8 model. 9 Anyways, so we correspond the stack height and 10 the deflections and field operations through visual. And 11 when you really start to think of it and if I -- we take the 12 corresponding -- correspondence from my family to my father 13 and myself or some neighbours, if we could look into Alberta 14 Environment or Alberta Transportation's comments, we would 15 see as the ponds grew, there were more public comment. 16 Today we're the last private landholder 17 directly adjacent to the fertilizer plant but we, you know, 18 taken a long stance of once a student, always a student; that 19 comes from my father. And so, we engaged the services of Dr. 20 Ho in 1992 after several years of bringing forward 21 information which was always -- seemed to be deflected like 22 the groundwater and never making any statements. 23 So, we will now add some ponds and we'll show 24 you the corresponding groundwater changes. Darcy. 25

275

1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Add some more blue. I'll 4 take care of the -- I'll do the above ground. 5 We should have the tops on the white ones. 6 Just put the tops on now. Put the blue tops on. Or just use 7 the -- use the larger ones next to them. Start here and put 8 the larger one underneath. We never rehearsed this. 9 The other day in the cold weather when we were 10 moving our office, we had a cracked tub, so we're going to 11 show it as a potential leak in an unlined pond. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 MR. KEN SMULSKI: So, just a little better way 16 to illustrate it. If anybody would like to help with the 17 nomenclature of the tub with the bad lining and suggest 18 anybody, I'm all open to suggestions. 19 Unfortunately, when you look at it, overall, 20 just from one (1) perspective, as we saw in the hearing 21 everybody had a perspective on all problems. But when you 22 take it overall and you co-ordinate it, you ultimately come 23 with better solutions, and as we've seen, the input from all 24 people will bring forward better information for the future. 25 And so, when you take scientific data, good

276

1 solid observations and working models, the present 2 regulations, we can come forward with better planning, 3 designing from all parties. 4 As we saw engaged throughout the hearing, 5 there was this tug-o-war. Sometimes it's very difficult to 6 explain all people's parameters and focuses and viewpoints. 7 So when we -- after, when we get this model, 8 I'm going to ask everybody to take a little break and just 9 walk around it, and think about their opinions and what they 10 presented and then you can relate it to how it impacts other 11 people, whether it be the Chair and the panel, Alberta 12 Environment, Alberta Justice, the Applicant, other 13 interveners. 14 And then you can get a real clear picture on 15 what's going on out here, because we're all presenting only 16 one (1) in -- one (1) viewpoint. 17 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Mr. Smulski, just -- 18 just to make things perfectly clear, we're not Alberta 19 Environment. We're the Natural Resource Conservation Board 20 over here, we -- 21 MR. KEN SMULSKI: I'm sorry. 22 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: We're the staff, so just 23 -- just -- 24 MR. KEN SMULSKI: I'm sorry. 25 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: -- for the record. Sure.

277

1 CONTINUED BY MR. KEN SMULSKI: 2 MR. KEN SMULSKI: I'm just trying to 3 illustrate a -- a point of all viewpoints. You know, we all 4 contribute and we all present a view and some experience, 5 some science and my apologies to these people. Thank you, 6 Mr. Mousseau. 7 So, now we'll start stacking the pond with 8 some more tubs and Darcy, if you could go to the back and get 9 some more of the lifts. 10 Now, as expected from all the discussion 11 throughout the hearing, we expect that this top corner of the 12 gyp pond has got the problem. From all the cross-examination 13 and all the input in the well data, if you were to take a 14 high incident area, I believe it would be the top right of 15 the present pond. 16 If you go back into the cross-examination, and 17 the comments and we look at the intensity, it seemed to be in 18 that area. When we go into the bore hole data, from what 19 Paul Machibroda said today, it seems to be lacking in that 20 area. 21 So, over here, on the farm operations we've 22 changed things and later we've adopted new technology and 23 it's impacted us. If we go up the highway, and I go back 24 into our submission, you'll see letters from '76, from '80, 25 from the mid-80's and it falls chronologically as the pond is

278

1 developed northward. 2 So, my favourite colour tractor are these, and 3 this is also what we use today. It's in the submission. And 4 if we take this as twenty-five (25) feet a lift, a tractor 5 will be about twelve (12) feet high, on a four (4) -- a 6 common four-wheel drive. 7 And so, now we can look in a proper 8 perspective of what's actually going on. We can also model, 9 if we follow the paper trail, some of the comments at that 10 date line of Alberta Environment of the NRCB or EUB or 11 whatever when you look at it in this manner. 12 So, what we're proposing to do is basically 13 put a gyp pond here in this area. Perhaps better represented 14 by this piece and it's going to -- we can cut that up and 15 show it as phases or whatever you want. 16 But overall, over time, we will see these 17 similar impacts which the modelling that Dr. Ho has done 18 would correlate -- we can correlate to this floor model. I 19 can correlate it to our field observations. I can also 20 correlate it to aerial photographs that are in public domain. 21 And so we can show the reduced field 22 operations by changing the colour on the table by putting 23 some blue in the areas of highest impact and a lighter shade 24 of blue to minimal -- to less impact. 25 And what we've all seen if we took a bucket of

279

1 water and put it in the centre of the floor and threw a 2 pebble up and it was to drop straight in the centre, the 3 highest impact of any project is immediately adjacent. 4 Whether it's air, water, hydrology, people 5 impact, it's all closest to the centre; isn't it? So if we 6 go back here to the start of the plant and we look at wind 7 patterns, the people directly across the river which is the 8 traditional wind, would be of the highest impact which is 9 basically a lot of the discussion that we saw this morning. 10 We could also take a fan -- an ordinary house 11 fan put some flour on this tubs, blow it and you'd get a 12 little bit of an idea of what's going on. We could -- I 13 could correlate, because we have a lot of -- we monitor 14 different parts of the farm operation because of what we're 15 trying to do out there over time. 16 Sometimes we don't quite accomplish what we'd 17 like to do. Like, if we take a look at what time we're 18 spending per field and everything with us is set up on a 19 quarter section, we can see where this last north quarter is 20 -- take the longest to seed historically. 21 If we go back into our field plan or whatever, 22 what's happened with us from the -- from the '60s to the '70s 23 to the '80s, as we went and the -- and the pond expanded, we 24 lost farmable area. 25 We felt at that time there was something else

280

1 other than what was known, that it was surface water or 2 things of that nature or poor drainage, which if we follow 3 through the historical pattern of contact between the various 4 agencies, it was shown as those parameters. 5 A little bit of due diligence and information, 6 we saw that it had to be something else. It's interesting 7 what we were saying to the various operators and what they 8 were telling us or what even some people, whether it be 9 Alberta Highways or the municipal level of the government, 10 it's a hard concept to understand because it's underneath the 11 ground. 12 You know, it's not visible. It's visible to 13 us because we're trying to farm it all the time and when we 14 -- my other submission in support of Dr. Ho which we will 15 file are public domain aerial photographs. And we can show 16 the plant prior to '67, '67, '70 the various time periods. 17 We've put in -- Darcy, how many photos? Eight (8) or nine 18 (9)? Eleven (11) and they're all public domain. They've all 19 got their plate numbers. 20 And we can see the various impacts. The road 21 which is -- oh, I forgot to show you, this is -- Gibbons 22 would be over there, this is 643 and you can see how it 23 curves before the plant. If I had a PowerPoint, I could show 24 it on that. 25

281

1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Could we dim the lights a 4 bit? What about this chandelier? If we take, and I have 5 stated that the pond is started here and it's in cells and 6 then they're grown it north. The aerials also show that, 7 just a little bit more light please. Little bit more up 8 front here please. No happy medium. 9 Anyways, this was the last cell built and this 10 cell has -- that's my understanding, perhaps the Applicant 11 could correct me on that. This is the proposed cell. We 12 have farmed this area and this area since 1912. My family is 13 originally, when they settled the country was over in this 14 area in the Yaroslave area and they crossed the river over 15 here because the land was a little bit better. 16 Between my father's father and his brother, 17 this quarter section was split in 80 and this quarter was 18 split 120 and 40 acres. This was acquired in 1963 and this 19 other remaining 120 acres out of this quarter, if you look at 20 an map or even if you pull a land title, you'll show the 21 division, it was acquired in '71 as was this. 22 And we regained ownership of family land. At 23 that time we embarked on an expansion over here in the Vinca 24 Bridge area and, hence, the travel down the Victoria Trail 25 over to this property.

282

1 Our earliest time when my father returned 2 farming was in '63 was over in the Gibbons' area on the 3 Sturgeon River. 4 In the early '80s we acquired a property over 5 in County Lamont, so, we had to mobilize our equipment a long 6 Victoria Trail and up to Highway 38 and across the Vinca 7 Bridge. 8 So, when we talk of impact of road closure, if 9 you take this unit and in the binders, I think the second 10 last picture, the third last picture shows a Stagger 11 (phonetic) tractor and an air seeder and a D-6 dozer; that's 12 out at Vinca Bridge and that's some of the types of equipment 13 that we mobilized and this tractor and that air seeder are 14 very common -- commonly used in that area. If you went to 15 the surrounding farms, there are all running similar 16 equipment and they face the same challenges. 17 When we mobilized off these three-quarter 18 sections here, we never -- there's a large approach here, we 19 never mobilize out of there when we go to the other fields, 20 we instead use this access and come down here because our 21 corresponding high season corresponds with the high season of 22 the fertilizer shipping industry. They will start earlier 23 but we'll peak at the same time during spring seeding for the 24 truck shipments out of the facility. 25 So, when we look at it from a perspective of

283

1 our farm operation, or any of the neighbouring farm 2 operations, the gentleman here, the gentlemen that occupy 3 this land and the surrounding people all run similar sized 4 tractors and air seeding equipment. So, if they're 5 transporting via 564, they all face the same impact. 6 It's very interesting if you look at the 7 submission and you know locally what's happened with the 8 county, you have I believe eight (8) votes on council or 9 seven (7) votes. Victor, how many quotes? Eight (8) and Mr. 10 Pasay, the local councillor, represents the region very well. 11 If you take the local ownership here of this 12 area up to Highway 38 and bounded by 643 and the Victoria 13 Trail, I believe that no local residents supported the road 14 closure, so, they tried to provide a solution with the road 15 being built north of the proposed expansion. 16 We filed a statement concern based -- that was 17 one (1) of our concerns was the traffic and the impact 18 overall. But, when you look at the submission, it's 19 represented that the county is in support of that, but, if 20 you have one (1) quote against the rest of the councillors 21 and you're going to gain six hundred and forty thousand 22 dollars in tax assessment, it's a much different perspective 23 for the county than some local residents. 24 But, when you present it in the report as the 25 county's -- is all for it or has support, when you break it

284

1 down amongst the councillors, it is supported at the county 2 level but locally it is not. 3 It is interesting, Sturgeon County has a real 4 tough task between acreages, intensive livestock, grain 5 operations, light processing, heavy industry, encroachment by 6 the city, certain towns. They've got a real tough task 7 coordinating all these activities and, hence, this area here 8 and just roughing it in is all the Heartland industrial area 9 as does Strathcona County, and there's a smaller end county 10 Lamont that's included. 11 So, when we look at the overall land plan, you 12 see all the municipalities are coming forward with certain 13 planning ideals and parameters of planning. 14 So, its impact here is -- is unique because if 15 you study Sturgeon County and other counties that have large 16 industrial assessments, you see many of the same things. If 17 you take Lacombe County that takes in the taxation of Joffre 18 and Sturgeon County, you'll find in analysis, they run the 19 most current fleet of road maintenance and road construction 20 equipment amongst the province. They have the highest 21 assessments within the counties. You can parallel those 22 parameters 23 The Alberta government has gone forward in the 24 last several years for privatization of many of these areas 25 but these two (2) counties have remained steadfast in

285

1 maintaining their own roads and constructing their own roads. 2 So you can see some parallels where you have 3 high industrial assessment amongst the counties and what they 4 can do. The contractors would argue that the utilization 5 that the counties get out of their equipment makes no 6 economic sense and I think when you really look at it hard, 7 there should be probably some parameters of some private and 8 some public activity in that sector. 9 So when we look at this Application, with a 10 little closer scrutiny, you will see, not intentionally, I 11 believe, by the Applicant, but they can say that, you know, 12 the county has supported, the vote did carry. We filed a 13 statement of concern. I don't -- I'm not sure whether the 14 Minister has signed off on road closure or not, it's my 15 understanding no. 16 So that's -- although it may be represent at a 17 later date that, you know, they've already spent all this 18 money, my comment is and it's my understanding that under 19 NRCB if you have an intensive livestock operation and it's 20 going to be under review, all activity in that area is ten -- 21 temporarily frozen upon the application being filed. The 22 counties stand off but yet in industrialized counties, you 23 can get them going ahead with road closures before the EIA 24 which we filed a statement of concern on and if you look in 25 my submission, we missed filing it where we filed on the

286

1 proper day at Sturgeon county but they say, well they 2 received it at 10:16 it was already through session. I -- I 3 corresponded with some letters and it's in our submission. 4 So when you look at how some of these things 5 can be represented, even though they're past or they're done 6 and you take a little harder look, it's -- it's a little 7 tougher perspective to see it clearly, isn't it? 8 So then we take this working model and we 9 bring it up to 1992 and when we engaged the services of Dr. 10 Ho and then we started to see the -- the groundwater changes 11 which confirmed what we felt for a while. I have -- although 12 I don't put it on any formal document I have spent some time 13 at the U of A and had some background in soil science or Ag 14 Engineering, I think when you see the conversations and the 15 comments come out, I think you could see that. 16 My real background is in marketing and 17 structure in industry and conduct and things of that nature 18 and that's why we have some little entities that we're 19 engaged in. 20 Now, when we look at what we can do when we 21 move forward, it really has to be a coordinated effort. We 22 have some situations, which I think we saw this morning as an 23 anomaly, when we get east of an industrial activity, 24 downwind, and especially if you look at the elevation. 25 If we were to go to where this -- where most

287

1 of the Strathcona residents are, there's the river. They'd 2 be about the height of my boot tops because they're much 3 lower in geography and elevation from the plant. 4 If we stack these up in twenty-five (25) foot 5 lifts, they're going to be up here and they would be sitting 6 crouched down over here. So you can see their impact is much 7 greater and they see this visual wall of white. 8 What we see over here is just -- we -- we 9 start at the same grain -- grade elevation and we're going to 10 stack these up and you can see as we work these fields, we 11 just look onto a white maze. That's what we see, you know, 12 visually. 13 As you recall, at the filing of the pre- 14 hearing, I asked you all have you ever been to site and 15 everybody said no except for Dr. Powell who had mentioned 16 that he was on site in the office facility some time back. I 17 asked Councillor Neufeld -- yeah, you were there -- now 18 you're there? You've been there but at that time he hadn't. 19 So my comment to all participants is to do a 20 little due diligence before we get to these hearings, will 21 give us a much better perspective than when we go in, we 22 can't really hear everybody's concerns until we've been there 23 and so, you know, I started -- when we started modelling 24 this, I started thinking of everybody's concerns and what we 25 could do but some things become an anomaly. Like, my family

288

1 situation, what we've got, likely can't be handled at the 2 Board level; that we're going to have to go a little further 3 because we're grandfathered in here. 4 We've been here well before the plant, we've 5 filed every appropriate document. We've been within every 6 appropriate measure that you could, we've provided proper 7 perspective, proper comment, but nobody would acknowledge us. 8 So where does it put us in the scheme of things and I've got 9 a few thoughts on that but I really think it's a little bit 10 beyond this Hearing. 11 I think we can move forward and engage more -- 12 a little bit more research and appropriate between the 13 bodies. I think the situation east of the river, I think it 14 has to be a coordinated effort between the county, the 15 Provincial government, two (2) or three (3) industrial 16 partners all have to come together because we're in this 17 Alberta industrial heartland. It's all set up to cluster the 18 industry here. 19 You can't deny that. It's going to happen. 20 You look at the infrastructure, you've got rail on both sides 21 of the river. You've got good road beds. You've got the 22 hydro power on both sides of the river. You have the 23 population base of Fort Saskatchewan and Edmonton in close 24 proximity. 25 You've got some clusters in Lamont or

289

1 Bruderheim for the people to live to service the industry. 2 You've got the farm population. You've got service 3 population. It all lends itself to that. 4 To deny that in the overall view, I don't 5 think you can properly conduct the hearing until you look at 6 those parameters. We've already gotten most of the framework 7 here but it needs a little tuning in. 8 And unfortunately until you get to these 9 hearings we don't hear everybody's perspective or viewpoint. 10 Like throughout Agrium's application they've done a lot of 11 great work, but when you get it within scrutiny, you know, 12 sure they put together this document. 13 But when you take it and break it down with 14 the proper scientific perspective, if you look at it from a 15 lay person, it's very overwhelming. But when you break it 16 down, you saw Dr. Schindler's comments or Dr. Ho's or Pau 17 Machibroda' or mine on impact, it's a much different 18 document; is it not? 19 So, when we all participate and we're all 20 heard we get a better understanding of everybody's concerns. 21 Industry has a tough time and their counsel because how do 22 you go to these residents and bring forward, you know, some 23 solutions? 24 It needs to be coordinated. It's like the 25 first person that pulls the trigger it's going to explode on

290

1 them as we saw with the interchange of comment, sometimes 2 there's no common ground and how do you proceed forward? 3 So, when we look at the role of the municipal 4 government, the province, the people, that's the reason why 5 we're all here. And so this is why I wanted the model shot 6 because I really think you can take a picture of this, you 7 can remember your reports. 8 You can observe what's happening and we could 9 put some trucks over here and more truck traffic. We can put 10 a few more 2 by 4's. We could put this 643 a little bit 11 further north, coming right at you, Mr. Chairman, and we can 12 do all those things but until we start engaging, you can do 13 very little. 14 So we're going to build the model a little bit 15 further then I'm going to ask everybody to walk around it and 16 from a perspective of the Intervenors, like Ms. Brown, when 17 you come into this room, for some of the people who are not 18 used to presenting anything, it's very, very difficult. 19 It's extremely intimidating and if I look at 20 the demography of the surrounding area of the plant, you have 21 many people that have retired into Redwater, Fort 22 Saskatchewan or Gibbons or Lamont. They don't want to come 23 forward. They won't. And I believe the engineer, Watson, 24 made the comment that 50 percent of the people live in close 25 proximity, 50 percent without employment.

291

1 What I've seen in former SRB Hearings in the 2 Redwater Oil Field and surrounding area, when you get that 3 same demography and so many family members or close relatives 4 are employed by one corporation, as is the energy industry 5 prior to the sale of the plant, nobody comes forward. 6 Everybody is scared when you get to a hearing such as this. 7 They'll go to the local meetings but they 8 won't come forward. The comment which was made by some of 9 the counsel, well, do you go to these meetings or whatever? 10 If you look at it from the farm population, they're -- if 11 they're an intensive operator and they're doing bird 12 production, chickens, they've got the poultry meetings, 13 they're keeping up with their operation. They're keeping up 14 with their families. Their schedules are full. 15 As we saw from the comments of Mr. Sawatzky 16 this morning, everybody has a full agenda. Like, I'd hate to 17 tell you what this has cost me in lost opportunity with my 18 businesses and what I do. 19 It would be -- it would -- you people would 20 have a hard time understanding that, but if I was to open up 21 and take you to the business and our activities, you would 22 clearly see it. So often what we do when we go to an SRB or 23 something like this, we don't have Mr. Bolton appear. I come 24 because we can get through this quicker than having a lawyer 25 interchange on the ideas.

292

1 As you noticed, we have large presence here 2 but I'm here. He filed under the Act because we have one 3 individual as a dependant adult. We have some different 4 corporate structure, but I'm best able to represent it from 5 the different hats. 6 I represent it as a son, a farm operator, a 7 trustee, a director of a couple of companies. So I have to 8 wear several different hats when I present opinion and I -- 9 you know, I respect all of you. But when -- you have to look 10 at all these things in proper perspective. 11 So, we're going to build the model a little 12 further, and then I'm going to show you how we're going to 13 evaluate all this and value it two (2) guitars. 14 And then we're going to stop and then I'm 15 going to present evidence with those aerial plate photographs 16 which are public domain. We've just assembled them in 17 chronological order. 18 They're in support of Dr. Ho's work and I 19 don't think Counsellor Neufeld would have any problem because 20 what we're presenting is basically public domain. I filed 21 some newspaper articles in our Submission. That's all 22 public. It seems voluminous. We -- as I said, we were 23 moving an operation. We've been vandalized. We would have 24 had more tabs in it, but that's the perspective I was coming 25 from.

293

1 We're training some people. We also, through 2 the cold weather, moved an operation in Edmonton. We had 3 some machines go down in the oilfield. 4 I mean, we're fully engaged at this time. So, 5 that's my perspective when I come to this hearing. And also, 6 you know, we -- we did not receive advance funding, which I 7 understood was kind of a filing procedure. 8 But I think when we look at it overall, we all 9 have to understand our viewpoints and where we're talking 10 from. So, I'm going to build this model a little bit 11 further, put the mike down. 12 I ask you to all to just take a look at it and 13 evaluate your opinions, and then we're going to engage the 14 model again. I'm going to show you some visuals and we'll go 15 forward from there. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Mr. Chairman, if I could 20 I'd just ask for the hearing to get a little less formal. I 21 would everybody to just walk around -- around the 22 presentation and I'm going to give them each a hat, the first 23 few people and then they can present that perspective after 24 we've shown the model. 25 I've got a hard hat for construction people, I

294

1 think I've got a cowboy hat for the ranch community and we're 2 just going to let them think that -- they don't necessarily 3 have to have comment but they can think that four (4) or five 4 (5) individuals and then they can see the perspective what 5 we're all trying to achieve here. 6 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Are these -- are these your 7 witnesses, Mr. Smulski? I -- maybe I don't understand what 8 you're contemplating here. 9 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Well could we ask just for 10 -- perhaps what we could do is go off the hearing, have an 11 adjourn -- a five (5) minute adjournment. We'll just ask 12 them to do this, we don't necessarily have to record this. 13 But they can then realize some of the perspective from the 14 different individuals. Five (5) minutes and give a chance 15 everybody to stretch. 16 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Sure. 17 18 --- Upon recessing at 5:45 p.m. 19 --- Upon resuming at 5:53 p.m. 20 21 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Find their way back. If -- 22 if you choose not to take a seat and remain close, that's 23 fine. 24 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Sir -- sir, if we're ready 25 to go. What I'd like to do, is just these common plate

295

1 photographs, I'll hand out binders to respective tables. We 2 can file it, after my -- my presentation, just in the sake of 3 bringing -- moving things forward here. 4 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And Mr. Smulski, just to 5 follow up, I assume the camera is -- we're finished with the 6 recording? 7 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Yeah, let's turn the camera 8 off for a few minutes and then we'll just show it at the end 9 again for -- you know, you know -- you can just shoot it 10 again and shut -- shut off. That's fine. 11 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 12 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Thank you. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Smulski, we'll make 17 this Exhibit Smulski 7. 18 19 --- EXHIBIT NO. SMULSKI-7: Binder of aerial photographs 20 21 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Yes, and just for exhibit 22 on -- on the back of my masters, all the appropriate plate 23 numbers from the Air Photo Service, and if you look hard on 24 the pages, we had to reproduce just using some photocopying 25 material.

296

1 And so what I suggest is we will file with the 2 appropriate originals to the board and we -- we will provide 3 a list of what is. But they're all plate reproductions that 4 is public domain. 5 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And, Mr. Smulski, I'm 6 sorry, for those without a date identification on them is -- 7 MR. KEN SMULSKI: They're -- they're all 8 identified. If you go on the back of your first -- it should 9 have been photocopied. I -- we can -- we had some problems 10 today copying but sometimes the plates show up and you'll see 11 on the -- they're -- they're filed in chronological order. 12 You'll see on some of the plates it'll say 13 79-99 or what have you. We'll file a master with the Board 14 and each interveners and you can have this -- these are rough 15 copies because cost of reproduction is quite high on this but 16 they're all in chronological order and we will post them -- 17 we will have the masters laid out on the table when we take 18 he break. 19 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Smulski, could you 20 just, for the intent, for today, read to us in order the date 21 of -- of each photograph? 22 MR. KEN SMULSKI: The initial photograph will 23 be seventh -- seventh day, seventh month 1967 and that's 24 prior to the plant's construction. The second photograph 25 will be 6-10-72 it shows the initial phase of pond

297

1 construction. 2 The third one will be in the early '70s as 3 well, I'll get the master and we'll go. The fourth page -- 4 the fourth page is 17th day dash 7-76; that's the fourth page 5 from the front. 6 If you look on the back of some of the copies, 7 we've photocopied the actual plate. Some of the plates will 8 show up on the photos. 9 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Smulski, on the back of 10 mine there are -- there's nothing on the back of any of mine. 11 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Okay. Front the front 12 we've got 67; the second page is 72; the third page is 73; 13 the fourth page is 76. We have 79 on the fifth page. The 14 page after that is 1986. The page after that which comes 15 through quite clearly if you look at the bottom left it will 16 say E-91-01-9. It will say 91-04-19. So, it's April 19th, 17 '91. 18 The page after that will show plate 92-14-6 19 indicating 1992. If you look at the top right corner you 20 should see 92-07-29. The top right corner. Everybody see 21 that? 22 The next plate is 93-05-03. The plate after 23 that is 01-5-12. And the final plate it -- 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I'm sorry, 01? 2001? 25 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Yeah, 2001, 5th month, 12th

298

1 day. And the final plate will be 01-05-12. Unfortunately 2 air photo doesn't follow the same nomenclature in their 3 dating but if you look at it, you can always determine where 4 you are at, but, we'll have -- we have the originals at the 5 back table which will be laid out during the break so 6 everybody can check against what we've submitted and we'll 7 submit better copies to the Board and the respective 8 Intervenors. 9 So, if we start historically at the front of 10 the book, we can see the area east of Gibbons or south of Red 11 Water with no industrial activity. And I'd ask you to note 12 the bisection towards the top corner is now presently 643 and 13 Township 564. 14 And we -- if we look down towards the bottom 15 on the right plate, you'll see two (2) sloughs or 16 depressional areas and that is where there was a culvert 17 installed years ago and that was the traditional groundwater 18 flow. 19 And if you look hard at the picture on the 20 north -- from that bisection line of 564 and 643, which I can 21 show up, if we turn down the lights. 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: The map's pretty clear even 23 without the lights turned down. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. KEN SMULSKI:

299

1 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Yeah, I'm just going to 2 show it on the appropriate Agrium map here. There's the 3 bisection line that I'm talking about. Here's the culvert 4 that was in the ground. 5 Subsequently through various highway 6 operations, it's been buried and it's plugged with earth and 7 dam and this is one (1) of our -- if you see our letters of 8 engagement to the various regulatory bodies, that's never 9 been addressed. 10 And presently, and I'll show you through our 11 visual pictures, how the highway in that area, right there, 12 has been risen over historical time and the culvert is now 13 buried well underneath the highway with just earth and plugs 14 underneath and that stopped our traditional groundwater flow 15 from that area going to the east. 16 The next plate is 1972 and you see that this 17 area of the pond is initially constructed on the red dot and 18 you can see on the -- on these quarters here there are some, 19 commonly in the prairies, called dugouts. The contractors 20 call them burrow pits. Other areas of North America they 21 call it stock ponds. 22 You can see -- and that's the effect of the 23 highway coming through which was constructed by the County of 24 Thorhild because, at that time, Thorhild County was still -- 25 the assessment from the facility was still in Thorhild

300

1 County. 2 Now, in our farm operation, every time that a 3 highway would through, we would fill the low areas of the 4 land with the topsoil removal. We would request from the 5 counties or the various road contractors to fill our 6 depressional areas close to the road and we'd increase the 7 elevation of our farmable area. 8 We should be now on the third page. And what 9 you're seeing now on the third page, if you go down to this 10 dot here, is you'll see a little body of water. What's 11 happened is that the construction of the first phase of the 12 pond has raised the grade elevation which -- we're basically 13 on third page from the front now -- has raised the grade 14 elevation, hence it is stopped the culvert from flowing from 15 west to east and we see some surface water gathering right in 16 that area on Page 3. You see the little dot? Little dark 17 dot on your -- on your map? 18 Let's go to Page 4. Page 4 is a very dark 19 reproduction of the copy. Now, it's interesting, when you go 20 to Page 4 you see that this area's increased and you can even 21 make it out if you walk up to the Agrium map, you can make it 22 out. 23 Now, when we go up here to the other dugout or 24 stock pond or burrow pit, you'll see in that picture the 25 white, north of the dugout. That would indicate, and I'd ask

301

1 Dr. Ho to comment, there'll be some interpretation there, but 2 now we are not farming that area north of the dugout. 3 If we go to the second page, where they've 4 first put in the dugouts, we were farming the area between 5 the dugout and the highway. We have four (4) seven (7) foot 6 sections of grain drills and a tractor which you'll see later 7 in a visual. We were farming the area between the dugout and 8 the highway and we were seeding approximately thirty (30) 9 feet there. 10 Presently with that road construction that was 11 this past fall, you'll see a guard rail there now, between 12 the dug-out and the highway. 13 It's the north quarter, be right about there. 14 There's a -- a black dot on the third page -- on the second 15 page, or the third page. At that time, we were farming in 16 between the dugout and the highway, with our field 17 operations. 18 Let's go to the fifth page, which shows a -- 19 an overview of the operations and the surrounding land. 20 Let's follow it up down the road, go to the sixth page. We 21 see the pond expansion. 22 Now, if you look on the sixth page to the top 23 right corner, you'll see this area here, which I indicate in 24 a -- in my initial presentation today, seems to draw a lot of 25 comment from all the Intervenors and all the people

302

1 presenting from -- ranges in discussion from borehole logs to 2 construction methods to underlying till to various 3 characteristics of the project. 4 If you look on that overview, the page 5 preceding, you can see at that time there's a white line on 6 that plate. To me, that would indicate some seepage or some 7 indifferent water activity. 8 So -- and that would be right about there. Or 9 pardon me, it's going to be right about there. So that -- 10 that is the fifth page, so let's go to Page 6. 11 And we're going to show it -- the long term 12 effects with some of the photographs that we have filed on 13 our submission in the back of the book. 14 Now, let's turn the page again, and we're up 15 to 1991. Or let's look at -- pardon me, let's look at that 16 1986 photo where we were showing the top right here. Let's 17 look over here in this area right here. You see that it's 18 kind of a -- a cut off. It looks like the province Alberta 19 but it's shaved a little bit. 20 We can see right in this area here, the stock 21 pond or dugout and then we've cut the field off. We can't 22 farm the other side of it right here on that picture. That's 23 plate E86-063. We've got that filed as 1986. 24 That's this area right here. So we've cut the 25 field off. We can't farm around the dugout. We can't farm

303

1 between the dugout and the highway. We've lost the use of 2 that land. If we show it further down here, this area here 3 has been expanded. 4 In the early 80s it was -- one -- one of the 5 plant expansions came through. It was brought up to level to 6 grade, but the re -- reclamation plan was done incorrectly. 7 We're still trying to amen it -- amend it. 8 And you can see it here on this aerial, 9 there's a light area. If you walk up to this map at the next 10 break, and that represents that area which is the plugged 11 area of the dugout -- pardon me, the plugged culvert which is 12 well underneath the road bed from the different lifts and the 13 -- the widening of the road bed. It was never addressed. 14 Now, let's go to the 1991 photo which shows it 15 directly over top 564, and the gyp ponds, and the east half 16 of nineteen (19) fifty-six (56) twenty-one (21) west of the 17 4th meridian. And you'll see that at this stage the top 18 right corner, we've taken that cut off field, and we've had 19 to expand it and square off the field. 20 Basically we had no farmable area. We were 21 just farming the hill tops. So, to enable to mobilize and 22 get to other fields, we had to just square up the field and 23 just leave it unfarmable. 24 Even in Agrium's submission you'll see, in any 25 of the overheads, you'll see a different colour in that

304

1 quarter. We basically had to take that land out of 2 production. And if -- if you look at what we were doing 3 earlier in the '80s, we were farming those -- that north 4 quarter and that south quarter in mid-May to early May. 5 Our seeding dates and our field operations 6 kept getting put back in the -- in the month of May until 7 finally in the late '80s, early '90s the north quarter was 8 not able to be farmed, until the last week, of May and then 9 we still had to cut off field operations. 10 And basically then we reduced that farmable 11 area by a significant acreage on that quarter. Now, if you 12 look on that plate E91-0-19 you can see this acreage 13 subdivision. Those -- that acreage was subdivided in '74. 14 Sturgeon -- MD of Sturgeon Number 90 at that time allowed a 15 five (5) acre partial taking out of a quarter of old 16 farmsteads. And that was subdivided out and sold outside. 17 As it's represented on Agrium's map, it shows 18 a continuous line of ownership here onto the other property 19 which they've acquired. That does not exist like that and 20 we've brought the appropriate subdivision plan to show the 21 differences. 22 Right here, this subdivision. If you look on 23 the map of E-91 you can see some farmstead buildings there in 24 a little square, then across the road to the north, you can 25 see another farmstead; that's the adjacent property holder.

305

1 But the way it's shown here, is not true. This squared off 2 area should be about 25 to 30 percent smaller. 3 And I've brought the appropriate subdivision 4 plan here that's filed with the Province. So, when I look at 5 it, from our perspective, I don't think it's proper 6 representation of that subdivision on that map. So I think 7 we need to address that issue at some time during this 8 hearing and we'll provide for that with the subdivision plan. 9 And that is, in my eyes, not a very good representation of 10 what's gone on here. 11 And we've got the appropriate subdivision plan 12 and when it was filed by my father. I helped him stake it 13 out, and I calculated the acreage at that time, because we 14 used, by leaps and bounds, and that's, that one which, it's 15 interesting at that time, the County, I believe, bought the 16 property and then sold it to the industrial activity which, 17 at that time, was Esso Chemical. 18 Now, if we look at the plate on 92-07-25, the 19 top right; Mr. Neufeld's got it right in front of him. You 20 can see a good overview of the plant, the gyp pond, our field 21 operations. You can see where we've cut off that right part 22 of that corridor because it's basically unfarmable. 23 You'll recall that in the fall of 1992 the 24 intercept system of 643 was installed. We've cut that area 25 off here. If you look at the plate 92-07-25. So the

306

1 intercept system was installed in the fall of '92. 2 The most interesting comment I could provide 3 on that intercept system is what it took to get it installed 4 between the various parties and I -- I will not comment on -- 5 on that at this time while we're going through the photos. 6 We'll do that in the later discussion. 7 Now, let's bring it up to 1993, the next 8 photo. And you can see our field operations here. You can 9 see, if you look hard in -- in the -- the bottom quarter 10 which would be the southeast of nineteen (19). If you follow 11 along the road you'll see a little jog, in our field 12 operations. The operators just bisected the field and made a 13 ring of it for field operations. 14 That little jog right about here indicates 15 where one of the piezometers is that we have installed, and 16 if you go to Dr. Ho's report you can correlate that. 17 Now, we can see where this area here is all 18 cut off on the northeast of nineteen (19) fifty-six (56) 19 twenty-one (21) and we're farming much less of that quarter 20 and that's in 1993. The interesting thing is to look, I've 21 specifically talked about the east half of 1956-21-W4 which 22 are these properties here. 23 If you take a larger look at it 24 topographically from the various years and you look 25 immediately north of the gyp pond, what happened to these

307

1 properties where they proposed the expansion, it's the same 2 thing. 3 In my filings we show a comment from, I 4 believe, Alberta Transportation or Alberta Environment in 5 1989, and I'll refer to that document in a few minutes, where 6 they're proposing a ditch here or here and we have the 7 various landowners at this time now engaging in conversation 8 whereas earlier, historically, the only people engaging were 9 ourselves and we're right here. We're -- you know, we're 10 directly adjacent. It all follows. All our engagements, the 11 visuals, Dr. Ho's work, everything correlates. 12 My -- my observations. Now we're going to go 13 to the second-last photo which is 1-5-12. We see that's '01, 14 that's the year the larger fires in Redwater. The first year 15 of the subsequent fires. Even though it's the drought -- one 16 of the driest years in history and the next year was the 17 driest year in history in the area, we still are unable to 18 farm this area and the Redwater fire, we engaged a 19 caterpillar, which is in the last pictures. 20 We had seeded some of this field and were 21 finishing operations, the fire hit and it was late in -- in 22 May and we -- even after we finished the work with a dozer on 23 some of the fire work, we still couldn't get into this corner 24 and seed and if you see the dark lines, it's still cut off. 25 We can't farm anywhere near the dugout and we -- and the

308

1 intercept system at that time has been installed since 1992. 2 So when I look at it from the comments -- when 3 we go back into the comments on the construction of the 4 intercept system and the products used, we can see it's 5 relative effectiveness in our field operations without even 6 doing the underground work with the piezometers and the 7 piezometers that Dr. Ho installed with his firm and conducted 8 his study just confirmed what we felt was happening. 9 Now, the last photo is 01-05-12 which shows a 10 large overview and it shows, if we back up in this area where 11 the pond is, we showed those intercept systems and you can 12 see that there's more farmable area but if we back up these 13 photos and we were to provide the plates previous to that in 14 the late '80s, we can see significant increases of 15 groundwater and if you were to have piezometers in those 16 fields, I'm sure that the -- they would have shown, Dr. Ho, 17 correct me if I'm wrong, greater he -- greater elevations, 18 when a piezometer goes higher. 19 DR. DAVID HO: It would be the higher flow 20 gradient. 21 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Higher flow gradient? 22 DR. DAVID HO: Yes. 23 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Smulski -- Dr. Ho, you 24 need to use the mic because our transcripts are based on 25 receiving the sound.

309

1 DR. DAVID HO: Yeah, that would be a higher 2 flowed -- a higher flowed gradient. If you could compare to 3 a point, it would be a higher total hit. 4 MR. KEN SMULSKI: So if -- if we study the 5 surrounding properties in the same way that I have with ours, 6 we find a similar correlation as the pond moved northward and 7 as the pond height was at a higher height, we find 8 significantly larger impacts and larger impacted areas, which 9 both Mr. Machibroda and Dr. Ho have commented as the height 10 increases, you get a greater consolidation of material which 11 I believe in laymen's terms, it basically acts as a damming 12 effect. 13 So not only in some cases have we changed 14 surface water flow, but we've changed groundwater hydrology 15 as well with the gyp ponds and the facility. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 MR. KEN SMULSKI: What I'd like to do now is 20 everybody's got the binder. We can start -- we're going to 21 start right at the back with the last picture of the big 22 binder that we filed. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25

310

1 MR. KEN SMULSKI: That picture represents -- 2 the top picture. There's an older gentleman standing there 3 with a CAT working in behind him. 4 That represents -- where are we here? Did I 5 lose my...? That represents work right about there on the 6 north-west of 32 and that's after the Redwater fire. We were 7 doing some site reclamation and that is in our filings. 8 That's filed under an Alberta limited company 9 and what I'd like to ask everybody to do to keep it light, is 10 take a good look at that gentleman and that's taken in July 11 2nd, '01 and tell me how old you think he is, and when we've 12 finished this conversation, that's a very interesting 13 observation. 14 You will not believe the age of this 15 gentleman. He's been with my family for over forty-five (45) 16 years and take a good look at that picture and he's a very 17 interesting gentleman. 18 When we file it on the CD Rom, we'll list the 19 legal description as well as his name. Below is the dozer 20 tractor raking out brush after the fire. 21 We'll -- we'll go from the back. The third 22 page from the back of the portfolio is my grandfather's 23 farmstead. Wasil (phonetic) Smulski and that farmstead was 24 established in 1912 as well as the north quarter was his 25 brother Dan. Damien Smulski.

311

1 And that farmstead -- what is shown through 2 the various aerials, you can see some of the buildings in 3 that area. The one (1) building that is present is just mid 4 plate on the photograph to the right, which is a building 5 that occasionally we use for grain storage. 6 That barn in that picture was constructed in 7 1927. The -- go from the rear to the front now. You'll see 8 a harvest combine working the field and that shows -- that's 9 October '80. That shows a relative height and that's just 10 pictures taken right there towards the pond. You can see the 11 relative height in 1980. 12 The bottom plate is the stagger tractor with 13 air seeder and that air seeder's without the use of anhydrous 14 ammonia tank which would add approximately another thirty 15 (30) feet in length. 16 That picture was taken in May of '01. Now if 17 we go to the start I want to now go to the front of the 18 photos that are filed. 19 You'll see a grey pick-up truck. In -- and 20 this is right on that farmstead. That's in front of the 21 farmstead of Steve and Doris Pushalik. And that picture -- 22 it shows the impact on 546 of the elevated groundwater table. 23 You'll see that the truck is cutting in to the roadbed. 24 You'll also note that there's a lot of fresh 25 gravel. Continually, the county would engage to bring the

312

1 gravel content up on that roadbed which is the roadbed which 2 they discussed in closure, which is now prior to reading -- 3 to my understanding of Alberta Transportation. 4 The picture following it shows some different 5 visions of it. This picture on the right of that plate is 6 taken right here, looking north -- pardon me, looking west 7 you can see the gradient is -- it's -- as we go away from the 8 river, we go to higher elevations. 9 And upon filing, we're going to use the Agrium 10 map and we'll it to our numbers and put the appropriate 11 appendages. 12 You see the truck and you can see the planting 13 of the trees here along the gyp pond which would be this 14 north face of the current pond. The page after is some tires 15 impacted. 16 Mr. Fields, I believe, commented on the water 17 content of 643 here. Here it is on the following photo on 18 564. You see the ground swelling and contracting, leaving 19 the cracks. That picture is taken approximately right here. 20 The following picture shows the pick-up truck 21 cut in with the side step and a rear view of it, and just -- 22 that truck is not loaded, it's just a truck the photographer 23 used to commute to and from work and do his activities. I 24 was trying to get a hold of him to have him present and I'm 25 on any subsequent comment, he'd be available.

313

1 Now, we're on a picture that shows the gyp 2 pond and a field. The gyp pond is -- this will show this 3 area here. It corresponds across from that culvert that we 4 say is plugged. This is part of the reclamation and the 5 increase on that bottom plate photograph with all the fill -- 6 maybe I'll show it like this. 7 The change in grade elevation there at the -- 8 from baseline prior to the plant -- construction, we've 9 probably, through the subsequent road construction operations 10 and plant expansions, we've probably brought that grade 11 elevation up at least twelve (12) to fourteen (14) feet, 12 maybe sixteen (16) feet. 13 A simple bore hole will show us how much we've 14 brought it up and that's that culvert that's being plugged 15 off. The top plate shows the various activities that have 16 changed the grade elevation on the east side of 643. That 17 photo will be shot from that field just directly looking 18 across looking to the northeast. It'll be in that vicinity. 19 Now, we see the next set of photographs is 20 this showing the trees. Now, if you look at those trees on 21 the top plate and all this area here that we're discussing 22 and that intercept system that was put in and where we have 23 all the bore-hole data that's a little bit light and all the 24 question marks from the cross-examination, if you look at the 25 -- where the trees are and there's no trees visible.

314

1 To me that would indicate a serious plume. 2 And if Dr. Ho would comment on plume. 3 DR. DAVID HO: Generally the word "plume" is 4 referred to when you have a -- local concentrated area with a 5 higher level of contaminants. 6 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Now, if you look at the 7 lower plate in that photograph, that would be this area right 8 here from the -- from 564 and the corner of Victoria Trail 9 and bisecting north south road. 10 That's shot from there looking towards the 11 gyp-pond and you'll see it's moving away from you on the 12 bottom left and so that's looking right into this area but 13 shot from that red dot looking there. And you can see that 14 the pond is moving away and you can see some tree growth 15 that's stunted. 16 The next plate shows a culvert and if we could 17 go into, I believe, Alberta Environment's notes from years 18 ago, this is this area right here where there's a dugout on 19 this quarter which would be the south east. We're going to 20 file it. It's basically right on the division line this 21 culvert. 22 And originally the water flowed from the west 23 to the east. Subsequently with pond construction and the 24 fill that was brought in by the various operators of the 25 facility, they raised the elevation of that side of the

315

1 highway so it changed the normal surface-water flow. 2 And you can see the design build and the care 3 and attention taken to that plug in the culvert. This is 4 some of the things that we've brought to attention throughout 5 the years that we've had to deal with. 6 The next plate, which I will hold up, shows 7 this area right here. On the top plate is this side, the 8 bottom plate is the plant side and you can take a look at the 9 colour of the water. And basically it's -- to me it 10 indicates a great deal of residue that's come off the plant 11 and the water quality. 12 And that was subsequently shot after a lane 13 widening, that will be in the early '80s and if you look on 14 the top plate you'll see a upright structure and it -- which 15 is still there and it's an AGT box and there's still, where 16 that yellow sign is on the top plate, there's still, or there 17 was until road construction, there were still those concrete 18 footings. So that's easily identifiable. 19 We take a great deal of pictures and what my 20 other activities are and earlier when we were taking pictures 21 we didn't have the advantage of time/date so we always would 22 take pictures and tie them into a structure and so we could 23 always identify them when we'd go through our photos if I was 24 doing other activities that needed the use of the camera. 25 Now, this next photo shows, which I'll hold

316

1 up, if we go back into Alberta Transportation's road plans; 2 that's the very early '80s, that's the appropriate widening 3 of the highway right down here in front of the plant gates 4 and we can correspond that with an aerial because you'll see 5 the back of this quarter, they took approximately thirty-five 6 thousand (35,000) yards of material. 7 The contractor at the time just took some 8 delivery of 621-B's, motor scrapers, and that corresponds 9 with this. That hole that was filled, they were using a 10 regular undercarriage tractor. They had to engage the 11 services of a D5LGP tractor to push the fill in the hole and 12 if you look at the water on that area, that's right here, 13 what has happened there -- that's before the intercept 14 system, that's artesian water coming up underneath the 15 highway onto the road bed and coming through that culvert. 16 We believe the culvert there is acting as a 17 conduit and that's my read on that situation and if you look 18 at some aerials and close ups and correlate that with the 19 data, that road expansion -- if you see on the top plate, the 20 left here, you see a little white dot on Agrium's map. 21 That's that area that's been reclaimed. You see it's at 22 harvest time, it's dry conditions and yet there's water in 23 the ditch. 24 At various times this was represented to us by 25 various people as a leak in the water line going to Redwater

317

1 of Edmonton city water that there would be a leak in the line 2 and that if you go to the present telephone poles and you can 3 take that pole that's right in that low depressional area and 4 bring it back, you can -- and this area here, it's dark on 5 the photograph, is some of the rocks and various debris that 6 we've picked out of the reclamation over years, just from 7 that reclaimed area. 8 Today's standards, that would not be allowed. 9 If you've ever been on a reclamation of an oil field site, 10 that would never happen today. That happened in the early 11 '80s and if we go into Alberta Transportation's road plans, 12 you can correlate that direct -- to a direct date but that 13 happened in the fall and you can see the fill on the top left 14 of the plate. 15 At that time you can still see a red structure 16 on that farmstead. That's prior to that barn burning which 17 will be a public record in the fire department of Redwater 18 and you can correlate all that to the date. 19 We have the appropriate dates on the back of 20 the photos on the masters in a briefcase in the back; a lot 21 of them are dated at the back or their process date. The 22 process date generally indicates three (3) or four (4) days 23 after they were shot. We normally turn them in and get them 24 processed at an Edmonton processor. 25 The next photo shows a shot from this -- by

318

1 the intersection of 564 and 643 looking to that corner. It'd 2 be like as the -- as the groundwater flow would be and you 3 can see those trees, you can see some trees reduced. My 4 interpretation is it may be a small plume, it may be just 5 problems with the trees when they were planted. 6 Now, I'd like that -- here that gardens to 7 tell me when you normally plant trees in Alberta. Anybody 8 want to comment? Just when do you plant trees in Alberta, 9 through the summer? If you were to transplant and I think if 10 somebody was to look at those species, I believe it's -- is 11 it -- am I correct in saying they're poplar? Black poplar? 12 And if you look there, I have a -- my field 13 notes, I was driving from Redwater and those trees were 14 planted from Dem -- December 26th to January 8th, I believe, 15 I can provide the documentation, and they brought them in 16 with a tree spade. 17 There was such elevated groundwater table 18 around that pond on that area that we traditionally saw 19 artesian action all along this dugout and those trees were 20 planted by taking an appropriate tandem dump truck, bringing 21 in the appropriate fill in that area, dumping it, pushing it 22 out with a small LGP dozer, a D3 or D4 dozer to pat out and 23 then they put the tree spade and transplant the tree December 24 26th or 7th to January 7th or 8th but I can supply the 25 documentation. We -- we found it in our files the other day.

319

1 So the elevated area at the toe of the dyke 2 has been well acknowledged by any of the applicants just from 3 their activities here and as we saw the construction of the 4 Ducks Unlimited pond was done mid-December. 5 That was the only time they could get in that 6 facility and they rented an LGB dozer from an independent 7 rental yard in Edmonton and I remember the comment, I was at 8 the appropriate Christmas party, and the comment from the two 9 people, the renter and the rentee and I commented, I saw that 10 they had a tractor out there and they mentioned that it'd 11 gone to work at that site. 12 And we could go back into those records and 13 provide that documentation if need be. 14 Now, the next picture is immediately north of 15 this area, which is the bisection of these two (2) quarters. 16 It's taken from that dugout right there looking north, and 17 that's after the drainage operation which was engaged in 18 1991. 19 And you can see the appropriate -- they 20 addressed the ditch profile out on the appropriate shoulder 21 of the highway and it relieves some of the surface water from 22 those fields. 23 Now, if you go back in the photographs and you 24 look prior to the construction of the road and any of those 25 activities, that was all farmable land. The next photograph

320

1 which shows the gyp pond on the top left, and I'll hold it 2 up, shows subsequent construction and lane winding 3 operations. 4 You'll see the pick up truck on the top plate 5 was in 1984 pick up truck that I'd purchased for the farm 6 operations and that picture would be taken -- we have, I 7 believe, a date on it, and that's the subsequent first plate 8 at the top and then after it was done. 9 And, it's interesting -- we have other photos 10 that show the power lines on the gyp pond side and over time 11 you can see them leaning in towards the pond whereas on our 12 side the -- the structures are standing straight up. 13 The next plate shows that red barn which I -- 14 pig barn which I said we were -- sometimes used for grain 15 storage. And if you look hard in front of it, there's a 16 tractor, a little red dot. The original photo shows it 17 better. 18 After we kept farming it, we'd continually get 19 stuck with our seeding equipment. We basically used oil 20 field technology and in the oil field you have a tow tractor. 21 Traditionally a D6 is a tow tractor on an oil field site. 22 So we used that tractor which we used to seed 23 that area between the dugout and the highway and pull the 24 twenty-eight (28) feet of drill. It's now basically in semi- 25 retirement. We use it for some forage operations.

321

1 It had the -- on the three (3) point hinch 2 linkage arms, we'd leave the appropriate tow cable. The 3 operator could radio out on the two-way radios. We'd be at 4 other field operations or whoever's travelling with the fuel 5 truck or the pick up. Then we'd just go hop on the tractor, 6 back up to the main unit, tow them out. 7 That's how we were farming that last section 8 that we eventually squared off. 9 If you see that -- that is being relieved, and 10 finally the subsequent year, 1992, we basically had to square 11 off the field. 12 The -- the next two (2) or three (3) plates 13 are -- are -- I'll hold 'em up. They are showing from 564 14 and Victoria Trail (phonetic) looking due west. You can see 15 the appropriate farmstead on your right hand side and you can 16 see the elevation. 17 As you go towards 643 there's a significant 18 change in elevation, which any of the survey work done by the 19 applicant would confirm and it also shows that gyp pond. 20 The next picture shows that same photograph of 21 that intersection and you can take a look at the water 22 quality which is surrounding the facility. There's some 23 residue and I don't care to comment; that's not my expertise. 24 Now the most interesting thing, and I believe 25 in the first evening of cross-examination when I was

322

1 cross-examining the Applicant, that picture that's shown here 2 with the ditch channel is on the northeast of 19 and it's 3 immediately north of that dugout and you can go there today 4 and you can see that channel cut in. 5 And if you look hard at the picture you'll see 6 the silt is flowing to the left. From right to left. It's 7 showing the gradient of the ditch starts here and goes south. 8 The water -- traditional water flow. That's the way 9 traditionally it did. If you look at the Applicant, they're 10 showing that their water from this point on is going to flow 11 all the way north. 12 It's interesting sitting in -- in at my 13 station yesterday, hearing the comments. I started to think 14 if we did not file with our people, with our knowledge, 15 historical and from the engineering, geo-technical and 16 hydrological standpoint, if we were not to file, what 17 observations would have come from this meeting? 18 I -- I think that's a very, very interesting 19 question and that's why you need all participants at these 20 hearings. The importance of what they can bring to the 21 table. 22 Now, the next plate is showing, this area 23 here, I'll hold it up, and that's showing the intersection. 24 The top plate shows 564 and 643. The bottom plate shows it 25 from the other viewpoint. Look at the bottom plate and look

323

1 almost at the end in the tree line and there's that space. 2 To me that would indicate some form of plume, I think it 3 could be verified, over years of some well data and you could 4 -- you would have an indication of concentration levels. 5 So, my comment is, I think when you go from 6 aerial plate photographs, ground photographs, some well data, 7 some water chemistry, you can certainly determine what's 8 going on. 9 Now, we see this subsequent road operation 10 here. And that's looking from this area looking north and 11 that picture is shot approximately there. You can see the 12 top plate and it's shown better when you see the originals 13 which we'll file at the back of the table and the residue on 14 the water. 15 Take a look at the telephone poles on the left 16 side and then on the right side and you can see they're all 17 -- the poles on the right side are all inclined to the right. 18 They're off centre at the top, probably three (3) to four (4) 19 feet. And that was something we visually would see 20 immediately adjacent to the gyp pond for a period of time. 21 The bottom left shows some water quality 22 immediately in the ditch. And you see in the top plate 23 there's an area about halfway up the photograph and that's 24 this area right in here. 25 You can see some dark soil, it's an indication

324

1 of some soil work. That -- that soil profile is totally 2 waterlogged and these pictures are shot prior to the 3 intercept system. 4 Now, this photo shows, again, the water flow 5 north of the north dugout or stock pond. It's flowing from 6 north to south and that ditch, we've never been able to 7 conduct field operations in there since it was ditched. And 8 that little decrease in the field slope is still evident 9 there today. We can go right to it. 10 Now, the next picture shows the fence which is 11 immediately here. It's still there. It's basically 12 corresponds. It's directly across from the -- our quarter 13 section line here. And you'll see that the fence is leaning 14 towards the gyp pond and I first -- when I first filed my 15 statement of concern, I stated that that was an indication of 16 mounding and I have been corrected by Mr. Paul Machibroda and 17 I'd like his comment on that right now. 18 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: I believe that that's 19 due predominantly to frost heaving. 20 MR. KEN SMULSKI: And then we subsequently 21 had a conversation with the increased moisture, the effect of 22 frost heaving has been intensified. Now, the next photo 23 shows some weed growth -- weed growth that's immediately 24 north of this north dugout and then it's shot looking into 25 the dugout, the bottom plate and it's totally waterlogged.

325

1 And I believe we have the corresponding date 2 on the back of the photograph on the original plates which we 3 will provide at the back, but you can see this is prior to 4 the intercept system and we basically squared off that 5 portion of the field right here and that dugout would be 6 right there. 7 Now, these next photos are most interesting 8 because they deal with the intercept system installed in 9 1992. Subsequently, the top plate, which I will hold up 10 here, that system was started and you'll see there's some 11 lane widening activity -- pardon me. That's the lane 12 widening activity and you can see the set back of the highway 13 and the padding out and you can see the groundwater 14 conditions are extremely saturated. 15 The following photo, and I stand to be 16 corrected, is the installation of the intercept system which 17 we've referred to several times adjacent to 643. Now, that's 18 this -- this photograph right here. 19 At this time, at the intercept system, if you 20 go to the data provided by the applicant and we were to 21 correspond with the tubs and now we've got the appropriate 22 intercept system going in, we have a very interesting comment 23 from our people that have installed systems before in the 24 composition of the sock, and what was used in 1992 and what 25 currently would be recommended.

326

1 If you look at that picture, you can see and 2 any of these people in that technical area of expertise could 3 comment on that -- composition of that sock material perhaps 4 Paul Machibroda, would like to comment? 5 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: Yes, the sock over 6 weeping tile is -- has been found to blind off after 7 relatively short periods of operation of only a few years. 8 And therefore, the -- the better system now, 9 is to include more courser or granular material around it, so 10 as to have a larger infiltration area, as opposed to the 11 small area that is covered by the sock. 12 MR. KEN SMULSKI: And am I correct, to 13 understand there's a correlation to sock -- the quality of 14 the sock used in 1992, and to today, and that upon 15 deterioration that the sock silt in, is that correct? 16 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: Yes, the socks tend to 17 silt in, after a few years of operation. 18 MR. KEN SMULSKI: And as we've seen on the 19 filing, one (1) of the things that's come forward is that 20 this intercept system, is not working correctly and I think 21 it does corelate to, in some degree, to the sock being used? 22 And these pictures provide what went in the 23 ground, even if it wasn't filed, or what have you. It 24 certainly would provide information as far as what was 25 installed at that time.

327

1 And that intercept system is the most 2 fascinating story of this whole presentation, if I was to 3 divulge how that actually went in. At this time, we're going 4 to continue on with these plate -- plates. 5 The next picture is a little bit hazy. It's 6 the same system being installed. We have the appropriate 7 original plates we will provide at the back and better 8 quality reproductions. 9 As I said, after filing we'll download all 10 these photos on to disks and provide them for all 11 Intervenors. With using Agrium's map, which will now be 12 amended here and will show the appropriate pictures and with 13 arrows and we'll label them appropriately. 14 But, the land marks are all there. If you 15 still go -- if you go to the next picture, you see a small 16 dark grey pick-up truck and some caragana bushes, that's this 17 farmstead here. That was with Wasil Smulski's who planted 18 those caraganas in the -- sometime upon establishing the 19 farmstead. 20 Now, interesting when you go through the 21 prairies there's a farmstead there, there's one (1) there, 22 there's one (1) here. Traditionally, in prairie farm 23 development the farmsteads in its -- and easy to tell the 24 grade elevations, because they didn't have the use of dozers 25 or motor scrapers, they had horses and fresnos in the 20's

328

1 and 30's. 2 So, they always established their farmsteads 3 on the higher elevations. So you've got higher elevation 4 here, you have a higher elevation here. And if you go to the 5 ditch profiles that the Applicants provided or old historical 6 Alberta transportation, this is -- there's a little high spot 7 right in this area. 8 And that ditching operation tried to relieve 9 the high spot, to relieve the gradient, to provide a lower 10 gradient to improve water flow. That was in 1991. And prior 11 to the pond construction that was never needed. 12 Even after dropping the elevation there and 13 relieving some of the surface water, we still had to square 14 off the field and provide a tow tractor in those field 15 operations. 16 Then we're back to the photographs and this -- 17 the second last one (1) is a dozer operator, a cat-skinner, 18 as determined in those days. And there's two (2) young 19 fellows, that's the photographer's sons and just take a look 20 at those hands. That's the hands of a cat-skinner. Just 21 take a good look at those hands and tell me what you think of 22 that cat-skinner. 23 And then I'm -- when we conclude the comments 24 at the subsequent Hearing, I'm going to tell you about that 25 cat-skinner and a little bit about the people we've got to

329

1 work with over the years, as well as that older gentlemen. 2 That older gentlemen is fought twice in World 3 War I. Still is living today on his own in Edmonton. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Smulski, would this be a 8 good time for -- for us all to grab a sandwich? 9 MR. KEN SMULSKI: I think so, and I think what 10 we could do now, since I've covered the intercept system, I 11 think it would be a good time, if a few people want to look 12 now at the model again, and they can see as we've talked in 13 the previous Applicant's submissions and cross-examination, 14 the intercept system is now installed on the field -- on the 15 working model we've provided. It's represented by the hose 16 in the bucket. 17 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And then when we -- we 18 reconvene I'm wondering if we could take down the gypsum 19 stack. I'm having a hard time, I can't see beyond it. 20 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Now you know how the 21 surrounding people feel. And remember there's still one (1) 22 more tier, each tier is twenty-five (25) feet. The present 23 stack height, am I correct in saying it's a hundred (100) 24 feet tall? So you'd have to -- if we put one of the tiers up 25 you can truly see the impact. Thank you all.

330

1 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Smulski we'll come back 2 at quarter past 7. 3 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Thank you. 4 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 5 6 --- Upon recessing at 6:45 p.m. 7 --- Upon resuming at 7:22 p.m. 8 9 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Smulski, ready to go 10 again? Thank you. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to 15 file some -- bring forward some more information. I 16 mentioned in the recent discussion I have a subdivision plan 17 that affects the map on the northeast of 1956-21 and we've 18 got the Provincial Planning Branch here in the schematic and 19 we've got the appropriate copies. I'd like to file that. 20 MR. CHAIRPERSON: So that's the -- 21 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Subdivision plan on that 22 corridor where we see the map indiscrepancy. 23 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- certainly. Can you -- 24 can you -- normally they have a number if we could just 25 identify it by number it would be helpful.

331

1 2 (BRIEF PAUSE) 3 4 MR. KEN SMULSKI: We have the appropriate 5 seven (7) copies or ten (10) copies. We've copied it 6 several times and we've got the appropriate copy of transfer 7 as well. 8 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Now -- now, Mr. Smulski, 9 this -- this was the document with the County? 10 MR. KEN SMULSKI: This is a -- this is the 11 subdivision drawing on that north quarter where I indicated 12 in the most recent disccusion. This map provided by Agrium 13 is not accurately reflecting land ownership. There's a 14 discontinous line there and I also have the appropriate 15 subdivision plan for the adjacent quarter which I'll also 16 file. 17 MR. CHAIRPERSON: So I'll enter this as -- as 18 Smulski 8 and it's subdivision plan for the northwest, 19 sorry -- 20 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Northeast. 21 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- northeast quarter of 22 Section 19-56-21-W4? 23 24 25 --- EXHIBIT NO. SMULSKI-8: Subdivision plan for the

332

1 Northeast quarter of Section 2 19-56-21-W4. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. KEN SMULSKI: 5 MR. KEN SMULSKI: The other plan we have is 6 for the quarter directly north is the appropriate subdivision 7 plan. And we'll file that as the next filing. I just have 8 to find it but it is -- we have the appropriate subdivision 9 plan as subdivided and from those two (2) filings you can 10 determine the approximate ownership of those quarters and 11 where that discontinuous line is. 12 We would also like the Chair to note, we have 13 a letter of engagement that we'd like to file. It's in my 14 records and I would have to file it in the morning. I'd like 15 provision to file this letter of engagement. 16 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Smulski, can you give 17 us more of a description than letter of engagement? 18 MR. KEN SMULSKI: It's -- it -- it dates back 19 to '92 to some engagement between ourselves and the present 20 Applicant. Oh no, pardon me, not the present Applicant, a 21 previous Applicant and their respective engineering firm. 22 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I'm a little puzzled as -- 23 as to what a let -- what a letter of engagement -- 24 MR. KEN SMULSKI: I just -- I would like to 25 just file it for observation and -- and I -- I would like

333

1 that to be accepted. 2 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And -- is it better if we 3 deal with that tomorrow? Or do you want to reserve an 4 exhibit number and -- 5 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Yes, let's reserve an 6 exhibit number. 7 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- and Mr. Smulski the -- 8 one (1) question that I have, can you -- can you give us a 9 greater description of -- of what you want us to take it to 10 be because tonight will be the opportunity for other parties 11 to question on your evidence. 12 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Correct. 13 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And so evidence that comes 14 in later, particularly evidence that we really don't 15 understand, it makes it difficult. 16 MR. KEN SMULSKI: The engagement letter is 17 between ourselves and just during the discussion of the 18 intercept system in 1992 and we provided some comment on 19 their -- on their draft documents and then they provided a 20 letter after and it -- it relects our knowledge of what was 21 going on at that time as far as what was presented to us. 22 It's just a -- it's just a simple one page 23 document, sir. And I think it would just add credibility to 24 my discussions, sir, that will follow subsequent to this 25 evening.

334

1 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I'm curious about the 2 phrase "letter of engagement"; is it an agreement between -- 3 MR. KEN SMULSKI: No. It's not an agreement 4 it's just a -- perhaps an observatory comment letter is what 5 it would be described as. Yeah, engagement letter, would -- 6 I stand to be corrected. Thank you for correcting me. 7 It is not an engagement letter. It's just 8 basically somebody following up after noted lack of due 9 diligence. 10 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And this is a letter that 11 you wrote to the then current operator? 12 MR. KEN SMULSKI: No. It's a letter from the 13 engineering firm, written to us after we've corrected them on 14 some measurements and I would like the Board to see it as 15 well as the other Intervenors. 16 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Well, perhaps what we'll do 17 then, Mr. Smulski, is we will reserve an exhibit number and 18 we'll deal with the document in the morning. 19 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Thank you. 20 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And we'll make that Smulski 21 10. 22 23 --- EXHIBIT NO. SMULSKI-10: Smulski/Engineering letter 24 25

335

1 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Do you have a more -- how 2 should we describe that? Do you remember the name of the 3 engineering company? 4 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Well, I think there's been 5 some name changes so I don't want to defer comment at this 6 time, sir, you know to reflect improper information. 7 I think we just have to put it, maybe 8 Smulski/engineering letter. And I'm to assume that filing 9 number eight (8) is the subdivision plan on the northeast of 10 19-56-21-W4? 11 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And Smulski Number 9 is -- 12 will be the other subdivision plan but I was just wanting to 13 make sure we get a better description of what it is. 14 MR. KEN SMULSKI: I can give you the legal. 15 I'll just pull it up. If anybody can indicate the legal on 16 this quarter right here? It's -- 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 MR. KEN SMULSKI: It would be the southeast 21 of six (6) and if I could cover it, you know, in the aid of 22 time, it's the southeast of 6 right there. 23 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Would the -- southeast of 24 six (6) won't be above the northeast of nineteen (19) though, 25 sir.

336

1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 MR. KEN SMULSKI: On the wrong quadrant. 4 It's the southeast of thirty (30). Thank you, sir. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Smulski, do we have 9 that subdivision plan? 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 MR. KEN SMULSKI: We have the subdivision 14 plan, sir. 15 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. When I asked if 16 you had a copy; can we have a copy please? 17 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Yeah. I'll have to get it 18 copied but we will provide it. Thank you. 19 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Well, then we will reserve 20 Smulski 9 at the moment until we get that document. 21 22 --- EXHIBIT NO. SMULSKI 9: Subdivision Plan for quarter 23 (RESERVED) directly north Section 30-56-21-W4 24 25

337

1 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Now, I'll proceed to go 2 through the balance of the filings starting with the first 3 section after the engineering reports. We have a letter 4 between my father and Esso Chemical and it is to do 5 specifically with the southeast quarter of nineteen (19), 6 which I will point to on the map, and it's to deal with the 7 area that we spoke of that had the culvert and the area of 8 reclamation. 9 You'll note the date on it is filed, February 10 5th of 1980. He describes, you know, each of the gypsum pond 11 and the flooding problems and visually from the road and what 12 happened subsequently when they had a plant expansion and a 13 lane widening, some of the soil that -- from the plant site 14 was then deposited in that lower area, which was impacted 15 because of the change in water course. 16 And so that correspond with those photos and 17 you can see it through the Agrium submission, that area on 18 the southeast of nineteen (19), because it's always a lighter 19 area and even right there you can see it. It's always a 20 lighter area. 21 Our next filing is to do with a telephone 22 complaint that my father filed and some water chemistry work 23 was done on May 1st of 1980. 24 And they describe in the second paragraph the 25 phosphate rock is from Florida and it gives a breakdown and

338

1 the engineer from the water quality control branch, replied 2 to a telephone complaint my father filed in 1980, February 3 13th. Also, there's attachment of some water chemistry -- 4 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Smulski, if -- what I 5 can assure you is that we are familiar with the materials. 6 You don't -- 7 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Okay -- 8 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- I -- 9 MR. KEN SMULSKI: -- I'm with you. 10 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 11 MR. KEN SMULSKI: The next filing is the ditch 12 report, which I referred to in my previous conversation was 13 drawn August '89. And at that time, if you look at the 14 bottom corner, it's Smulski, Pushalik Esso Chemical, there's 15 a spelling on that name, that the Court Reporter required. 16 And it describes the various quarters 17 affected, and it also shows the affected areas and that's as 18 per Alberta Environment, which corresponds with the aerial 19 photographs and our concerns at the time. 20 But, you'll notice on the southeast of twenty- 21 nine (29), the Pushalik farm is severely impacted. And that 22 area, corresponds if you go to the divisional line on twenty- 23 nine (29) between the Kalisvaat operations and the Pushalik 24 operations, those photos of the pick up truck are just off 25 the divisional line, to the west, and that is north of the

339

1 present pond and that again would be township road 564. 2 We'll proceed onto a operating license and 3 upon examination of the operating license, you'll find many 4 requirements provided for that the Applicant at the time, had 5 to maintain. 6 And I believe, if you examine that document, 7 the intercept systems which are on the north of the current 8 pond, are described in that document and I believe in the 9 present Applicant's application they are to be 10 decommissioned. 11 And next we have the -- I hand printed this 12 because the document was destroyed, an application for 13 license, under a section to divert water. And this is the 14 application for the ground water intercept adjacent to 653. 15 So, any of the parameters which that was to be 16 licensed upon are in that document. In my inadvertently 17 handling the document, it wasn't very clear, so at that time, 18 when we reviewed my files, many years ago, I hand printed it 19 out and if you go to the application historically, at Alberta 20 Environment, I'm sure that's verbatim. 21 The next document is a survey of well bore 22 holes and it's corresponds with a transmission date via fax 23 in 1992 from Esso Chemical to ourselves, during that time 24 period of -- prior to the installation of the intercept 25 system, right here -- then the July letter from Esso Chemical

340

1 to install groundwater flow system, the west side of the gyp 2 pond and they describe the activities. 3 The subsequent letter of July 31st, '92 to the 4 ground flow control project and this is a very interesting 5 document because it says: 6 "The engineering report is not in a format 7 that would be readily understandable to 8 anyone without an engineering background. 9 We are prepared to convene a meeting with 10 you and our staff engineers and a 11 representative from our consulting firm, 12 Sentar to discuss in general terms the 13 local behind the design. We are 14 continually requesting harder data and 15 they're -- continually disengaging on us. 16 And that's the -- if you follow the paper 17 as we go through this, this is the theme 18 that has continually existed in this 19 facility much as it has in this 20 Application." 21 The data often presented is very light and 22 they imply certain standards which to a layperson would mean 23 all these things are happening. But when we examine it from 24 the proper perspective, from a professional standpoint 25 whether it be my panel or the -- previous panels, we find

341

1 that there's a lack of proper standards throughout the 2 facility. 3 And when you hear the proper perspective from 4 the professional people and they comment on the activities 5 and operation and maintenance of the facility and design, we 6 find that there's serious discrepancies. 7 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Subsequent filings, 12 September 15, 1992 and here we find the most interesting 13 thing, back in '92 they're proposing a photo -- phosphorous 14 gyp-stack extension hydro geological study and they're going 15 to do it on the south half and portions of northeast of 29, 16 56-21-4 which is where it's currently going to be in a -- in 17 a site detail which they show no road closure. 18 And at that time you'll see the half section 19 on the south of 29 and they -- they bought the other 20 appropriate taking Esso Chemical had acquired that. So this 21 project has been well in domain from 1992. And subsequently 22 when I hear at the pre-hearing that they're -- we're on this 23 hurry up mission by the application, pardon me, Applicant, I 24 don't -- you know it doesn't look very good in my eyes. 25 I think that there's been plenty of work done

342

1 here previously. I think it -- it's been addressed and I 2 think -- I -- I can't put a handle on why we're in 2004 and 3 we're at this Hearing when they've done these studies 4 previously. 5 I have my own read on it from my own 6 activities with previous Applicants -- or previous operators, 7 the facility and ourselves. And here we have a shared 8 application to construct phase 1 gypsum stack extension. The 9 appropriate documentation we filed and if you look at the 10 date, it's March 13, 1996. 11 So when I hear that my comment is -- when I 12 hear the discussion and we see this discrepancy when upon 13 examination or observation by the professional people on 14 borehole logs and siting of boreholes the fact that this 15 project's been in discussion by the various entities since 16 the early 90's and we're in 2004 and they can't supply data. 17 And you have the same engineering firm or a 18 division of the same engineering firm, I think that there's 19 some serious issues here that have -- we still have to 20 address. Here we have a public notice under the Enhancement 21 Act and we have a site location plan and -- and another 22 interesting correlation is we have the same consulting 23 engineer on the gypsum stack with a drawing with a signature. 24 And that is in 1996, I believe, if you look at 25 the bottom corner was the drawing and they show the future

343

1 expansion again without closure of the road. And I believe 2 it is Arteman and Associates who are currently here today. 3 So when they discuss these design plans and 4 whatever, I think it's been within their domain that they've 5 had enough observation to come up with better design plans. 6 So to me, I have a comment and I --I -- before I make that 7 I'd like to refer how we engage professional services or 8 firms that I've dealt with engaged professional services. 9 And I think this is the big part of the 10 problem we're seeing here at this facility and consequently 11 the Board may be able to provide comment at other facilities 12 that apply when they apply for permit. 13 Next, we have an Approval Renewal Application 14 following a May 7, 1996 letter on the shared Application. We 15 filed a statement of concern in '96. I actually filed it, 16 they replied to my father, that's the office address at the 17 time. And following a statement I state, 18 "Our concerns primarily deal with the 19 groundwater problems associated with the 20 gypsum ponds and their operations. We look 21 forward to the opportunity to submit and 22 present our concerns on this Application. 23 Please contact the undersigned at the above 24 noted address. Phone/fax to arrange a 25 meeting."

344

1 We got sent a following letter on June 26th, 2 '96 stating 3 "Further to your submission statement of 4 concern regarding amendment of the 5 operating approval for Veridian which my 6 understanding, at that time, was a spin off 7 from Sherritt and Veridian was since rolled 8 into Agrium." 9 And, you know, I see many correlations here 10 between personnel, engineering firms, management, who were at 11 previous facilities that are currently here today and had the 12 ability to come before the Hearing and indicate that they're 13 still in review and they don't have the appropriate data. 14 Yet they've got the resources within their entities and 15 companies to have all this logged. 16 Here we have my comments on the northern 17 extension of the gypsum storage area and, again, we -- we 18 address here, study the effects on the site specific to our 19 Ag operation. Point B, existing -- 20 "will cover the existing gathering system 21 on the northern parameter of the gypsum 22 pond. The impact of this design on 23 groundwater present and future. In 24 addition, this pond location on site 25 provides for no work space on the pond

345

1 current or future for remedial work if 2 required at a later date. The pond design 3 is continuous therefore providing for no 4 intercept or collection system. We note 5 previously the current gypsum pond had to 6 have an intercept system installed to 7 receive and intercept groundwater flow as 8 well, seepage and contamination from the 9 current pond." 10 Those are my words as a layperson with 11 background such as I have. 12 "We addressed the effects on local and 13 regional industries that may include the 14 following: Ag production and quality, Ag 15 and industrial industries, impact on future 16 development of surrounding land, i.e., 17 heartland industrial area to name just a 18 few, effects on surrounding land and 19 function and purpose will the dispersion of 20 particulate material from the gypsum pond 21 have. Also included in this should be the 22 impact and effects on wind on the 23 dispersion of particulate matter." 24 Which, I think, has been addressed to some 25 extent in this hearing. Here we have a letter filed February

346

1 28 and the appropriate letter from P. Machibroda Engineering. 2 Now, here's an interesting thing, when we file 3 we get a signature from the engineering firm and their firm 4 or when they file a more formal document we have an 5 engineer's stamp. I have seen no signature in this EIA 6 application from Agrium, whether it be from the President or 7 any engineering firm or any stamp. 8 To me, this is not true professionalism. When 9 you engage professionalism you let them do their assessments. 10 They comment. They come back to you. What's happened here, 11 I call this prescribed professionalism and they have a 12 specific mean. 13 If you refer to Dr. Wissa's comments on his 14 remarks when he made his presentation, he emphasized the 15 design was to enhance the storage to provide greater storage. 16 There was -- from his comments there was 17 little concern for intercept, contamination, effective 18 groundwater. It was basically designed to have more storage. 19 He's butting the new pond up to the old pond. My comments, 20 as a lay person being on some pipeline right-of-ways and 21 various facilities is, you need to go in and ultimately do 22 remedial work. 23 This design as presented provides for none of 24 that. Also, this area here on this map which visually we see 25 evidence of seeping. We see this intercept system which had

347

1 to be installed in the early '90s is my understanding if we 2 go into Alberta Environment's correspondence obviously with 3 the operator of the facility at that time. 4 There had to be a problem to install it. The 5 comments from P. Machibroda on the underlying soil strata in 6 that area and the bore hole logs and if we look at cross- 7 examination of the Applicant, I note, sitting in the 8 proceedings, many of the questions were right in this area. 9 And yet we're butting the new pond into the 10 old pond which provides for no new pond integrity. Take 11 everything else off the table, the road closure, whatever, 12 listen to the proceedings. Listen to the comments, look at 13 the bore holes logs and all the increase in calcium sulphide, 14 CASO4, I believe, if I stand to be corrected. 15 It seems to be -- one of the big areas of 16 concern seems to be here. Look where we are in the river and 17 then look at the change in grade elevation and look at the 18 maps of the bore hole logs and the test wells and you'll see 19 it's extremely light here. 20 Then there's a discrepancy in the bore hole 21 logs. They're in a grid pattern on this expansion and they 22 come down to the Township Road and then they're right 23 adjacent to the plant and in between there's no bore hole 24 logs. 25 And this corresponds directly with the reason

348

1 why that intercept system had to be installed because I 2 recall drive -- mobilizing the equipment from here up on 564 3 driving past and seeing some activity from a construction 4 standpoint and that was one of the intercept systems. 5 I do not have that in my field diaries but I 6 believe that could be found through Alberta Environment's 7 correspondence with the Applicant and specific construction 8 approval licenses. 9 So, we have a pond here which the pond design 10 is based on storage requirement, not necessarily addressing 11 the issues of contamination or groundwater flow. 12 We have the appropriate letter signed by the 13 -- by Nick Parchewski PEng. FCSE which is a Fellow of 14 Engineering within that discipline, a member of long standing 15 in the engineering community and he has a signature on it. 16 He also comments on the placement of the 17 glacial till liner should be placed in lifts and compacted as 18 specified by the design engineer. The prepared 600 19 millimetre thick glacial till liner should not be allowed to 20 dry out prior to placing the liner. 21 In my cross-examination of Dr. Wissa, I made 22 reference to that. There is no provision in their plan to 23 have any compacted till under the liner, is my understanding. 24 And the other thing upon engaging the 25 engineering services and other site plans I've been on, you

349

1 need to maintain some form of relative moisture content prior 2 to placing the liner to provide for liner integrity. 3 My comments to Jeff Sansom previous to filing 4 statement of concern are along the lines that when you remove 5 the earth without compaction, you'll get varying densities 6 along the soil profile unless you remove more and place it 7 back in lifts with the appropriate compaction at a certain 8 piezometer level -- density level which is described as -- 9 Mr. Field's can you help me here? The relative density -- 10 the measurement in construction. 11 MR. MICHAEL FIELDS: Usually what you would do 12 is scarify and compact to make sure you've got no layers of 13 silt or common -- 14 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Yeah. 15 MR. MICHAEL FIELDS: -- so it would be 95 16 percent compaction. Scarify and compact before you put a 17 liner down. 18 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Proctor density, is that 19 the correct term? 20 MR. MICHAEL FIELDS: Yes, yeah. 21 MR. KEN SMULSKI: So you provide a site plan 22 with appropriate density which is measured in proctor 23 density. 24 Three, seepage from the containment area 25 should be collected and returned to the holding pond and

350

1 should not be allowed to infiltrate into the soil. 2 The preliminary design does not include an 3 under drain below the liner collection detection system which 4 has been addressed now in the current design. 5 The sub grade soil could become saturated and 6 it could result in lower strengths sub grade soil. Now, my 7 understanding of that comment, and I stand to be corrected, 8 is in the design, as proposed, this area here will have no 9 under drain underneath this pond which we already know 10 there's an intercept system there. We see signs of seepage 11 from aerial and we have now budding up the new pond with the 12 extra pressure and loading factor on that face. 13 If we were to take this working model and put 14 it on that far table and load all those containers with 15 water, we'd see a good example of loading factor. If we take 16 foam mattress, put it down on those tubs, keep loading with 17 water to a stack of four (4) high, which will be a hundred 18 (100) feet, we will see some loading factor. 19 My understanding is the proposal is for a pond 20 of a hundred and fifty (150) feet high. Am I not correct in 21 this, upon review of the document? 22 MR. MICHAEL FIELDS: That's right. 23 MR. KEN SMULSKI: So then add two (2) more 24 lifts, we're going to have six (6) of those tubs to the roof. 25 And yet we're going back here where we have questions of

351

1 underlining soil strata and some -- I believe Mr. Machibroda 2 commented discontinuous soil strata. Mr. Machibroda, can you 3 comment? 4 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: Yes, there's some 5 discontinuity along that section. 6 MR. KEN SMULSKI: And we also have -- at time 7 of application, even though the same engineering firms are 8 engaged between Arteman and Stanley or Stentar or Stantec, 9 whatever name they want to operate under, we seem to have no 10 available data. It's -- it's all a mystery and all of a 11 sudden, Dr. Wissa, upon our turn to present evidence is -- 12 he's not here. 13 You know, what does this indicate to you? I 14 know what it indicates to me, but, he's not here. And then 15 on the pre-hearing when I come to appear before the pre- 16 hearing, they try and imply to the Board that they are under 17 such tight time constraints that if they had to double shift 18 that the operational cost of the dirt operation will go up 60 19 percent. 20 And my comment was, when you look at it from 21 an equipment rental standpoint or equipment utilization, your 22 unit costs per measure of dirt whether it be per yard or per 23 metre stays relatively flat; actually, goes down. Your 24 supervisory costs increase slightly and yet, they present it 25 as a 60 percent increase in cost of the project.

352

1 So, -- and if you were to cross-examine Mr. 2 Fields on that or Mr. Machibroda, I think they could provide 3 the adequate comment. Yet, it's implied to us at the 4 pre-hearing that it's 60 percent increase in cost. So where 5 are we at in this Application. We've got a serious gap in 6 information provided, we've got a serious gap in provision 7 for monitoring a slurry wall. We've got a serious gap in the 8 soil strata and yet you know, every -- these are some of my 9 comments. 10 The preceding is a map I filed upon July 7, 11 2003 on the -- under the Environmental Protection and 12 Enhancement Act. It shows the relationship of the project to 13 some properties through the various entities that we hold. 14 Dr. Ho's presentation we now -- we see a map with A and B and 15 D and E and F and the appropriate legal descriptions and 16 where they are in proximity to the project. Dr. Ho just 17 dealt with the properties on Section 19. 18 We also have property adjacent on Section 30, 19 we also have property in Section 32 immediately north that's 20 all zoned. Section 32 due north of this facility is all in 21 the current zoning as heavy industrial. In the application 22 they state and I will refer to that in a few minutes, that 23 there's no proposed heavy industrial activity in the 24 immediate area. 25 I can provide option agreements on this

353

1 Section from all the participants since 1980 where that 2 Section has been optioned twice in the early 80' and the 3 early 90's. I participated in both negotiations and I signed 4 the document in 1992 and I provided comment and negotiations 5 in the early 80's. We hold that quarter right there. 6 So my other filing will be a new map which we 7 will show the zoning and our operation and affect that and 8 the surrounding lands. And if you take this, this is Highway 9 45, pardon me, Highway 38. It's the highway going to the 10 Vinca Bridge. And this industrial zoning which I provide for 11 in my submission is from this point here, across and down. 12 And this Section 32 has been optioned twice 13 since 1980. One was an ethylene project, the other was the 14 Oslo (phonetic) Heavy Oil Upgrader. And then we come to the 15 comment from Esso how when they state on the proposed project 16 they're going to have a five hundred (500) foot setback on 17 the gyp pond. 18 And their concern was they were one of the 19 operating partners of Oslo and the reason was to provide 20 services and facility into Section 32 because I was the 21 negotiator on behalf of the family at that time. And I can 22 provide that document if you like. But I don't think it's 23 within the realm of this Hearing but I'm providing an 24 observatory comment. 25 Again, on that statement of concern, we file

354

1 under A, 2 "Water, groundwater, surface and quality, 3 air quality, noise, traffic area and 4 regional local traffic use immediate area." 5 We go into some specifics on what we've 6 covered already in my other comment on -- it's all there. 7 Now we talk here on alternate land uses and as 8 you saw from Dr. Ho's presentation the impact is throughout 9 Section, the east half of nineteen (19) and if you were to 10 log -- we hold this quarter undoubtedly if the intercept 11 system is not going to work properly and from all discussions 12 from all hydrologists they commented how slow water moves 13 through the profile. 14 Undoubtedly when we do further research we'll 15 see that the piezometer that we have here from 1992 and a 16 corresponding piezometer which would be installed in this 17 quarter this spring, we can see the relative changes in 18 gradient and if we go down to the same bearing strata. Am I 19 not correct there, Dr. Ho. 20 DR. DAVID HO: I believe that if you install 21 those piezometers it will certainly provide some very 22 revealing data. If we get those data sometime this 23 springtime. 24 MR. KEN SMULSKI: My last comment and 25 statement of concern we've already covered but I would add

355

1 this, it's local traffic use as we said the very narrow 2 shoulders, the most heavily travelled during spring and fall, 3 peak shipments for fertilizer transport by ground. This 4 coincides with the farm community's peak season, spring and 5 fall. 6 The movement of large agriculture equipment 7 that is over dimensional is very dangerous under optimum 8 conditions. Travelling on Highway 643 with large agriculture 9 equipment that is over dimensional during peak seasons is 10 only providing ample opportunities for serious accidents. 11 And I cover that following adjacent farm 12 operations also utilize this road to minimize their exposure 13 to potential hazards and accidents. The following submission 14 is a Sturgeon health document, it's analysis of water, the 15 Dupont water well survey which is interesting. When we look 16 at our level of sulphate, we're at seven hundred and fifty 17 (750) which is above the MAC, maximum acceptable 18 concentration. 19 We're above in fluorides, we're above in -- 20 nitrogen and we see that the acceptable -- the AO, aesthetic 21 objective, on sulphide is less than five hundred (500), we're 22 at seven fifty (750). 23 In manganese which is a parameter, we're 24 significantly higher. Fluoride we're at two point two (2.2). 25 Nitrate, nitrogen we're at eighteen (18) the MAC, maximum

356

1 acceptable concentration is ten (10). 2 You know, I made a mistake here, Mr. Chairman. 3 In my presentation I have a water bucket, five (5) gallons. 4 We have two (2) or three (3) of them in the bunkhouse at the 5 farm and since the late '80s we have instructed all employees 6 not to drink the farm well water. 7 We go to the local garage in Redwater where we 8 deal for automotive parts and truck parts. Everybody knows 9 when our people come we drive to the back door, we -- we fill 10 it with water. We always exchange in two (2) five (5) gallon 11 pails of water. 12 My oversight for not providing, it's in the 13 vehicle -- one of the five (5) gallon containers that we haul 14 water with and we've done that since the late '80s. I was 15 first made aware of this, that somebody I knew was involved 16 in food services, has got the appropriate designation and I 17 kept having problems with my stomach. 18 And a lot of adverse effect and she suggested 19 that, let's change the water. And we got some -- we got some 20 different water and it was soon -- soon relieved. And so 21 that's one (1) of the things that we've seen locally and we'd 22 have to go back to some baseline data in the wells to 23 correlate. 24 Next we have some of Esso Chemical's work in 25 September '91. I'd like some of the other Intervenors that

357

1 have the appropriate expertise to -- I've provided it just as 2 supplemental information in my Submission just so there's 3 some proper baseline data in the application because upon 4 review of the applicant's application, we've found that 5 several parameters were a little lacking, historically. So 6 we put it in our Submission. 7 And if we're truly to move forward, we have to 8 look at all parameters, I believe, and see where we've come 9 from and where we're going. Next we will just go through 10 some public domain articles that appeared in the local 11 papers,. 12 "Resident -- Redwater Resident wants buffer 13 on Esso plant" 14 And he talks about it and so does a 15 Councillor. Something about a development appeal board and 16 this dates back to May 1991. And if we go to the aerial 17 photographs we'll find out that at that time then the pond is 18 fully operational here. 19 We're impacted. This is a year prior to the 20 intercept system being installed and now we see the 21 surrounding farm holders now presenting information to the 22 appropriate press and authorities. 23 Then we have Esso, with the operator at that 24 time with this document, stating that they talk about parts 25 per million of various parameters. They talk that then the

358

1 environmental officer of that Applicant said that, 2 "Nitrates appear naturally in the aquifers 3 and groundwater with possible sources being 4 peat bogs, barnyards ... 5 Whatever, but we have to again, as we saw in 6 discovery with the other Applicants, we have to look at the 7 true parameters. 8 Here's a very interesting thing out of the 9 local paper in July 28th of 1992, a lake that's immediately 10 west of Redwater dried up as did some other farm operations 11 that were -- we farm here. We also had some land 12 approximately from the main operation approximately twelve 13 (12) miles away in the County of Lamont to fifteen (15) miles 14 away. 15 We had no impact over there because -- and we 16 noticed every time we'd come back over here we're seeding 17 later and later. Yet a local area lake that's within -- less 18 than ten (10) miles away which was traditionally a lake is 19 now dry. 20 Then we have the groundwater ongoing concern 21 of the operator at the time, October 13th, 1992. They talk 22 about the installation of this groundwater flow system and 23 the environmental individual from the appropriate operator of 24 the plant says, 25 "To need with groundwater at this current

359

1 stack and -- and the new stack will have to 2 address those concerns in advance." 3 They talk about how it's installed. They 4 talked about the general flow of groundwaters towards the 5 North Saskatchewan river meaning from the northwest and the 6 southeasterly direction. 7 He talks about some soil strata, collected 8 water pump back into the plant. On the bottom right, as 9 copied: 10 "The stack will be set back five hundred 11 (500) feet from the highway to allow a 12 wildlife corridor and a wider buffer zone 13 all the way around the stack to reflect 14 more modern concerns than when the stack 15 was first built in 1969." 16 And that's the previous operator of this 17 facility. If the design doesn't have a built in feature to 18 handle groundwater problems, then in my mind it's not 19 complete. 20 The construction itself assuming environmental 21 approval, won't take place until at least 1998, he added to 22 be available for use in the year 2000. 23 Other questions need answering, such as, 24 whether the new stack should be stand alone or be connected 25 with the current stack, along with that if the road currently

360

1 between the stack and the corridor north of it should be 2 closed, or not. 3 My comment is, you have the same engineering 4 firm designing the pond, Arteman and Associates, you have the 5 same consulting engineer involved in the project, and yet, 6 we're at this point? 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 MR. KEN SMULSKI: A diagram of the pond, as it 11 shows the different ponds and it's provided for us with the 12 intercept system. If we look here at this bucket ahead of 13 me, this would be the gathering system, shown in the three 14 (3) pond system. 15 And we're adjacent to highway 643. Now he's a 16 very interesting comment. If we take that gathering system, 17 with the metering and look at the flow rates and corelate it 18 with Dr. Ho's work and some visual, we can really determine 19 how effective that system is. 20 As we see, upon cross examination of the 21 current Applicant, they've known about this difficulty for a 22 period of years, you know, it dates back to when they did 23 their X-ray and they sent something down, and they can tell 24 from their data. 25 This data is public domain, but, it seems to

361

1 be a little bit difficult, you have to apply -- there's a 2 certain process to get the data. And I stand to be 3 corrected, but, this data I think in this situation, should 4 be readily posted and available, so we can properly conduct 5 our research on this site. 6 Here's a document, Sherritt closes deal on the 7 Esso plant. And it's interesting, Esso took a very large 8 stand publicly, after Exxon Valdez, that they were getting 9 out of the downstream retail fuel distribution system, 10 because of environmental liability, as long as two (2) large 11 chemical plants, one (1) being Redwater and I believe the 12 other one (1) and I stand to be corrected, being somewhere in 13 India. 14 And I have that somewhere in my files, as 15 well, could provide. Here we have "Lakes -- reoccur Veridian 16 vows". And again, they're installing an intercept system to 17 meet a required government order. 18 My comment is, let's do the intercept system, 19 right at the front end of the project rather than having this 20 remedial action, that we seem to always be getting into. 21 And perhaps if we went back to true 22 professional engagement of professionalism, where they're 23 going out to do proper assessment, rather than design around 24 the other parameters, maybe we wouldn't get into this log jam 25 some years down the road.

362

1 I can't provide professional comment, I'm 2 providing observation, but, it seems to me, that we have a 3 definite pattern here. 4 Clay ponds fall out of favour with industry. 5 If you -- my understanding upon the public forums and I stand 6 to be corrected again, the initial design plans were 7 basically clay ponds without liners, brought to the public at 8 some public meetings, in public domains, several years back. 9 I stand to be corrected on this, but, I 10 believe that's the way the project was first brought forward. 11 And today, we see a liner -- now we're addressing the setback 12 off the highway, right away, we're addressing the pond 13 integrity and the proper work space between the old pond and 14 the new pond. 15 And based on visual aerial intercept systems 16 that are installed in this facility, the under lying soil 17 strata, which the available data seems to be somewhat light, 18 at the filing, where it could be properly interpreted and we 19 could move forward this project, whose responsibility is 20 that? 21 Whether they build or not, I'm for economic 22 activity, but, let's provide the proper information so we can 23 go through these hearings, provide the proper comment. 24 If they get backed up on this Hearing, it's 25 not because we've backed them up, if they were to provide the

363

1 proper data upon filing, we could have been through this 2 Hearing and out of here. 3 Us as Intervenors, we come with good 4 professional people with professional observations, that are 5 out of area without conflict, Dr. Ho has been engaged by our 6 firm since 1992 and where are we at? 7 We're on this dance around the groundwater 8 issues. They've long well known, that engineering firm 9 helped design that intercept system. 10 What does this mean to the Panel and the Board 11 and the rest of the room? I've got my interpretation, but, 12 you know, I'd like some input here. 13 Here I just provide -- I had been researching 14 on linings and this is a document I got in the early '90s and 15 requested -- I did a little due diligence myself. This is 16 just one (1) of the manufacturers of liners. They go -- I 17 provided it in the -- my submission because it talks about 18 the various liners and their applications; whether it's slide 19 slope or whatever. It's the Gundle document? 20 And it talks about the different liners and 21 where they're properly applied and you recall in my cross- 22 examination of Dr. Wissa, I said what are we doing in the 23 corners? Because my understanding in lay terms and very 24 limited engineering experience is that the corners of any 25 facility in a pond construction are most -- are more

364

1 paramount than along the wall. 2 Perhaps Mr. Machibroda can comment on that 3 from a design standpoint. 4 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: Well, basically, liners 5 are installed and they're installed in most of the ponds that 6 have corners and I think that one has to pay special 7 attention to ensure that those are installed properly and 8 properly welded. 9 But, certainly, there is a good number of 10 installations that are very functional and correctly 11 installed. So, I think it's all part of the engineering and 12 it's all part of the experience that the contractor must have 13 in order to be able to install it properly. 14 MR. KEN SMULSKI: My comments are, we need a 15 coordinated effort between the Applicant, the engineering 16 firms, the contractor and if you start at the front end and 17 you don't provide for proper engagement of professional 18 services, where does it lead us? 19 It leads us back to 19 -- late 1960s and '70s 20 standards, or '80s standards, which we have all examples all 21 over here. Yet, we're coming in and tying somewhat new 22 technology to old technology but we're going on the north 23 face which, historically, has had severe problems. 24 And then when we look to the west face of the 25 pond, and the impact on hydrology on our operations, there's

365

1 no address -- you'll recall in my cross-examination of Dr. 2 Kupper, I kept asking him, address the groundwater problems, 3 he said, well, there's no seepage, there's no seepage. Look 4 at the minutes. 5 And yet, there's no comment in the report 6 findings of any problems on the west side of the pond of any 7 hydrological problems and yet the same engineering firm was 8 engaged in the design of the intercept system. You know, you 9 know, provide your own observation on that. I know my read 10 on it. 11 I just have some basic historical 12 observations filed. And then we have Land Use Planning in 13 Alberta's Heartland which shows the overall area and I guess 14 we get back into the issues that more effectly -- affect the 15 Strathcona Landowners Association - if I've said that 16 incorrectly I stand to be corrected - and it's part of an 17 overall plan. 18 And I think that it -- my comment is, it takes 19 a somewhat of an understanding between the Alberta 20 government, the municipal government, the representatives of 21 the chemical industry in this Alberta Heartland and I think 22 they need to coordinate their efforts and come up with a 23 solution. 24 As far as funding buy-outs of those area 25 residents, I believe that it's the responsibility of the

366

1 primary factors of production, along with some other people. 2 I think they can all jointly contribute, as well as the 3 municipality. The municipality gets some assessment back but 4 I think it's, ultimately, up to the economic activity driver 5 which are the plants. 6 It's basically an environmental responsibility 7 from the economic driver which is the corporate entities in 8 this case. 9 Here we have a document filed with Sturgeon 10 County on closure of road. I referred to it in my earlier 11 comments describing the model, operating model, and here we 12 have my filing: 13 "Your letter was not received until 2:20 on 14 June 10th. It, therefore, was not brought 15 forward to the County Council public 16 hearing held at 10:00 a.m. 17 Notwithstanding, your letter has been given 18 to each council member for information." 19 And it's -- this letter confirms that prior to 20 the by-laws -- and it states specifically some by-laws being 21 forwarded to Alberta Transportation. 22 "County council will be asked to give 23 administration direction as to when to 24 forward the said by-laws. Thank you for 25 your comments."

367

1 And yet in the -- I believe, although I never 2 attended any of the small public hearings, I believe that 3 that was never ever ever brought up and I stand to be 4 corrected but I believe if you were to take an observatory 5 comment from the people that did attend, I'm sure that was 6 never brought up. 7 Finally, we have Sturgeon County's land use 8 map which shows that industrial area which I described which 9 two (2) facilities were optioned in this area here. It's all 10 zoned heavy industrial. 11 And yet, in the Applicant's submission, no -- 12 no -- no industrial activity is proposed at this time. And 13 yet two (2) plants have been optioned in the last twenty (20) 14 years. We're in Alberta's heartland industrial area and it's 15 just a -- you know, nothing's going to happen here. We're -- 16 we're just in la-la land where nothing's happening. You 17 know. 18 We're got all the infrastructure of the roads. 19 We have the rail line coming in. We have the pipelines in 20 the corresponding area. Industry's clustered and yet there's 21 no comment on it in this application. 22 You look at their own activity. This is most 23 fascinating. Their due diligence on this pipeline 24 installation here where we see already upon examination they 25 have just over a two hundred (200) feet set back from the

368

1 property line to their pond, the Esso comment they wanted to 2 lease five hundred (500) feet. 3 These people go and reroute the pipeline here 4 and yet they own this property here. All they had to do was 5 go underneath the road, tie in this small inch line, run it 6 up here and tie it back in. They could have addressed that 7 problem. 8 But their engineering people in proper due 9 diligence decided, just run it north. So now, if you take a 10 look at the pipeline right-of-way, how much does that take 11 out of the two hundred and eight (208) feet or two hundred 12 and ten (210) foot set back. 13 And yet this is their engineering people. 14 This is -- this is just -- I'm a layperson with some 15 background in site construction and observation. I look at 16 this and I hear how they submit it. I just -- I've been 17 entertained all week. 18 When I -- when I show these comments to some 19 people that if I was to download the minutes to some 20 contractors with the engineering expertise that the applicant 21 has and the resources available; what's missing here? 22 What's missing is they don't have this 23 operating model. Everybody's a specialist in the room. It's 24 like when I cross-examined on noise and I cross-examined the 25 lady that did the noise study she was describing the

369

1 maintenance function of the current pond with the equipment 2 described. 3 It wasn't the site activity that's going to be 4 presented. My comment on noise is, as we went into it last 5 night and the cross examination by Panel Member Leggett was 6 talking about the parameters of the study. 7 So let's look at it from a site standpoint. 8 They obviously have to come with some redesign. If they go 9 take larger scrapers, remove the dirt and do the proper 10 density and the compacted placements and they use larger 11 units which Alberta has, amongst North America, the equipment 12 fleet of Alberta contractors is amongst the best. The 13 Alberta construction standards are extremely high. 14 We have all this economic activity. If you 15 take the Alberta area in North America and you put the 16 equipment fleets of the contractors against any other in any 17 other state or any other Province they are amongst the 18 highest. They are amongst the most current. 19 The engineers employed by this firms. These 20 firms are -- many areas are working projects throughout the 21 province and the west. The talent is here in Alberta between 22 the resources and the capital available of these construction 23 firms and the engineers, so where's the problem. 24 The problem's at the economic driver. It's 25 not the contractor's problem. He'd love to build a better

370

1 project. He's got the people. He's got the resources. He's 2 got some people on site, but yet, we're running a pipeline 3 using up that work space if we have problems with that pond. 4 As Dr. Ho's comments are, they need to have an 5 interceptor. We're going to be flooded. You know, the 6 impact in the groundwater flow is here and yet they're 7 putting the pipeline here and the right-of-way. They have no 8 -- they're going to decommission this intercept system which 9 obviously had to be installed because of a problem. 10 And if my site observations upon walking my 11 tractor to other fields plus the visual don't provide it, I 12 suggest what we need to do is go in and do some bore hole 13 logs here. Examine this area. Examine down here where the 14 gradient flow goes to the river. 15 Do some soil chemistry and then we're going to 16 know what we've got. You look at their bore hole logs here 17 and take a look at a map. It's so light in this area but, 18 again, it's on the downstream side of the water flow. Why is 19 that? 20 Is this true professionalism? Like, in my 21 eyes, as a lay perspective and then I engage services of 22 engineers and I hear their -- their comments when they 23 present their report and the cameras are all off. And now if 24 I want to get a comment from Dr. Wissa he's -- he's a 25 mystery. He's gone. He's gone back to Florida. Trying to

371

1 find data which, undoubtedly, the other consulting engineers 2 got in their files. 3 Why won't the consulting engineer have all 4 those bore hole logs that Wissa would have. They're both 5 working on the project. Either of them could have supplied 6 it; am I not correct? 7 I mean, you've got one -- you've got one 8 consulting engineer studying groundwater off the same bore 9 hole logs. You've got the gyp pond designer with the same 10 bore hole logs. It could have come from either entity. 11 MR. CHAIRPERSON: This is your opportunity to 12 present your evidence. The Panel is not here to answer 13 questions. If you have questions, you can present them to 14 your Panel. We are interested in your evidence and we are 15 interested in understanding your position. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. KEN SMULSKI: 20 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Mr. Machibroda, upon your 21 observation of the bore hole logs and the activities 22 surrounding the current pond and looking at the proposed 23 pond, what would you suggest in bore holes and how to improve 24 proper engineering and observation and data in this regard 25 and matter?

372

1 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: I'm not sure I'm in a 2 position to answer it on such short notice. I think that 3 these type of investigations require input, require studies, 4 require meetings with the engineering groups. 5 And I think that several of the engineers, I'm 6 sure, that are working on that, would need to put their heads 7 together and come up with a plan, that is going to be most 8 economical and will determine what -- will establish what 9 information is required, at that time. 10 MR. KEN SMULSKI: So, as presented in the 11 application, if it was to be approved as presented where are 12 we at with proper design built? We have serious 13 discrepancies from professional observation. 14 We need to go further. I think what's needed 15 here, because of the geo-technical comments, they 16 hydrological comments, the surface water comments, I think 17 within the framework of this Hearing and this Panel; I think 18 we can keep moving forward, but, I think when we go to March, 19 I think we're going to find we need to have some site 20 assessments in early spring on this project. 21 We can provide some data from Dr. Ho's work, 22 we're going to be re-sampling some data, we're going to be 23 re-drilling some holes that have plugged off, into the same 24 soil zone. 25 We're going to be monitoring wells. We're

373

1 going to be installing some new wells. I think we can then 2 get a proper fix on what's going on here. 3 So, my suggestion is, that I think that we 4 have to take what we have, move to March, and then some of 5 these other issues maybe can fall off from the Hearing and 6 the serious -- seriousness of the geo-technical aspects of 7 the project, the surface water aspects and hydrological 8 aspects, perhaps have to be addressed on their own. 9 Then we have the issue of the slurry wall 10 trench and the monitoring and again, if we cross with the 11 Panel here, what are your comments, Mr. Fields? 12 MR. MICHAEL FIELDS: On the slurry wall, any 13 one (1) that I've seen installed needs to have piezometers on 14 either side of it to monitor it. Otherwise you're not going 15 to know if it's functioning properly, or not. 16 Agrium's people said it works. Sure it works, 17 but, in every other installation, I've seen it piezometers on 18 both sides, to make sure it does. And you know, you don't 19 want not to have that ability or not trying to go through a 20 gypsum stack and put it in ten (10) years down the road. 21 There are examples of slurry trenches failing, 22 so it should be monitored. 23 MR. KEN SMULSKI: What would be the 24 appropriate spacing to monitor upon your review of the 25 documentation. Are we every three hundred (300) feet? Every

374

1 four hundred (400) feet? What's an appropriate parameter? 2 MR. MICHAEL FIELDS: I think Dr. Ho or Bill 3 would be better at that, but, I would only think they would 4 need, you know, four (4) sets of piezometers along the north 5 side; that should suffice. 6 MR. KEN SMULSKI: When you indicate four (4) 7 sets, is this in some cluster arrangement or in a grid, or -- 8 MR. MICHAEL FIELDS: No, there would be one 9 (1) on each side of the slurry wall. You know, that means a 10 total of eight (8) -- 11 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Opposite -- 12 MR. MICHAEL FIELDS: -- north side of the -- 13 yes. 14 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Paul Machibroda, would you 15 care to comment? 16 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: Well, I think the 17 installation of the monitor wells has to some degree be 18 dependent on what you actually encounter during the 19 installation of slurry wall itself. 20 And secondly, normally in the slurry wall 21 construction you would have relatively closely spaced series 22 of test holes that would determine just what the profile is 23 along that particular section, so that you didn't run into 24 any significant surprises, such as, going from a slurry wall 25 that's, let's say, six (6) metres deep, to slurry wall that

375

1 needs to be ten (10) or fifteen (15) metres deep. 2 So, I think that -- I think from that point of 3 view, the -- first of all, additional profile determination 4 along the slurry wall would establish the number of monitors 5 that you would require. 6 And probably four (4) monitors per side of the 7 wall might be fine, then again, it may not be. 8 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Basically but at least if we 9 have the monitors -- my understanding, if we have the 10 monitors on each side of the slurry wall, we have some 11 historic baseline data, which in the proposal we don't seem 12 to have enough monitoring so proper baseline data would be 13 lacking. 14 Am I correct in this assumption? 15 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: Well, I think there's 16 probably a lot of data -- certainly a lot of data that I 17 haven't reviewed, you know, in total. So that there could 18 well be this additional data and they -- you know, I say 19 these logs and I just had sort of a few hours to look at them 20 and they're -- they're great but I think that, you know, one 21 has to go in and review that in some detail. 22 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Any comment, Mr. Fields, 23 from your experience in other intercept systems? If we take 24 a look at the new pond proposal and the old pond and what the 25 appropriate right-of-way would be, you know, to mobilize the

376

1 equipment, to allow the contractor if he needs to go in and 2 do remedial measures? 3 What sort of right-of-ways -- like, I've got 4 my own parameters in my mind from some sites I've seen but 5 from your professional experience, what are your comments on 6 that? 7 MR. MICHAEL FIELDS: The way that I've seen 8 the proposal right now, you can't go in between the two (2). 9 It's going to be one big pond and the old is with the new, so 10 interceptor ditch is going to be closed. So it's not a 11 factor. 12 You know, I believe that you -- as a personal 13 opinion, I don't think that there should be two (2) separate 14 ponds, old technology, new technology. You know, right now 15 the new pond, it gets up a hundred feet, it's going to leak 16 back into the old pond, the water's going to go -- you know, 17 it's -- 18 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Hmm hmm. 19 MR. MICHAEL FIELDS: -- it's not properly -- I 20 think at Agrium's side of it, they've tried to put the 21 interceptor ditch in and improve things as they went along. 22 It hasn't been enough to -- to alleviate the problems, 23 whether the pipe wasn't thick enough and collapsed or the 24 sock was wrong. 25 I think they've made an effort as standards

377

1 have changed and whatnot but they seem to be -- need to be 2 doing more and you know, I -- I'm surprised they would be 3 connecting those two (2) ponds because one's got a liner, the 4 other one doesn't. It's going to overflow from top to bottom 5 and then they're still going to have the groundwater problem 6 on the old pond. 7 So that's -- yeah and -- and again, I think as 8 we went through these Hearings, the information that we got 9 from Agrium, they do have more detailed plans that we haven't 10 seen, so maybe they are doing the right thing but it all 11 hasn't been presented so we don't know. 12 So they may have the -- the test hole logs for 13 where the slurry trench is going to go. It makes sense for 14 them to do it because you do more engineering up front, the 15 lower the costs of the slurry trench will be in the end. 16 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Again, my comment is it 17 needs to be properly implemented from the front end, the 18 design build, the parameters, and my understanding is the old 19 pond is at one hundred (100) feet; the new pond can be built 20 to a hundred and fifty (150) feet. 21 But we have this serious problem in this 22 strata -- in this area here and some other spills, so if we 23 were to stack the tubs up, we're going to have four (4) tubs 24 and towards you, Mr. Chairman and panel members, we're going 25 to have six (6) tubs and they're going to be butted right up.

378

1 So what does that present us with long term 2 and so if we have the appropriate set back with the ri -- 3 with the proper work space, if there is a problem in the 4 future, the construction industry can deal with it. If 5 there's a problem underneath that pond as we have now, what 6 do we do? 7 We're going to get one of the oil field 8 drilling companies and sink a hole and install an intercept 9 system? Is that -- you know, I don't know what the 10 remediation procedures are but if we provide for it in the 11 front end, we can do it. 12 Now, here's a very good comment that I have, I 13 didn't put into my historical earlier. If you look at this 14 pond, any of those aerial photos, you see right about here 15 it's up to the road and then it moves back and they keep 16 moving it back as they go up. 17 It's right in this area if you look at any of 18 the aerials that I've provided, it's like all of a sudden the 19 pond is set back from the highway another fifteen (15) or 20 twenty (20) feet and when I built the model, you know, just 21 prior to providing my comment, I had moved one of the tubs 22 back because that's the way it is. 23 And I think as we continually go into proper 24 historical knowledge and proper engineering practices, we 25 find that these ponds need more set backs to allow for some

379

1 maintenance procedures such as intercept systems or -- or 2 slurry wall trenching or tile drainage or what have you, 3 monitoring wells. 4 In this design, this entire intercept system 5 is going to be de -- decommissioned but then when you look 6 back and -- and read the minutes from Dr. Anwar's comments, 7 he basically states it's designed to provide maximum storage 8 that's -- those were his comments. 9 There was nothing in his comments to deal with 10 contamination. There was nothing in his comments to deal 11 with underlying soil strata and previous problems. That's 12 when I reviewed the minutes, that's what I found. 13 Dr. Ho, do you have any comments on this? 14 DR. DAVID HO: Yes. If I were involved in 15 the project, like you say, on the proponent's side, you know 16 like, to me, you know like, it's only rational to take a 17 system approach. And a system approach would both include 18 consideration for the client's requirement which, of course, 19 the primary consideration would be the storage capacity. 20 But, at the same time, you also take into 21 consideration things like the structural integrity to make 22 sure that there is not going to be any foundational failure 23 as well as no, like, long term seepage and impact to the 24 environment. 25 And, of course, from my involvement would be

380

1 the impact to the ground -- natural groundwater flow or the 2 release of any contaminant from the pile. 3 MR. KEN SMULSKI: So my comments at the front 4 end, management design build with the proper environmental 5 responsibility and overall coordination of efforts here, both 6 from the regulatory side, the approvals side, the design 7 side, the hydrology side. We don't have all sides properly 8 engaged here. Things are somewhat out of balance. 9 Now, we're going to address a few other issues 10 here. And I believe if you look at this intercept system 11 which I commented on earlier. In 1992 several times through 12 that spring the operator of the plant engaged -- tried to 13 engage in discussions to try and buy us out which we did not 14 want to do. 15 We never said we offered the land. We did not 16 offer the land. We had to file the appropriate 17 documentation, my father, in April of '92. This submission 18 is filed under a provision of an act. They continued to 19 phone us. My father returned from a hospitalization; was 20 convalescing in his residence. 21 I was between the farm and the office one day 22 and I got a call in the afternoon upon being in my Edmonton 23 office and my mother quite frantic. We'd left the residence 24 to go to the local store to buy some groceries. She called 25 back and she said there was a couple of people with

381

1 briefcases and suits and they were trying to engage my father 2 to sell the property. 3 Even though he's under provision of an act and 4 my mother and myself are trustees. And I'd been signatory 5 over his -- his entities since the early '80s anyways, but 6 they continued to try to engage to buy the property. 7 And we've never offered that property for sale 8 nor is it for sale today. And so, hence, when they couldn't 9 buy us out, then all of a sudden the big design build of an 10 intercept system after all our complaints of all these years. 11 The current Applicant, I mean, I could provide 12 data. They -- I was travelling in the US. I was between the 13 farm and here and I kept getting phone calls. Nobody would 14 identify themselves, but I knew who was coming. 15 It was the present Applicant. So one day in 16 my office, and I can pull the documents. This is a very 17 interesting story because I'm in my office. I have a small 18 modular office. I have a gentleman that provides inventory 19 control and administration accounting right at the corner of 20 the table there. 21 Get these calls and I say, you know, identify 22 yourself. This goes on for a few months. Identify yourself. 23 And nobody would identify themselves and all of a sudden, you 24 know, he says, I'd like to see you. 25 I says, well, I'm leaving to do some machines

382

1 inspection in the US and I won't be back for four (4) or five 2 (5) days. Then I keep getting these calls and finally he 3 barges into the office one day. 4 You know. He doesn't knock. He just opens 5 up. I'm sitting at my desk like I'm facing you, Mr. 6 Chairman, I says, how can I help you? Which is phrase I 7 learned from a principal of a large entity that I'd dealt 8 with. His approach and address when people come through the 9 door is "How can I help you?" 10 And he says, well, I'd like to talk to you 11 about some property and we'd like to engage in -- you know. 12 He provided the proper comment, I'd like to have some land 13 transaction. 14 I said, well, what county is this in. He 15 said, in Sturgeon County. I said, we have no property for 16 sale in Sturgeon County, sir and you know, he kept coming 17 back. 18 He said, well, this is worth a lot of money. 19 This is worth a lot of money. And I said, you know, I told 20 you, sir. I have no property for sale in Sturgeon County. 21 He said, I want you to read this. I says, I have no interest 22 in it and however sent you, please tell them we have no 23 interest in selling the property. 24 He said, no, I have to. You have to open 25 this. You know, this engagement kept going back and forth.

383

1 And I asked him to leave with the documents. I says, tell 2 whoever sent you, regardless of who they are, we have no 3 property for sale in Sturgeon County. 4 And, you know, he had described which -- in 5 the interchange I had asked him, you know, he says, no, this 6 is some property in Sturgeon County and the interchange went 7 back and forth. 8 I says, tell whoever sent you, we have no 9 property for sale. So, the interchange went back and forth. 10 The other member of the office was busy doing accounting 11 administrative. This went back and forth and finally I says, 12 I handed it to him back to him, I says, please leave. Don't 13 bother me. I have no property for sale. 14 He says, I have to leave the document -- I 15 have to leave -- I said, sir, please leave. And I was about 16 to get up and he said, no, I have to give it to you. 17 I took it and threw it off in the corner of 18 the office. It sat there for weeks and I never opened it for 19 a long time. I didn't need to, I knew what was going on. We 20 get this commonly. 21 And I can site examples of Surface Rights 22 Board, situations where even though we're trustee, they 23 continually try to engage my father. 24 During this Hearing we have him in seclusion 25 and we will not, you know, reveal where he's at and because

384

1 we feel a very serious threat from any of these entities when 2 we're engaged in pipeline operations or plant operations, we 3 get this -- this has happened three (3) different times in 4 the last ten (10) years. 5 And so we provide the appropriate security 6 measures for my family, and this is one (1) of our very real 7 concerns. I don't care to comment any further than that, 8 but, that certainly happened on a surface rights easement in 9 2000 or 2001. Same thing happened. 10 And it's a pipeline right-of-way, which is a 11 different situation. Kept engaging. I said, we had no 12 interest, no interest, and yet the same land agency, I signed 13 as signatory on a property -- they had dealt with me, 14 approximately fourteen (14) or sixteen (16) months earlier, 15 they knew I was signatory. 16 I says, we have no interest engaging in 17 conversation. They kept doing this and doing this. Finally, 18 same thing happened again. Contact my father's under this 19 Act, same thing has happened. 20 We had to deal with that on a medical basis, 21 for several months after. In 1992, if I was to show you the 22 hospitalization records, although I do not claim to make this 23 issue here within the Hearing a health issue, but, this is 24 some of the things we've had to deal with. 25 So, historically, we've been there since 1912,

385

1 we've complied with every regulation this Province has to 2 offer, other than a few ticket violations and look at where 3 it puts us. 4 Look at these letters of engagement. We've 5 never gone public in the press. We've never -- we've 6 provided some observatory comment to adjacent landowners, we 7 felt that beside surface water problems, we felt that there 8 was a hydrological problem. 9 And I stand to be corrected. I know I made a 10 disclosure statement earlier in this Hearing that I've never 11 gone in public domain with this, or this report in its 12 entirety until this Hearing. 13 So, there's our position. You know, we're not 14 for sale. We want to see the environmental problems 15 addressed and I don't -- you know, I don't know of many 16 people that would do that, but, that's our position. 17 I conclude my comments. 18 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Smulski. I'm 19 wondering if I could ask you to sit at the table. I suspect 20 there will be some questions for you. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I see Ms. Klimek has left. 25 Is there anybody else from the Northeast Strathcona

386

1 Resident's Group, who -- 2 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Sorry to interrupt, I was 3 entrusted by Ms. Klimek and Mr. Unger, to state on the record 4 that they had no questions for these Intervenors. 5 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr. Boyer, are 6 you -- Mr. Boyer is in an early evening? 7 Mr. Stephaniuk, another early evening. 8 MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: Michelle Williamson, 9 Counsel also for Alberta. I do have a few questions. 10 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Please go ahead. 11 MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: Thank you. 12 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: 14 MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: Dr. Ho, my first 15 question, I would direct to you. Have you collected any 16 chemistry data from any of the monitoring wells on Mr. 17 Smulski's property since you've been engaged by him? 18 DR. HO: No, I have not. 19 MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: And, sir, you 20 mentioned in the report you submitted that water levels in 21 the groundwater motioning wells on Mr. Smulski's property, 22 are three (3) to six (6) metres above static conditions. 23 Do you recall that, or would you need to look 24 at a reference in your report? 25 DR. HO: Yes, I recall, that ma'am.

387

1 MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: Okay. In that 2 statement, could you explain what static conditions you're 3 referring to? 4 DR. HO: Yes, ma'am. Okay it would probably 5 be easier if there was something I can write -- draw it on, 6 you know, I'll try to. I'll try my best to describe it you 7 know like that. 8 Basically, put it this way, imagine that you 9 know, inside this container here, now we all can see where 10 the water level is, okay and now imagine that if I dumped a 11 whole bunch of dirt inside here, okay. 12 And so if you imagine I fill the dirt up above 13 here, maybe about an inch above, okay? So, the -- so if you 14 go an inch below that then all this -- as you go deeper and 15 deeper -- 16 MR. JP MOUSSEAU: Sorry, we just cannot 17 see -- 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 DR. DAVID HO: May I continue, Chairman? 22 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Please. 23 DR. DAVID HO: Sorry about this. Okay, now 24 let's come to this and I'll -- say if I have this container 25 here and fill with water to this level where everybody can

388

1 see. And now imagine that if I go get myself, you know, a 2 bunch of soil and I'm putting into the same container, and 3 imagine that if I filled the soil up to say at this level, 4 where my -- my hand is, okay. 5 So now imagine, you know, like, imagine -- 6 that like now I turn myself into very tiny little midget, and 7 as I dive into the soil, and go deeper into the water, okay, 8 how I would feel, you know, when I just about touching the 9 water. The kind of pressure that I would feel by the water 10 sitting on top of me. 11 Okay? And as you can imagine, as I dive 12 deeper and deeper and deeper, the pressure that I feel of the 13 water sitting on top my head will become high and high and 14 higher. 15 And it's just like as if, you know, if anyone 16 of us go to a swimming pool and dive to the bottom. And as 17 you go deeper and deeper, you will feel that the stress on 18 top of you has become high and higher. 19 And now for a situation like this, it's what 20 we call "static water pressure conditions". That means, the 21 increasing pressure that you feel as you go deeper and 22 deeper, you actually go up linearly. That's called "static 23 groundwater conditions". Okay? 24 So, in my report -- you know, like -- the 25 comment I make about -- you know, like -- within a certain

389

1 water bearing formation, the water pressure is higher than 2 the static level. What I mean is, if you can imagine 3 yourself -- if you dive down to this level, okay, and if you 4 would be able to stick a straw at the same level and come up, 5 stick right, right up. The water level inside here was 6 actually going to be rise up inside a straw a whole lot 7 higher than this level here, and that's what I mean by... 8 And normally, what it means from a technical 9 term is at the particular depth, you have higher than static 10 water pressure. And what it would imply is within the 11 particular water bearing formation, you have what we call 12 "Artesian pressure". That means pressure higher than static 13 level. 14 I don't know what I described it properly or 15 not, but if I have a blackboard, you know, probably would be 16 whole lot easier. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: 19 MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: Okay -- okay, just 20 a minute. Okay, thank you. Mr. Smulski, for you. In your 21 submission there's a -- an analysis of water that Dupont 22 Canada provided to you in June of 1991. 23 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Hmm mmm. 24 MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: Could you 25 describe -- point to the well that that result or that

390

1 analysis -- 2 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Oh, we still have that 3 well. That's one of the reasons why we're hauling water from 4 Redwater in five (5) gallon pails and my apologies to the 5 Intervenors and the people here in the meeting room. 6 We had a five (5) gallon pail which is in the 7 vehicle and that was going to be part of this operating 8 model. 9 MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: Okay. But could 10 you point out on your map or in some of your materials as to 11 which well, in particular, that that sample was -- 12 MR. KEN SMULSKI: On that -- 13 MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: -- taken from? 14 MR. KEN SMULSKI: -- on that map, it'd be 15 Number 14. That farmstead which we maintain the equipment 16 and have storage facilities. That would be on the south-west 17 of 19-56-21-W4. 18 MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: Okay. 19 MR. KEN SMULSKI: And it -- approximately, 20 that farmstead is position number 14 on the Agrium map, which 21 will be amended. 22 MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: Okay. And have you 23 taken any samples recently from that same well? 24 MR. KEN SMULSKI: We'll reviewing all our 25 historic data currently on that well and you must understand

391

1 -- like we have much more data that we did not file and -- 2 and no -- honest submission, it's just filing time and where 3 we were at with our activities other than this hearing and -- 4 so, we have some other data that we could file and provide 5 but there -- it's not within the confines of our submission. 6 MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: So -- and this 7 other data you're referring to relates to some of these 8 wells -- 9 MR. KEN SMULSKI: We have some -- 10 MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: -- and ponds? 11 MR. KEN SMULSKI: We have some water 12 chemistry on various wells on various properties. As I've -- 13 can indicate, when we go to further downstream, we have some 14 holdings that are on some of the maps and there's wells there 15 and some of the other farm operations that we own, we have 16 some well data, and we have not compiled it all and done the 17 proper analysis. 18 MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: That -- that's 19 fine, but I'm mostly interested in the well data from Section 20 19, any of the four (4) quarters. Do you have additional 21 chemistry data relating to wells there? 22 MR. KEN SMULSKI: We are currently going 23 through historic data and we are currently scanning -- we're 24 -- Darcy was here is going to be employed by us for the next 25 month. He's very good at data entry and he's going to scan

392

1 all historic documents. 2 We've installed the appropriate fireproof 3 safes. I'm going to give the appropriate comments on micro- 4 cassette and put in the fireproof safes just as prevention of 5 anything further happening. And that -- there's proper 6 historical data for the province to evaluate these 7 situations. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Darcy, not the other Darcy. 12 Darcy with glasses. 13 MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: And, sir, just one 14 (1) more question, Mr. Smulski, that historical data that you 15 refer to, and excuse me if I'm being a little thick about 16 this but, I assume that includes chemical analysis of water? 17 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Yes, it does. 18 MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: Okay. Does that 19 historical data account for the time period from 1992 to the 20 present? 21 MR. KEN SMULSKI: There will be some 22 historical date for that plus previous and I would indicate 23 to the Chair and the Panel and the -- and the members and the 24 other people here, my father in the early '60s was chairman 25 of the Board of Health in Edmonton and if he was available

393

1 for comment at this hearing, one (1) of the big issues at 2 that time was fluoridation in the water and I think he would 3 have provided a very interesting observation on that. 4 I'm going to provide those reports to him and 5 have him read them because he was well engaged in that. It 6 was all over the press and he's often spoke of that. And so 7 when he would do well data and chemistry my father was 8 extremely thorough and that will all be in historical files. 9 MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: Okay. And just to 10 confirm, it's not data that Alberta Environment would 11 currently have on any of its files? 12 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Well, I can't comment on 13 Alberta Environment. I can comment on what we do. But I 14 would believe that there would be some gaps and that we would 15 have perhaps more data than you would. 16 Some would be done, perhaps at -- at the 17 county level. Some might be forwarded to different agencies 18 for testing. Being a practising physician for forty-eight 19 (48) years, of course he had access to several labs. So 20 we're currently reviewing that. 21 MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: Yeah, I understand. 22 I guess what I'm wondering is, you haven't already provided 23 that data to Alberta Environment for -- 24 MR. KEN SMULSKI: No -- 25 MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: -- for purposes --

394

1 MR. KEN SMULSKI: No. 2 MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: -- of this 3 proceeding? 4 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Miss, I have not. 5 MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: That's all my 6 questions. Thanks. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr Neufeld ...? 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: 15 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Trying to get room 16 here, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm mindful that it's 17 late in the hour and late in the week. I guess it's not over 18 yet. So, Mr. Smulski, I won't be having any questions for 19 you, but I do want to ask some questions of clarification to 20 the other gentlemen. 21 MR. KEN SMULSKI: But I didn't expect any 22 questions from you tonight after what has been said. That's 23 -- I'd like the Panel and the Chair and the Applicant to 24 know, this is one of the reasons why we have not gone public 25 with these documents because of the interpretation and the

395

1 far ranging impact. 2 And I also like to provide the proper 3 disclosure at this time. At no time previously have I 4 engaged in any security trading in the appropriate -- in the 5 Applicant's company nor the engineering firm. Nor would I 6 provide any comment to the security agencies from the 7 information I hold and I possess and the interpretive data. 8 Thank you. 9 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Thank you, Mr. Smulski. 10 Mr. Machibroda, let's start with a few questions of 11 clarification from you. What information have you had a 12 chance to review before tonight in terms of the stack design? 13 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: Actually very little 14 other than, I think we -- we indicate what we have reviewed 15 in our two (2) submissions; that is our written submission 16 number 1 and written submission number 2 which were about -- 17 taken about a year apart. 18 So I think we referenced the information that 19 we had looked at. Now, some of the information that we did 20 not review prior to the written submissions was the locations 21 of the additional test holes and this was information that 22 was just provided for me just earlier. So, I have -- no, 23 just within the last day. 24 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Thank you, sir. Were 25 you -- I'm not sure, in terms of the sequencing of events

396

1 this week, it's a bit of a blur, but were you able to review 2 the testimony of Dr. Wissa? 3 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: Yes, I did. I'm not 4 sure that I got all of it but I did review a substantial 5 amount of it. 6 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: And you have a 7 significant amount of experience in the, I think, in the 8 potash industry and Dr. Wissa, I think, we can agree has a 9 significant amount of experience in the construction and 10 design of phosphogypsum stacks; is that right? 11 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: Yes, I would agree with 12 that. 13 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: And you don't quarrel 14 with his capabilities? 15 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: No. 16 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: And, sir, we heard a 17 fair amount of discussion, I think, from Dr. Wissa as to the 18 quality control that would go into the design and 19 installation of, for example, the slurry walls that we've 20 heard discussed? 21 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: Yes. 22 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: You don't quarrel with 23 the ability to have -- or implement strenuous quality control 24 measures such as the ones that he suggested? 25 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: I do believe that the

397

1 control measures can be implemented, however, my difference 2 of opinion here is the fact that I think that there is still 3 some information from the point of view of continuity of the 4 slurry wall along the installed length to the proposed 5 installed length. 6 I think that the data that's available at this 7 point in time is -- there's too many gaps on the basis of the 8 variation in the soil profile. So, that -- I would feel that 9 the profile should be tied down more closely by additional 10 test holes to effectively minimize the number of surprises so 11 that you can handle the difficult conditions, should you run 12 into them. 13 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: And so, that's 14 something that Dr. Wissa and his firm should take into 15 account when they finalize the design? 16 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: I would suggest that 17 that should be reviewed in quite some detail and any gaps 18 that there are should be further closed by additional 19 investigation. 20 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: All right and that's 21 something that they can, and you would expect them to do, 22 during the finalization of the design? 23 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: I would suggest that. 24 I would suggest that once the paperwork is done and has been 25 reviewed and before it is finalized and marked for

398

1 construction, that this additional information should be 2 provided. 3 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Okay, thank you, sir. 4 You also talked about the need to conduct monitoring, I 5 guess, on the other side of the slurry wall to confirm the -- 6 its integrity I suppose in terms of its ability to prevent 7 any migration of groundwater as -- from the north to the -- 8 or south to the north side of it. 9 You are aware that there are existing 10 groundwater monitoring to the north and west of the proposed 11 wall; is that right? 12 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: Yes, usually if you 13 finish construction of the slurry wall, the probability of 14 retaining any monitors that are close at hand that can be 15 used for monitoring the movement of water across the wall, if 16 there be any, usually will be destroyed. 17 So, therefore, I think this is all part of the 18 installation that the monitor wells, effectively, should be 19 installed at the time of the construction of the wall so that 20 -- and I think these have to be additional ones, in addition 21 to what's already presently there. 22 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Okay. And you are 23 familiar with the current nest of monitoring wells to the 24 north and the west of the L in the slurry wall that will be 25 built?

399

1 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: I may not be completely 2 familiar with it but, essentially, with respect to monitoring 3 the performance of the slurry wall, I would suggest that the 4 monitors should be within about three (3) metres of the 5 outside or inside face of the wall. 6 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Okay. Now, you 7 suggested that that could be done and left in place for a 8 period of time so it wouldn't interfere with the construction 9 of the new pond; is that right? 10 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: I would suggest that 11 the -- these particular monitor wells should be installed at 12 the time that the wall's being installed so that you can get 13 a picture as to how the wall is performing. 14 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Right, and as you 15 envisage it, that could be done without interfering with the 16 construction of the new ponds? 17 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: Well, there could be -- 18 there's a possibility that there could be some interference, 19 however, I'm sure that -- normally as you would have in 20 installation of monitor wells, you would isolate areas that 21 definitely would be designated as location for monitor well 22 installation. 23 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: And so you would suggest 24 that these monitor wells go in, that the pond construction 25 proceed as was described by Dr. Wissa, and then that these

400

1 wells be taken out, after I think you said, a short period of 2 time, couple of years or something? 3 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: I would -- I would 4 suggest that you -- if the well if the monitor well indicates 5 that the slurry wall is performing properly, then you 6 certainly would be in a position to abandon these. 7 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: All right. And just so 8 that I'm clear and I think that we understand what your 9 position is then or what your recommendation is. 10 What you're recommending is, a program then 11 that could be undertaken without interfering with the 12 construction of the new ponds, in the phased manner described 13 by Dr. Wissa? 14 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: I would suggest that 15 that should be practical. 16 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Okay. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Now, I'm trying to find 21 the statement -- 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Okay. Do you have your

401

1 letter of February 12, 2004, in front of you, sir? 2 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: Yes, I do, yes. 3 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: I've just got a couple 4 of questions by way of clarification on this letter, Mr. 5 Machibroda. 6 First of all, excuse me, if you'd go to page 7 2. Okay? Here the statement is made in the top paragraph: 8 "It is reported that the final design 9 height of the gypsum stack will be about 10 [excuse me] will be 48.8 metres above 11 grade, PMEL is in agreement with the 12 environmental impact statement that the 13 stack will consolidate the underlying clay 14 till, reducing the hydraulic conductivity. 15 This could alter the existing flow patterns 16 and elevate (by creating a barrier to flow) 17 the existing groundwater table to the west 18 of the proposed stack." 19 Do you recall where that statement was made in 20 the EIS? 21 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: It did come from the 22 EIS. I don't have the exact reference handy -- 23 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Well, I may -- I'm sorry 24 go ahead. 25 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: -- but, it was -- it did

402

1 originate from the EIS. 2 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Okay. And just so that 3 we're clear. I'll show you this extract, it's page 7.11 of 4 Book 2, Mr. Chairman, I don't think you need to turn it up. 5 I'll read it into the record. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Now, again, Mr. 10 Chairman, just for the purpose of identifying this for the 11 record so we can put this on the record clearly, what I 12 showed the witnesses was page 7.11 at the bottom of the page 13 and page 7.12 of Volume II of the EIA and I'll read it. This 14 is probably the quickest way to go through that. 15 It's discussing the conditions north of the 16 proposed slurry wall: 17 "The presence of the gypsum stack will 18 prevent infiltration of precipitation 19 through the footprint of the stack. This 20 will affect the water table beneath the 21 stack which is expected to become more 22 stable, showing less seasonal variations. 23 Over the long term, water levels beneath 24 the stack would be expected to be lower 25 than historically observed. Consolidation

403

1 of the soil beneath the stack could 2 potentially affect the groundwater levels 3 because of the decrease in hydraulic 4 permeability. Although changes in 5 hydraulic conductivity will occur over 6 time, the effects on the groundwater levels 7 and flow will be negligible. First because 8 the clay till is an over consolidated 9 material the changes to the soil hydraulic 10 conductivity are expected to be small. In 11 fact, smaller than the uncertainty that is 12 generally present in determining the soil 13 hydraulic conductivity values. Second, 14 because the loading of the till will occur 15 over a period of time, twenty-five (25) 16 years, which allow for a continuous re- 17 balancing of groundwater flow and, third, 18 because potential increases in groundwater 19 level would be offset by decreases due to 20 lack of infiltration in the area." 21 And I believe we heard questioning of both Dr. 22 Kupper and Dr. Wissa about that. I simply wanted to confirm 23 with you, Mr. Machibroda, that when you spoke about being in 24 agreement with the EIS that that was the section that you 25 were in agreement with?

404

1 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: Yes. Particularly, 2 what I -- what we were in agreement with in our statement on 3 page 2 is the fact that the tailings pile that will be 4 deposited in this particular area will result in 5 consolidation of the glacial till stratum below. 6 And that's what -- that's what we read into 7 it. So we essentially are agreeing with that. 8 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Right. And Dr. Kupper 9 concluded, given all the factors that he talked about, that 10 he didn't believe that the effects of that would be anything 11 more than negligible on groundwater flow; you don't agree 12 with that? 13 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: Well, my comment on 14 that one would be that when you look at the groundwater flow 15 from the northwest to the southeast, across that particular 16 face, that you now have a denser material in the glacial 17 till. 18 In other words, the glacial till will now 19 become more of a barrier if, in fact, the water had been 20 passing through it initially. So now we have -- we have a 21 barrier because of the denser material -- the consolidated 22 material. 23 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Right. And I'm not 24 sure that Dr. Kupper was necessarily disagreeing with that. 25 What he was saying was that, given those various factors,

405

1 that that impact would be negligible? 2 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: Well -- 3 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: He indicated things 4 such as the fact there would be a lower water table to start 5 with because of the lack of precipitation recharge in that 6 area and that sort of thing? 7 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: Well, the -- that 8 certainly is true in view of the fact that -- that you will 9 have a liner, you're not going to end up with any 10 infiltration, provided that you don't have any leaks in the 11 liner. 12 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Right. Dr. Ho, just a 13 couple of questions for you, sir. Following up on Ms. 14 Williamson. Am I correct that you took some samples of 15 groundwater in 1992 and then again in 1994 and 1996? 16 DR. RICHARD HO: No, sir. When we were 17 involved in 1992, and subsequently 1994 and 1996, our term of 18 reference was just to assess the water level and the flow 19 conditions. 20 As a matter of fact, now way back in 1992, 21 after my -- our investment -- our investigation into the 22 groundwater flow or the change in the groundwater flow on Mr. 23 Smulski's land, one (1) of our recommendation to Mr. Smulski 24 was we should actually sample those wells, and test the 25 groundwater chemistry at that time.

406

1 But, at that time, you know -- like, Mr. 2 Smulski allow me to -- to share this with you was -- 3 MR. KEN SMULSKI: If you want to add your 4 comment to that. 5 DR. RICHARD HO: I get Mr. Smulski's 6 permission to share this with you, Mr. Chairman. At that 7 time, though, like, as an environmental consultant to him and 8 once we'd established that the groundwater pattern, the flow 9 nature has been changed. 10 My -- one (1) of my recommendation to Mr. 11 Smulski was actually we should sample all those wells on his 12 property, test for the chemistry of the groundwater and that 13 way, one can compare to and see whether the water quality has 14 been changed or not. 15 And at that time, Mr. Smulski told me that he 16 just did not have the resource, you know, to -- to engage our 17 service to extend to that regard -- you know and we were told 18 to -- just -- that was good enough, stop, you know. 19 MR. KEN SMULSKI: I'd like to add to that. 20 1992, besides dealing with this intercept system, you know, 21 we filed the Act on my father. I act as Alternate Guardian 22 on the Trustee or Alternate Trustee but basically it -- I -- 23 in many instances, I've had to be both as well as run my farm 24 operations and the family's other entities as well my 25 equipment business.

407

1 So, I have a full, full schedule and often 2 times, other members in the family have to come to me and I 3 have to sort it out. So, basically, it was a situation of we 4 just had too much on the plate. It's just like filing and 5 it's -- in this hearing, you know. 6 We've come in with some Tabs that are a little 7 bit light but -- you know, again, we've been moving the 8 operation in Edmonton. We had a health issue with somebody 9 in December/January, which I had to attend to. 10 The other Guardian could not deal with it. He 11 had his own issues with his family. So, sometimes my plate's 12 just a little bit full and so we have to make priority of 13 some situations and the summer of '92, one (1) of the 14 priorities was my father's health after some of the issues. 15 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: And I wasn't suggesting 16 that he ought to have done groundwater chemistry. I -- I 17 just wanted to get an understanding. Dr. Ho, if you would go 18 to slide Number 13 of your presentation package, if you 19 might. 20 DR. RICHARD HO: Yes, sir. 21 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Now you show, sir, 22 groundwater flow direction within pre-glacial sand going from 23 well Number 3 to well Number 8. Is it usual, sir, to plot 24 direction of groundwater flow based on two (2) wells only? 25 DR. RICHARD HO: Oh, that's a very good

408

1 question, sir. Okay. Of course -- no -- like, if I have 2 a -- a whole lot more budget or if Mr. Smulski would have the 3 money to -- to install a whole lot more well, we would have 4 done like -- you know, a -- a preferable way is called a -- 5 the groundwater table contour. 6 Like your consultant has produced for you. Or 7 take another step, you know. We can establish the so-called, 8 you know, piezometric contour which basically established the 9 flow gradient. 10 But in our case here, you know -- like when we 11 were given this task to do investigate -- to investigate the 12 groundwater flow condition, on Mr. Smulski's land you know -- 13 like, we only installed it at BH-3, or Well BH-3 on my slide 14 13, as well as BH-8, okay? 15 Both of those two (2) wells that we installed 16 were piezometers. What piezometer really is, is a monitoring 17 well where the intake zone was targeted at a specific water 18 bearing formation. 19 And for those -- for both of those two (2) 20 wells, both of them were targeted at the water bearing, what 21 we call, refer to, as the pre-glacial sand which is a layer 22 of sand, look like salt and pepper, of black and white, when 23 we pull out from the ground which exists underneath the clay 24 till but above the bedrock. 25 So, under the situation, now we only have two

409

1 (2) wells, you know, like, we can only make that comparison 2 between those two (2) points, sir. 3 MR. KEN SMULSKI: I'd like to add a comment 4 here. Yeah, representations made to us on some data in 1989 5 and 1990 and Dr. Ho's work confirmed it, that data -- the 6 representations was not basically correct. 7 If you review his 1992 report or '94 report, 8 he makes comment of a report from a Versuran (phonetic) and 9 on some water-bearing strata and basically, if you read the 10 report, my understanding is that it's not consistent with 11 what was presented to ourselves. 12 And so, basically, we had a, you know, this 13 engagement of these services. What we're doing this spring, 14 of course, is more work and we'll continue on. 15 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: So, Dr. Ho, it is 16 unusual to draw such a conclusion based on two (2) wells, 17 but, because of limitations and resources you did that? 18 DR. DAVID HO: Yeah and all, like, you try to 19 make the best use of the situation or the instrumentation 20 which is make available to you and say, -- no, like, -- let 21 it be, like, even if I have, say, -- there's always -- of 22 course, if there's only one (1) well then that's all you can 23 comment on. 24 If you have two (2), then you can compare 25 those two (2). Say if you have three (3), okay, you can

410

1 still attempt to try to draw a contour, okay, but there's 2 still also under -- would be under the same debate or 3 argument as, you know, like, how -- how accurate that deplete 4 the situation. 5 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Thank you, Dr. Ho. Can 6 I then go -- take you to -- you had another slide that dealt 7 with -- 8 MR. KEN SMULSKI: If I can just add to that 9 last comment, one (1) of our concerns, of course, you know, 10 in preliminary in all these observations was field operations 11 to the farm. 12 You know, you're operating these large 13 tractors and equipment; you put all these test wells in, 14 you're continually working around them and, you know, we -- 15 we continually wanted to, you know, made representations to 16 the appropriate bodies, Alberta Environment or the operator 17 of the facility that we felt we were impacted and, you know, 18 basically put in our own monitoring wells and worked around 19 them, as well as the impact as we saw in the various quarter 20 sections. 21 So, I mean, it becomes a -- it becomes an 22 exercise on what you're going to do out there and, you know, 23 you're running this large equipment, you've got field 24 efficiency. So, we tried to pattern the wells so when the 25 operations would, you know, make their appropriate field

411

1 passes, they would have less impact on the field operations 2 as well as conducting some baseline data. 3 And this is all part of the parameters of what 4 we did at that time. You know, you can -- you can have 5 twenty-five (25) wells out there, what are you going to do 6 with your farm operations, thirty (30) wells, you know. 7 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Thank you. Dr. Ho, if 8 you could go to slide number 23 and you went through this 9 during your presentation, the issue of using total sulphate 10 as opposed to signature parameters. And then you referred to 11 Agrium answer to NRCB questions 55 and 56. 12 Did you get a chance, sir, to review the 13 supplemental information response where Agrium discussed the 14 use of isotopes in water monitoring? 15 DR. DAVID HO: I have a green binder provided 16 to me by Mr. Smulski which I don't have a copy here. 17 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Okay. And again, this 18 is just to make the record complete. But at page 26 of that, 19 under item number 7, Agrium stated and, again, I think just 20 to get this on the record, Mr. Chairman, I'll read it and 21 I'll give it to the witness. 22 "As discussed in the response to question 23 number 1, sulphate concentrations in 24 monitoring wells near the toe of the gypsum 25 stack have shown good sensitivity to

412

1 impacts due to seepage from the stack. 2 Sulphate, therefore, is considered an 3 adequate indicator parameter to provide an 4 early detection of impacts due to potential 5 leakage from the gypsum stack extension. 6 Based on the good capability of sulphate to 7 identify impacts from the gypsum stack is 8 not contemplated at this time to include 9 isotopic analysis of sulphur, oxygen or 10 hydrogen in the monitoring program." 11 And this is the part that I'd like to draw to 12 your attention, Dr. Ho, 13 "Agrium will, however, conduct a pilot test 14 to determine the feasibility of using 15 isotopes to distinguish between groundwater 16 affected by the gypsum stack and natural 17 unaffected groundwater. This pilot test 18 will include isotopes of hydrogen and 19 oxygen in water and isotopes of sulphur and 20 oxygen in sulphates." 21 Were you familiar with that? 22 DR. DAVID HO: No. I'm not. 23 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Okay. Almost done, Mr. 24 Chairman. Mr. Machibroda, you spoke about the -- the west 25 interceptor ditch that was constructed and Mr. Smulski had

413

1 shown you a photograph of the construction technique and I 2 think it was the sock that was used? 3 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: Right. 4 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Sir, can you tell us 5 what would be involved or what you would expect Agrium to be 6 undertaking in respect of maintenance and repair of that? 7 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: The sock basically is a 8 -- is another layer on the outside of the pipe and 9 effectively, if you've got particulate moving that is soil 10 particles that are being moved in the process of water 11 entering the pipe, these fine soil particles can, in fact, 12 plug the area up; that is plug the surface of the pipe up so 13 that you minimize infiltration then into the pipe. 14 One of the things that could be done is that 15 you could go into the pipe and you could actually wash it 16 from the inside with a power washer so that you could loosen 17 up the materials on the outside and get them back into the 18 pipe to where you can get rid of them. 19 So I think that's the prime thing you could 20 probably do. 21 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: And, sir, did you get a 22 chance to review the evidence of Mr. Watson as to what Agrium 23 intended to do in terms of repairing and maintaining that 24 pipe? 25 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: No, I didn't.

414

1 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Give me one second, Mr. 2 Chairman. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: Thank you, gentlemen, 7 Mr. Chairman. Those are all my questions. 8 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Neufeld. 9 Mr. Mousseau...? 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: 14 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Dr. Ho, my first question 15 is for you and -- and I'd like to ask you to -- take you to 16 your presentation and I'd ask you to look at the slides on 17 page 17 and the slides on page 19 please? 18 DR. DAVID HO: Yes, sir. 19 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: And I'll start on page 20 17, sir. And I'm looking directly at the part of the map 21 that depicts the Agrium site itself and this is a map in 22 which you depicted groundwater flows, both beside to the west 23 of the Agrium site and flowing from the Agrium site to the 24 west; is that a fair characterization? 25 DR. DAVID HO: Yes, sir.

415

1 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. And at the top of 2 the Agrium site you have an arrow extending from the corner 3 almost directly through the corner and up? 4 DR. DAVID HO: Yes, sir. 5 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. And I'm not 6 certain if you were here the other day or if you've reviewed 7 the testimony but we heard from Agrium earlier that there's a 8 problem with the interceptor system in that area? 9 DR. DAVID HO: Actually, if I'm looking at 10 this water table contours, to start with, sir, I was not 11 here. I only came this morning. I did not have the 12 opportunity to review what was said before. 13 But what I was going to say is, by looking at 14 this water table contour, you know like, when I was doing the 15 analysis, working of, it does, from a technical point of 16 view, you know, to me there's something happening there at 17 the corner, sir. 18 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. And all I want to 19 do is try and confirm with you that -- that the arrow that 20 extends through the right corner and then if we go to page 21 19, you also have an arrow coming from the corner, rather 22 than going up and out, it sort of goes out to the side. 23 DR. DAVID HO: Yes, sir. 24 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: And I take it those would 25 be consistent with the problem that has been described with

416

1 the interceptor system? We've heard that the interceptor 2 system, it simply isn't working in that corner? 3 DR. DAVID HO: No, sir. That's right, what -- 4 what's shown on slide 17 was Agrium's submission based on the 5 May 2002 data, the flow conditions at the site, sir. 6 The one on slide 19, sir, was actually within 7 Agrium's submission, their computer model to predict what 8 would be the flow condition like after they installed the 9 slurry wall along the northern side of the existing stack, 10 sir. 11 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay, sir, and what I'm 12 trying to do is try and understand. If we go to slide 19, do 13 you agree with what they've characterized the groundwater 14 flow in that area? 15 So you have -- from the top corner, you have 16 water coming out where the interceptor system currently has a 17 problem but everywhere else farther down to the south of 18 that, you have water moving from the north to the south from 19 -- from -- from west to east coming to the -- the trench 20 system and then moving downward. 21 Is that -- is that a fair representation of 22 what's going on there, sir? 23 DR. DAVID HO: No, sir. Actually, what I 24 could have done -- what I could have done is actually, you 25 know, like the flow direction, all those blue arrow that I

417

1 draw on the slide 19, the flow directions technically are 2 supposed to be perpendicular to the black lines that -- in 3 the submission, the black lines are the contour lines that 4 represent the driving force, if I may put it into a simpler 5 term, okay? 6 So the flow direction should be always 7 perpendicular to the potential line, is what the tech -- the 8 technical term is. So for the same token, I just did not 9 want you to make that diagram too complicated and too 10 confusing. 11 For the same token, you can draw quite a few 12 flow lines from the east side which is within the existing 13 stack and go towards the west as well along. The only 14 difference is once you leave the existing -- the -- the so 15 called water inter -- interception, the trench, you know, it 16 will be moved south because, like, it's just like if I have 17 an -- if I'm going to use this table to -- to describe this, 18 if this is... 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 DR. DAVID HO: If this is the edge, you know, 23 like of the existing pond and if once the -- the seepage 24 coming out from the stack and once it get out from the 25 outside boundary, because there's a strong drive to the

418

1 south, it will flow along on the south but they are going to 2 -- based on this result that Agrium submit, there's alway -- 3 all along the west side there's flow from the existing stack 4 outside as well, sir. 5 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay and -- and I guess 6 what I'm trying to confirm is -- is -- what I'm trying to 7 understand from you is: Is it your belief or your position 8 that the -- the water from the stack is -- is moving down 9 west along the groundwater and when it hits the -- the 10 interception system it's then moving south? 11 DR. DAVID HO: If my interpretation of this 12 data that -- you know, like, there is seepage coming out from 13 the existing stack, leaving the stack -- 14 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Right. 15 DR. DAVID HO: -- go outside of the confine of 16 the existing pond and then turn south. 17 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: As a result of the 18 interceptor system? 19 DR. DAVID HO: This diagram produced by Agrium 20 has already built in the effect of the intercept -- 21 interception trench system already, sir. 22 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: And sir, all -- all I want 23 to do -- all I want to understand from you is do you feel the 24 interceptor system is being effective in -- in diverting the 25 water south rather than west?

419

1 DR. DAVID HO: I -- I -- I believe the 2 existing interception system, will work to a certain degree 3 but it does not -- it does not -- it does not change two (2) 4 things. Number 1, is seepage is still coming out from the 5 stack and secondly, because of the compression of the ground 6 underneath of the stack, the natural groundwater flow become 7 dammed up right across the boundary and start to direct 8 south. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay and sir, in your 13 estimation, what is the magnitude of the compression in the 14 clay till? 15 DR. DAVID HO: Actually, you know, I would 16 love to see the -- some consolidation test data and I presume 17 that Agrium's consultant probably should have that done, you 18 know, if they have not done it already. 19 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: You -- you haven't 20 examined that issue? 21 DR. DAVID HO: I -- I don't have the data to 22 examine that issue. But conceptually, because of as the 23 weight -- we're talking about thirty (30) metre of tilling 24 sitting on top of less than ten (10) metre of surficial soil, 25 it would be a considerable amount of consolidation, sir.

420

1 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Oh, okay and realizing 2 that you haven't reviewed any data, what would you expect the 3 results and change in hydraulic conductivity to be? 4 Would it be two (2) times, would it be ten 5 (10) times? Can you comment? 6 DR. DAVID HO: Yeah, without looking at the 7 data, I do not want to speculate anything. But the fact is, 8 this is their own computer model results, okay? And they 9 have claimed that they have -- actually, no, they have taken 10 into consideration of their groundwater interception system 11 and it still shows what I have my inter -- what I said before 12 is my interpretation, sir. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. Sir, and just to 17 clarify, are you saying that you're having groundwater flow 18 right across and outside the interceptor system? Is that -- 19 is that what you're suggesting? 20 DR. DAVID HO: You -- you lost me, sir. Will 21 you repeat your question, please? 22 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Are you suggesting that 23 the water flowing from beneath the gyp stack is flowing west 24 and going past through the interceptor system, beyond it? 25 DR. DAVID HO: Based on this computer model

421

1 result that they present, yes, sir. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 6 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Sir, if I take you back 7 to -- to Page 17, and we're looking -- 8 DR. DAVID HO: Yes, sir. 9 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: -- at the tight contour 10 lines that -- that run along the western edge of the Agrium 11 site. 12 DR. DAVID HO: Yes, sir. 13 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: And -- and I'd take it 14 you'd agree with me that the wells run along the outer edge 15 of those contour lines? There's some that are within, 16 there's some on the outside? 17 DR. DAVID HO: Yeah, some it and some are the 18 -- look like on the outside or in close proximity to the 19 outside, sir. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Sir, and you may not be 24 able to comment from -- from this scale of a map, but have 25 you considered that the contours drop to the interceptor line

422

1 and then start to rise after that? 2 Is that a reasonable possibility, or a reading 3 of that? 4 DR. DAVID HO: Just by looking at this 5 diagram, sir, it looks like as if, you know, the contour 6 start off with the high flow potential to the east side and 7 then decrease towards the west side. 8 And the way on this diagram, which is shown, 9 you know, like it goes very much right up against Mr. 10 Smulski's property, sir. 11 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay, and I guess if I 12 was to suggest to you that the contours drop to the 13 interceptor system, and at the interceptor system there 14 they're lowest, and then rise on the other side, would your 15 position with respect to the water passing through be 16 different? 17 DR. DAVID HO: I would -- no, like, I would 18 need to look at, you know, like that data. But this is not 19 what this is depicting, sir. 20 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Sure, okay. Now, sir, 21 with respect to the studies you did on -- on Mr. Smulski's 22 land in 1992 and 1996. 23 Between 1992 and 1996, did you observe a 24 change in the elevation of the water table on those lands? 25 DR. DAVID HO: Yes, sir. In some wells, yes,

423

1 sir. 2 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: And can you characterize 3 what that change was? 4 DR. DAVID HO: In some wells, you know like, 5 it has gone up about -- I'm going by my memory now, sir, you 6 know like, the water level inside those well, you know, some 7 of them they have gone up. 8 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. And would that be 9 in the northwest corner, sir? 10 DR. DAVID HO: I -- I don't have the 11 information in front of me, sir. I -- 12 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Is it in your report? 13 DR. DAVID HO: I believe that it would be in 14 the '94 or '96 report, sir. 15 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Why don't we go to the 16 '94 and '96 reports, sir. Maybe I'll just ask you, would it 17 surprise you to know that in -- in the Wells number 9, in the 18 wells BH-3, BH-9 and BH-4 there were slight increases but for 19 BH-2, BH-10, BH-1, BH-8, BH-6, BH-7 and BH-5 the water table 20 dropped? 21 DR. DAVID HO: Yeah. I -- all of those wells 22 which is shown on slide -- on our slide 15, for example, 23 those wells, each one of them, you know, they all -- some of 24 them are stand pipes some of them are piezometer target a 25 different water bearing formations.

424

1 So if you just generally make a comment about 2 some has gone up, some have gone down, I cannot really 3 comment on that. You very much have to compare the like with 4 the like. Like the apples with the apples and the oranges 5 and oranges, sir. 6 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: And, sir, I guess what 7 I'm asking you is, did your readings show a drop in the water 8 table from 1992 to 1996? I'm not asking you to explain the 9 reasons or the causes for it. Can you simply tell me whether 10 or not a drop was reflected in that four (4) year period? 11 DR. DAVID HO: As I stated before, sir. You 12 know like, some of the wells, the water level has gone up. 13 That's all I could recall, sir. 14 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Would you agree with me 15 that it was the three (3) wells that I put to you, Number 3, 16 Number 4 and Number 9? 17 DR. DAVID HO: I need to review the data. 18 Without looking at the data I cannot answer the question, 19 sir. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Chairman, it's getting 24 awfully late, can we continue this in the morning? I mean, 25 we've been here all day. This is very technical. I

425

1 appreciate Mr. Mousseau's comments but we'd be more than 2 willing to answer all these questions if we've got the 3 appropriate data and this is one of my comments. 4 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Sir, we do have the data. 5 I'll take Dr. Ho to it and I think if he spends two (2) 6 minutes looking at the data we can get a pretty quick and 7 easy answer, sir. 8 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr. Smulski, I 9 think we're getting very near the end in any event. It is 10 beneficial for the Panel if we can, in fact, get it in one 11 session as opposed to breaking and going over. 12 So, I appreciate it has been a long day. If 13 you could bear with us just a little bit longer, it would be 14 greatly appreciated. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: 17 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: I'll take you to your 18 1996 report, sir. 19 DR. DAVID HO: Can I have a copy of my report 20 if anybody has a copy of it, please? 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: It's Table 1, sir, page 1 25 of 2.

426

1 DR. DAVID HO: Hold on for a minute, maybe I 2 have a copy of my own. One minute please. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 DR. DAVID HO: Give me a minute, sir. Okay. 7 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Why don't we take just two 8 (2) minutes. 9 10 --- Upon recessing at 9:35 p.m. 11 --- Upon reconvening at 9:41 p.m. 12 13 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Oh, if you could just tell 14 us when you're ready. 15 DR. DAVID HO: One moment. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 DR. DAVID HO: I'm ready, sir. Yes, sir. 20 MR. CHAIRPERSON: We're underway again. Go 21 ahead, Mr. Mousseau. 22 DR. DAVID HO: Yes, sir. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: 25 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay, Dr. Ho. What --

427

1 what I propose to do is -- is -- we can -- actually, I'll 2 leave it up to you. What I was going to do was to hit the 3 wells at the northern part of the section -- 4 DR. DAVID HO: Yes, sir. 5 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: -- and then move down -- 6 DR. DAVID HO: Yes, sir. 7 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: -- and I was going to 8 start with BH Number 4. 9 DR. DAVID HO: Yes, sir. 10 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. And you'd agree 11 with me then, sir, that from 1992 to 1996 there was an 12 increase of almost a metre, .88? 13 DR. DAVID HO: Yeah, I -- according to your 14 monitoring data at BH-4, between '93 and '94 it has gone up 15 '94 and '96 gone up and it has steadily gone up from '93 all 16 the way to '96, sir. 17 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: And you'd agree with me 18 it's almost a metre, right? 0.88 of a metre? 19 DR. DAVID HO: Yeah, very close to about half 20 of a metre, sir. 21 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: From '92 to '96 -- 22 DR. DAVID HO: Sir, if I may -- when we 23 compare the water elevation, to me, you know, like, if the 24 '92 results they were taken in the fall in September, okay? 25 So, the '93 results, we have the result taken

428

1 in April and in June, which is around the rainfall time. The 2 '94 results are also taken around spring fall time, May. 3 And the '96 results were also taken in the 4 early -- 5 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Sir, if I can just stop 6 you, I'm going to ask you some questions, and if you want to 7 qualify them after, that would be good. 8 DR. DAVID HO: Yeah. 9 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: And you can help us 10 understand it. 11 All I'm trying to establish or assess is, 12 whether or not, in that period for wells BH-4, BH-9 and BH-3, 13 there was an increase in the level of groundwater? 14 DR. DAVID HO: BH-4 and then which one (1) 15 again, sir? 16 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: BH-9. 17 DR. DAVID HO: BH-9. 18 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: And BH-3. 19 DR. DAVID HO: And BH-3. 20 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Yes. 21 DR. DAVID HO: For BH-4 and BH-9, I would 22 agree with you, sir, the one (1) at BH-3 entry, you know, 23 like between '93 and '94 it has gone up. And then from '94 24 to '96, it has gone down, sir. 25 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay, but, you'd agree

429

1 with me, from 1992 when the first measurement was taken, 2 until 1996, when the last measurement was taken, it up by 3 point three (.3)? 4 DR. DAVID HO: Yes, sir. 5 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. Thank you. If 6 you'd like to -- if you want to put some explanation on that 7 -- that's -- 8 DR. DAVID HO: May I supplement the chart, 9 clarify something, sir? 10 MR. CHAIRPERSON: You may clarify your answer, 11 sir. 12 DR. DAVID HO: Okay. Because it's like the 13 point I want to make is, you know, like, when we compare the 14 water level in any particular well, from one (1) year to 15 another, to me, the proper way to compare is to try to 16 compare the measurement taken around the same -- similar time 17 of the year. 18 Say, for example, if you compare measurement 19 in the fall to that of measurement -- making the spring time, 20 obviously, there's difference. Because, you know, in the 21 fall, the groundwater flow is much lower. 22 In the spring time, things bring the thaw and 23 the snow just getting into the ground would be higher, sir. 24 That's what I tried to explain, sir. 25

430

1 CONTINUED BY MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: 2 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. So, let's go to the 3 next one (1) farther south, sir, and this is bore hole number 4 2. 5 DR. DAVID HO: Bore hole number 2, yes, sir. 6 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. And you'd agree, 7 regardless of whether you used the '92 or the '93 numbers, 8 you've got an increase or you've got a drop in the ground 9 level water; is that a fair statement? 10 DR. DAVID HO: I disagree, sir, between '93 11 and '94 it has gone up. Between '94 and '96, it has dropped 12 sir. 13 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay, between '92 and '96, 14 is there a net drop? 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 DR. DAVID HO: Between 1992 and 1996. 19 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Yes. 20 DR. DAVID HO: Yes, sir. 21 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. For bore hole 22 number 10 -- 23 DR. DAVID HO: Yes, sir. 24 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: -- between '92 and '96 is 25 there a net drop?

431

1 DR. DAVID HO: I disagree, sir. Between 1993 2 to 1994, it was just about the same. But between 1994 to 3 1996, actually it has increased, sir. 4 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: From 1992 to 1996, there's 5 a drop? 6 DR. DAVID HO: No, from 1993 to 1994, it's 7 just about the same. But, from 1994 to 1996, it has actually 8 gone up, sir. 9 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay, but, in 1992 it's 10 six hundred and thirty-three point nine three (633.93) 11 metres, correct? 12 DR. DAVID HO: Yes, sir. 13 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: 1996, it's six hundred and 14 thirty-three point six (633.6) metres, is that correct? 15 DR. DAVID HO: Yes, if you want to compare 16 them just numerically, yes, sir. 17 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. 18 MR. KEN SMULSKI: I have a comment. If you 19 want to take in the parameter of stack height now, you know, 20 that's based on data at that stack height and stack height 21 today, is much higher, if we're going to correlate anything 22 here. 23 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Can I take you to bore 24 hole number 1, sir? 25 DR. DAVID HO: Yes, sir.

432

1 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Is there a net drop there? 2 DR. DAVID HO: From 1993 to 1996, it's just 3 about the same -- 4 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay -- 5 DR. DAVID HO: -- for automatical (sic) 6 reasons. 7 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: 1992 to 1996? 8 DR. DAVID HO: Yes, sir, again, you know, if 9 you want to compare them numerically, but, again I -- I -- 10 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Sir -- 11 DR. DAVID HO: -- I go back to my previous 12 statement about, you know, we need to compare around the same 13 time period of the year, sir. 14 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Right. And you would 15 recall that the trench system was put in place in 1992; 16 correct? 17 DR. DAVID HO: Yes, sir. 18 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. So, in 1992 can we 19 -- if we look at bore hole number 1, where it's six thirty 20 four twenty-two (634.22), after that the numbers drop. 21 They're always below that; is that a fair assessment? 22 DR. DAVID HO: This is page 1, you're talking 23 about, sir? 24 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Yes, bore hole number 1. 25 DR. DAVID HO: Yes, sir.

433

1 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. And maybe I can -- 2 I can head this off, sir. Do your results generally suggest 3 that the placement of the water capture system or the trench 4 acted somewhat to lower the water table? 5 DR. DAVID HO: "Acted somewhat to lower the 6 water table", I would agree with that, sir. 7 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. Perhaps I could 8 have gone with that earlier, sir. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: If I take you to slide 19 13 again, and I think I've probably already asked you this, but 14 with respect to the upper arrow coming out, and again we're 15 in the northwest corner. 16 DR. DAVID HO: Yes, sir. 17 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Is it your impression 18 that the replacement of the entrenchment system there will do 19 something to address the water flow coming from that corner? 20 DR. DAVID HO: You're looking at this arrow 21 pointing -- coming out at the top here, sir? Okay. Based on 22 this set of data presented in this diagram here, I will stick 23 with my interpretation that there's still flow coming out 24 here, sir. 25 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. But if they put in

434

1 a new capture system, will that have an impact? 2 DR. DAVID HO: This result that they present 3 has already taken that into consideration. The groundwater 4 interception trench system was built into this model when 5 they ran this, sir. 6 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: And I understand that, 7 but... 8 Mr. Fields, sorry to -- 9 MR. MICHAEL FIELDS: I'm a construction guy. 10 It's time to go to sleep. 11 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: For me as well, sir. I 12 think you stated that you've had experience in the past with 13 -- with slurry walls that have had integrity concerns or 14 problems. 15 Under what conditions has that -- 16 MR. MICHAEL FIELDS: Not under trenches that 17 I did. There was monitoring on them. But there's example -- 18 and I believe it's fairly well known, the Big Horn Dam 19 there's a slurry trench underneath it and there was some 20 leaking problems with it. 21 And they monitor -- the wells are there to 22 monitor it and so far it's safe. 23 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: And do we know what gave 24 rise to the -- to the integrity problems there? 25 MR. MICHAEL FIELDS: Because with a slurry

435

1 trench you're dealing with -- you're digging -- underground 2 you're digging blind. They -- the engineers believe that the 3 slurry washed out with the groundwater as they were pouring 4 the tremmie (phonetic) concrete in. 5 And the groundwater washed the slurry away. 6 They put slurry concrete in to make the wall and they believe 7 it washed out with the groundwater while they were being 8 installed. 9 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: And is there -- is there 10 a way to avoid those problems? 11 MR. MICHAEL FIELDS: Yes, I guess they could 12 have put a double wall in place. You know, put the concrete 13 in and then put another wall in there. They didn't realize 14 it happened until two (2) or three (3) years after it was 15 installed. 16 It was done in a high water table with a -- 17 you know, basically the -- underneath the North Saskatchewan 18 running through the bedrock. So they -- they -- they would 19 have done something if they knew it at the time. They didn't 20 realize it until after. 21 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: And would you anticipate 22 similar conditions here or are we dealing with a different -- 23 MR. MICHAEL FIELDS: I think we're dealing 24 with a different situation here. I don't think we've got 25 running groundwater through there. I do believe it will be

436

1 difficult to get through the sandstone and provide a, you 2 know, but I think it could be addressed at the time. 3 And I'm sure Agrium's engineers have more test 4 holes and you'll know -- you'll try and know what you're 5 getting into before you go. 6 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. And I think their 7 current program, they have a bore hole every four hundred 8 (400) feet or so. 9 What would you suggest the spacing for the 10 bore holes be? 11 MR. MICHAEL FIELDS: Along the slurry trench, 12 I think you'd have -- it would be economical for Agrium to 13 have one every ten (10) metres and so you know how much 14 sandstone you're going through and how much clay you're going 15 through and where the claystone is on the bottom. 16 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. And I think you -- 17 well, you did say that they could encounter some problems 18 getting through the sandstone and my understanding is that in 19 places it could be up to five (5) metres thick. 20 Is that a surmountable problem in your 21 experience? 22 MR. MICHAEL FIELDS: No. 23 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Can you deal with that? 24 MR. MICHAEL FIELDS: No, you can deal with 25 that. That's just -- you'd use a hydraulic hammer or you

437

1 would blast it, in the bottom of the trench. It just would 2 be significantly more dollars for the owner. 3 But you want to make sure you get through the 4 sandstone and key into the claystone. That's -- that's why I 5 would recommend more -- more boreholes along there. 6 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay, that's -- okay. 7 Mr. Machibroda, a few questions for you and this relates to 8 your -- your second letter. The February 12th, 2004 letter. 9 On the second page where we have the -- the 10 comments about the deep seated sheer zone. And -- and I'm 11 just wondering when you made that observation, which cross 12 sections were you looking at? 13 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: Essentially, the cross 14 sections that were -- I think -- I think they were provided 15 in the report and we have those same cross sections on -- oh, 16 the last bit of information here. This would be cross 17 sections E and, I believe D. 18 And, there's about three (3) or four (4) cross 19 sections that were provided. That'll be -- these will be the 20 same cross sections. 21 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Can you tell me the page 22 in Dr. Ho's submission. That might be helpful. 23 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: Page 8 and Page 9 and 24 Page 10. 25

438

1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Let's start with Page 8, 4 sir. And with respect to the -- to the sheer zone, the deep 5 seated sheer zone, where would you place it on the cross 6 section? 7 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: I -- I have to -- I 8 don't think there's any place where I can identify where I 9 would place it on that particular cross section. 10 What I'm getting at is that the information 11 that I had looked at from these additional logs, which we 12 didn't have at the time, and I'm not -- I haven't really 13 checked whether these logs have all been plotted in these 14 particular cross sections. 15 However, within these logs, we have some flags 16 that suggest, for example, bentonite. Bentonite, even in 17 very thin lenses, certainly is a weak zone. The -- the 18 stability analysis that was conducted, and I can refer to the 19 EIA August 2003 supplemental questions, suggest to me that 20 the stability analysis was conducted with the sandstone being 21 the base material. 22 In other words, in terms of depth of analysis, 23 and if you don't have sandstone continuously through, then 24 what does this drawing mean in terms of it being the base for 25 the analysis?

439

1 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay, sir and can -- 2 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: So -- 3 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Can I just stop you there 4 and can we get the reference again to that? 5 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: This is from EIA August 6 2003, supplemental questions and it'll be drawing Number 10 7 and drawing Number 11. 8 There's a table that basically gaves -- gives 9 the parameters for the stability analysis. This says 10 "engineering soil parameters for stability analysis". 11 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Machibroda, is there a 12 page number or a question number associated with that? 13 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: About -- sir, it's 14 under Item D, or Tab D, and it's behind Page 12. 15 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 16 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: So that would be 17 question number 8. Behind question number 8. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 CONTINUED BY MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: 22 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: And just to understand, 23 sir, are you suggest -- you're not suggesting -- you're not 24 making a conclusion that you have a deep seated sheer zone? 25 Is this something that you're suggesting should be further

440

1 investigated, prior to -- to more work being done? 2 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: That is correct. 3 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay, and with respect to 4 the Log, sir, and -- and I appreciate that you've just had 5 the briefest look at it, is there some continuity that you've 6 observed with respect to the bentonite? Is it continuous, it 7 is -- 8 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: No, I haven't -- of the 9 logs that I have looked at, I think there's reference to 10 bentonite in about two (2) or three (3) of the logs. 11 Other than that there are references to blocky 12 structures in the shale, slick and sided structures, and I 13 think that these need to be looked at in a little more 14 detail. 15 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: And again, all you're 16 suggesting is, is more work needs to be done before -- it 17 would be prudent for more work to be done in order to get the 18 best possible results? 19 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: From the engineering 20 point of view, I think that it would be prudent and I think 21 that it should be done, in order to have a good level of 22 comfort that this the way to go. 23 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Mr. Smulski, we've come 24 almost to the end. First of all I want to - I ask Dr. Ho, a 25 question about his confidence the replacement of the trench

441

1 system on the northwest corner. 2 I'm wondering if the replacement of that 3 system is going to give you some comfort, sir? 4 MR. KEN SMULSKI: I think what you have to 5 look at is at Dr. Ho's, over all comments. Even if you 6 replace that system, with the slow movement of groundwater as 7 we've heard from the various hydrologists, it's going to take 8 a long period of time to bring it back to normal situations. 9 I think that everybody here is in a corner on 10 this issue, and so replacing the groundwater intercept is 11 just a stop gap measure. I think that the further 12 consolidation of the stack, as we've heard from this 13 testimony. 14 And I think in relation to your questions on 15 those bore hole logs, in relation to the intercept system, I 16 think you have to look at the baseline elevations of that 17 intercept system in relation to those bore hole logs, to draw 18 some further conclusions on stack height. 19 So, my comment overall, is that more data is 20 needed, more evaluation and build a better project. 21 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. Sir, and that -- 22 that leads into my next question. And I'm not certain, 23 you've made your position and your issues and your views 24 very, very clear to the Board and I don't have a lot of 25 questions.

442

1 But, my big question is, what disposition do 2 you want? At the end of the day, what would you like? What 3 would you like to see in the Board's decision? If you can 4 have all your wishes, what would the Board's decision be? 5 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Perhaps rephrase that for 6 me, Mr. Mousseau. 7 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: If you were writing the 8 decision, what would you write, what would you want the 9 decision to be? 10 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Well I -- here's my comment. 11 I think at this time, what we need to do, we need to go to 12 the March meeting, they need to bring more data, we need to 13 bring these people again, and see where we're going. 14 We need to get to April and do some more 15 testing with Dr. Ho, see some elevations and the piezometers. 16 And I think what we have to do in the March meeting, is take 17 many of these other issues and these other Intervenors off 18 the table and deal with them and get them away. 19 Specifically, this group here and the 20 testimony, we've got hydrology, we got geo-tech and we've got 21 slurry wall expertise. And the way I see it and the way I 22 read it, I think we go to the March meeting, we get more data 23 for these people, do some evaluations, then we -- at the 24 March meeting, we get these other Intervenors and their 25 issues off the table and dealt with.

443

1 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay, sir -- 2 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Basically, and then we deal 3 with this, as we go to spring to provide proper evaluation. 4 I don't think we can condense analysis and observation within 5 these frameworks for the -- for the Chair and the Panel to 6 put that pressure on them, or the government. 7 I think there's too much here at stake. 8 That's my read on it. 9 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay, sir, and this isn't 10 a question, but, it is by way of information, and I guess 11 notice to you that what the Board will be doing in March are 12 two (2) and maybe three (3) things. 13 First, it's going to hear evidence from Dr. 14 Resnicoff. Second, it's going to hear perhaps rebuttal 15 evidence from the Applicant and that will be evidence to 16 respond to what's gone on -- what's been put in front of the 17 Board by the Intervenors. 18 The third thing it's going to hear is 19 argument. That is what's going to happen. I think I'm 20 correctly characterizing the remainder of this proceeding. 21 So, I guess what I heard you say, and you can correct me if 22 I'm wrong, is that you don't feel there's sufficient 23 information for the Board to make a decision at this time, is 24 that correct? 25 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Well, not from what I'm

444

1 hearing from these people, because we need to -- if they're 2 going to give proper testimony or evaluation, as Dr. Ho's 3 indicated, you look at the different -zones, the different 4 water bearing zones. 5 Paul Machibroda has indicated on the borehole 6 logs, to properly give analysis, we go into the March 7 meeting, we get -- you know, we have the benefit of this data 8 now, they can review it further; Dr. Ho and refe -- review 9 his work. 10 In April we're going to do some test holes or 11 early May and that's going to prove up some of the things 12 we're trying to search for now and so looking at it overall, 13 how can we go -- you know, we can have this argument in March 14 but I think we can address some of the issues and then go 15 forward into the spring. 16 In respect to the Applicant and what they need 17 to do in this project. You know, I -- I -- you know, we all 18 need to move forward but to move forward without these 19 parameters being addressed, I think it's a mistake by all 20 parties considering the heritage of the old site, the 21 historical difficulty of marrying the old technology to the 22 new. 23 When you drive from here tonight, are you 24 putting two (2) old bald tires on the front of your steering 25 axle of your vehicle and on the rear you're putting new

445

1 tires? That's basically what's happening here. That's the 2 way I read it. 3 And you know, speaking from, you know, the 4 several hats that I wear, you know, a little bit of a site 5 experience and a little bit of market -- economy, some 6 liability issues for the firm, I think it's in their own best 7 interest to just do these things. 8 I don't think that they can address it any 9 other way and I think that they've seen a lot of this here 10 today and I think if they truly need to look at their own 11 issues internally, I -- I would think that they would 12 probably agree with that position. 13 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay, sir, and I don't 14 mean to belabour this point, but after we meet in March the 15 Board is going to go away and make a decision. It's not 16 going to look at other evidence, the record will be closed. 17 MR. KEN SMULSKI: I don't believe that, sir. 18 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay, sir, and I -- I 19 guess I can leave it at that. 20 MR. KEN SMULSKI: I just think that there's 21 too many geo-technical and hydrological issues that -- that 22 this is ha -- going to have to go into somewhat a little 23 different form here and I don't believe that they can address 24 all that in March with the -- with what we've seen. 25 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Sir, what I think I'm

446

1 trying to tell you is they're going to make a decision on the 2 Application based on the materials they have. They may 3 decide that -- 4 MR. KEN SMULSKI: And what I'm saying, sir, is 5 from what I've seen and heard from all sides, it's beyond the 6 scope of the Board at this time -- 7 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Okay. 8 MR. KEN SMULSKI: -- to make that decision. 9 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: I think I understand your 10 position clearly. Thank you, Mr. Smulski. 11 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Thank you. 12 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: Thank you, panel. 13 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Mousseau. 14 Dr. Powell...? 15 16 QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD: 17 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 18 Mr. Mousseau has been quite thorough, as have some of the 19 others, so I -- I don't have a whole lot left but I do have a 20 question for Mr. Smulski or perhaps a series of questions 21 depending on what the first answer is. 22 Mr. Smulski, you presented us with a couple of 23 exhibits Smulski-3 and Smulski-4 and I don't know if you have 24 -- do you have -- 25 MR. KEN SMULSKI: What --

447

1 DR. ROBERT POWELL: -- the exhibits -- 2 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Describe them -- 3 DR. ROBERT POWELL: -- there? 4 MR. KEN SMULSKI: -- to me please. 5 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Perhaps I can -- 6 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Just one moment. 7 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Perhaps I can provide them 8 to you. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Those were things we 13 requested from Agrium and that they were -- those were our 14 requests in the Hearing, Smulski-4 and Smulski-3. 15 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Okay. 16 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Smulski-3 is the borehole 17 logs and Smulski-4 is the request for some indication of the 18 set back area. 19 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Sorry, just a moment 20 please. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 DR. ROBERT POWELL: The -- you made some 25 remarks about the inadequacy of the -- the distance between

448

1 the road and the perimeter dyke, I think, and so I just 2 wanted to understand, what -- what we're looking at here is 3 this -- is this cross-section on Smulski-4, is this the 4 cross-section that's proposed for the extension or is this 5 the cross-section that exists for -- for the existing -- 6 MR. KEN SMULSKI: This -- this is data that -- 7 DR. ROBERT POWELL: -- area? 8 MR. KEN SMULSKI: -- upon cross-examination I 9 asked and I specifically believe I asked engineer Watson or 10 Darcy Walberg for and this was provided to me by Agrium 11 through this Hearing and so it's labelled Smulski-4. This is 12 their proposed set back on the pond as I understand it. 13 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Okay and if you -- if you 14 look on Smulski-3 which is the borehole logs -- 15 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Hmm hmm. 16 DR. ROBERT POWELL: -- can you see, there's a 17 dotted line that extends north of the existing stack and if 18 you follow it all the way around to -- 19 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Is this on the left 20 parameter, sir? 21 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Yes. 22 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Yes? 23 DR. ROBERT POWELL: And if you -- if you 24 follow it around to the top in the middle, you'll see that 25 it's the proposed centre line of the perimeter dyke and it's

449

1 labelled at the top. 2 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Yes. 3 DR. ROBERT POWELL: And the way I'm looking at 4 this, it seems to be lined up with the -- what probably would 5 be the outside of the existing dyke, if you look at where 6 that -- that line intersects the existing dyke on the left- 7 hand side there? 8 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Existing dyke, where are we 9 here? 10 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Just below the east west 11 road that would disappear under the proposal. 12 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Oh, just roll that back a 13 few sentences, please, if you could. 14 DR. ROBERT POWELL: Okay. If you look at the 15 northwest corner of the existing gypsum stack -- 16 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Yes. 17 DR. ROBERT POWELL: -- and then there's the 18 line that is the proposed centre line of the perimeter 19 dyke -- 20 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Yes. 21 DR. ROBERT POWELL: -- coming straight north 22 out of there. 23 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Right. 24 DR. ROBERT POWELL: It appears to me, that 25 what they're proposing, at least on this diagram, it looks to

450

1 me, is what they're proposing is the same setback as they 2 currently have for the existing -- 3 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Yeah, which if you look, if 4 you took the overview from the aerials, or even if you took 5 that green dot out of that map, that's where it's setback, it 6 moves back another fifteen (15), or eighteen (18) or twenty 7 (20) feet. 8 I -- you know -- you look any of those aerials 9 we presented, there's a setback at that time, which directly 10 corresponds with that farmstead and so we're going into the 11 same situation, as in my comments tonight, Esso themselves 12 the previous operator felt there should have been a six 13 hundred (600) -- a five hundred (500) foot setback. 14 Now, my comment is, they design it like this, 15 if they've got to put in an intercept system, they've already 16 got a pipeline in the work, where's the work space? Like -- 17 DR. ROBERT POWELL: And that's really what I'm 18 interested in. If you look at Smulski-4, there are some -- I 19 guess the distance between the perimeter dyke and the -- I 20 guess it's the centre road line, is divided up into a number 21 of zones. 22 And there's a zone there that's called a 23 buffer zone and another that's called Atco right-of-way and I 24 think that would be Imperial -- no it would be -- 25 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Imperial Oil Limited --

451

1 DR. ROBERT POWELL: -- Imperial Oil -- 2 MR. KEN SMULSKI: -- right-of-way -- 3 DR. ROBERT POWELL: -- and my -- so if this is 4 -- if this is a cross section of the existing -- the existing 5 setback, where on this cross section is the existing 6 intercept system? 7 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Well this is the new pond 8 design. This is not the old pond design. 9 DR. ROBERT POWELL: So, this -- it's the same, 10 according to this other -- according to this other drawing it 11 has the same dimensions, but, they wouldn't necessarily align 12 the utilities in the say way? 13 MR. KEN SMULSKI: No, I think what you're 14 going to here, is if you look the north south access to the 15 north south line on this bore hole log, which is Smulski 3, 16 and you look at this drawing, it's basically the same setback 17 as currently exists on that pond. 18 And look at the way it's drawn in. You're 19 basically running the same setback, rather than having a 20 further setback to provide for an intercept system, or 21 whatever. 22 Then my other comment was, they own the land 23 to the west now, all they had to do was bore underneath the 24 road which it's small high pressure line, I believe, it's 25 butane, and I stand to be corrected.

452

1 That's commonly done in Alberta in pipeline 2 technology. They could have put that there. They did this 3 in the fall and run it up, all the way up, on that other 4 property and then bring it across. 5 If we have the pointer -- if you go above 16, 6 spot 16, and go up to the purple line and then run it across 7 the top an then once you get to the north/south access, above 8 NE-1N, that pipeline runs straight up there on the edge of 9 section 32. 10 And my comment is, when we coordinate the 11 efforts, then section 32, which has already been optioned 12 twice in the last twenty (20) years, and with the heartland 13 industrial area, I mean there's activity there, I can't 14 comment a private conversation, but, the participants in 15 section 32, we all are on the same page, from my 16 understanding. 17 And often times, when there's been other 18 negotiations, I'm the first one (1) called and we see what 19 our parameters are. And when we look at this and we look at 20 the overall impact, I -- I think that we need to address a 21 few things here. 22 And one (1) is that if you're going to have 23 coordinated industrial activity, you need to -- right at the 24 front end have some proper interchange. And it's coming out 25 today and in the preceding couple of days.

453

1 DR. ROBERT POWELL: So, let me just try one 2 (1) other thing then. You're saying that it's possible to 3 relocate some of these utilities to the other side of Highway 4 643. 5 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Yeah, you can go on the west 6 side, because Agrium owns that subdivision, which I believe, 7 was southeast of 6th that we filed. Am I correct, that 8 quarter north? 9 If you look at dot sixteen (16), the quarter 10 south of sixteen (16) -- dot sixteen (16) on that map, and 11 then you look north of sixteen (16), they own that eighty 12 (80) acre parcel. They've acquired it prior to this map 13 being drawn. They've held those properties for, I believe 14 and correct me on this, two (2) to three (3) years. 15 DR. ROBERT POWELL: And if -- if some of those 16 utilities were relocated to the west side of that road, would 17 this set back be adequate in your view or would they still 18 -- should they still be looking at a greater set back in your 19 view? 20 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Well, I think what you can 21 do, you can do that and I mean, to move the -- the perimeter 22 dyke in ten (10) or fifteen (15) or twenty (20) feet, I mean 23 you're doing basically the same engineering, you've got the 24 bore hole logs. It's just a matter of moving it. 25 It doesn't matter to the contractor. Again,

454

1 it's at the front end of the design build is my 2 understanding. You've the borehole logs, it's just like 3 moving a fence line. When we build fence, we never build it 4 to the property line on the ranches or the pastures. 5 If we're along a highway, we set it back two 6 (2) feet and a good example is when 643 was redone, when they 7 come to our fences and they run their grade stakes, all our 8 corner posts and braces are two (2) feet back, that's our 9 standard parameter. Then if they come in and they're 10 surveying or if they operators on the motor scrapers get a 11 little wide, we don't have to go back in and re-fence. This 12 is one of our parameters. 13 We do the design right on the front end and I 14 can take you out there to the ranch at Gibbons to northwest 15 of 32 I can take you to property we've held in county of 16 Lamont. 17 A good example is the head of -- or the senior 18 man from Alberta Agriculture was raised about six (6) or 19 seven (7) miles from our Yaroslav property where we had a 20 large pasture and he was riding his quad and he was a 21 livestock specialist. 22 And one day I talked to him, we were talking 23 and I says, yeah, I have some pasture up there we developed 24 and we did the water pond development and we did the fencing 25 and he says, you know, I was wondering who did that. He

455

1 says, I looked at it and I kept riding around and 2 everything's done proper but you know, we did the proper 3 design build. 4 We often get complimented on that and I look 5 at this and with the resources they have, you -- you know, 6 the -- to me it's -- somebody is not -- there's no overall 7 coordination here of the efforts, in my -- in my view and I 8 think that they just need to address some of these issues. 9 So if you -- you -- you know, you -- right now 10 you can move that wall in a few feet. You know, twenty (20), 11 thirty (30) fifty (50) feet, sixty (60) feet. They've got 12 the borehole logs, it's just telling the contractor, let's 13 set it back, you know, all of the parameters are the same. 14 DR. ROBERT POWELL: All right, thank you very 15 much and I'd like to echo Mr. Mousseau's comments that you 16 have been very thorough and I think we understand your 17 positions and -- and your concerns. 18 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 19 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Leggett...? 20 MS. SHEILA LEGGETT: Mr. Chairman, I have no 21 questions. 22 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Smulski, I have a few 23 questions. I wanted to follow up on your exp -- your -- your 24 final exchange with Mr. Mousseau and I'll do that very 25 briefly because I think it may be helpful for you.

456

1 This Board will proceed as Mr. Mousseau 2 indicated. When we leave here on the 11th or the 12th and I 3 expect it will be ei -- one of those days, we then will look 4 at all of the material we've received and collected through 5 the course of the Hearing. When we get to final argument, 6 people get a chance to put in argument. We're passed the 7 evidence stage. I mean, these days and -- and -- 8 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Hmm hmm. 9 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- have large -- largely 10 been an opportunity to hear from parties and collect 11 evidence. Final argument gives people an opportunity to put 12 together what they want the panel to do in terms of the 13 interpretation of that evidence. 14 And at that point, we will take all of that 15 information, we'll study it carefully and -- and our options 16 are we can issue an approval based on what was requested, we 17 can issue a denial. Between that, there's a range of things 18 that we can do. 19 We can issue an approval with conditions. In 20 some cases if -- if I take your comments, you're suggesting 21 that we may not have enough information at the 11th of March. 22 What I -- what I can tell you is that the obligation is on an 23 Applicant to satisfy the Board that their project is in the 24 public interest. If the Board does not reach that 25 conclusion, they will not be issuing an approval.

457

1 Is that helpful? 2 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Well I have this comment on 3 that. I think that there's going to be extreme political 4 pressure because of jobs and the way they're telling the 5 story in the press. As I've commented to the Board, I have 6 not engaged the press nor do I speak to them. 7 I'm here to present our observations with the 8 evidence of these professionals and I think, as I look back 9 at the intercept system of '92 which I did not comment, 1992 10 after we refused to engage any discussion of sale, then the 11 operator of the facility then got with the intercept system. 12 Just let me finish -- 13 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I -- I was going to 14 suggest, Mr. Smulski that -- I think where you're going, 15 we're not going to change our process -- 16 MR. KEN SMULSKI: No, I'm -- 17 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- what -- 18 MR. KEN SMULSKI: -- not asking you to. 19 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- I'm going to suggest -- 20 MR. KEN SMULSKI: But what I'm -- what I'm -- 21 here's where I'm going, sir. We've got the framework here. 22 Let's work on it. We've got these people already engaged. 23 We've got some information on the table. Let's bring in the 24 rest of the information so these people can properly help 25 with the evaluation, which I think is of benefit to the

458

1 Applicant. 2 We're not saying stop the project, we're 3 saying evaluate it better within the framework which you have 4 to operate, the Chair and the panel. 5 And so my -- my thoughts are these. We go to 6 the March hearing. We have more of this data that these 7 people can evaluate - these borehole logs. They can do more 8 of their work. Dr. Ho can do more work. Paul Machibroda can 9 do more. 10 Obviously, Mr. Fields has had some discussion 11 with the Applicants' representatives. Then we can -- you 12 know, when we have our argument, obviously we can provide 13 better comment. They're going to have a little bit more -- 14 more information and more time to evaluate. 15 And you, as Chair and panel, yes, you have 16 your framework as well. My comment is, we have to somehow 17 mesh better than we are, and my thoughts are these. Yeah, 18 you can't stop the project, you can't start it. But we got 19 to be somewhere in between so the Applicant can make the 20 appropriate measures, so the Chair can make the appropriate 21 measures and so the citizens of Alberta have a -- a better 22 project. Those are my thoughts. 23 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I appreciate your thoughts, 24 Mr. Smulski. I do have some questions of you. Mr. Smulski, 25 and has been said by others, your -- your presentation is --

459

1 has been very clear. 2 The questions that I have really fill in the 3 few blanks that -- that are outstanding for me. Do I -- on 4 your land lying to the west of the current gyp stack, you've 5 indicated along the immediate boundary that you've had some 6 land that at least for some period of time, you could not 7 farm? 8 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Correct. 9 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Were there other farming 10 impacts? Were you delayed in getting in this land on the 11 spring -- in the spring? 12 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Oh yeah. Delayed seeding 13 definitely. We had to change crop production methods. You 14 know, instead of growing wheat on it, we were left with 15 barley/canola rotation. 16 The north quarter -- basically what happened 17 on the southeast of 19, once that -- which has a little 18 higher gradient to start with, or elevation and it -- 19 basically what would happen is once that site was remediated 20 and then once the intercept system came to be, over time -- 21 in farming practices and whatever and the equipment that we 22 use, we had -- you know, we got things to some form of 23 balance on the south quarter. Maybe over time. We were 24 impacted severely, though, as seen in the aerial photos. 25 On the north quarter, we had whole set aside

460

1 acreages. And if you look at the -- the subdivision, and -- 2 and that line on that north quarter. If you take the 3 subdivision boundary, which is four hundred and eight (480) 4 feet and run it on the half-mile, and take out the space of 5 the dug out, you've got twenty-nine (29) acres there. 6 That's directly affected. We had to just set 7 that aside as similar what you would have in an SRB -- 8 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I was clear on that. It 9 was just the simple question of -- of the delay in -- in 10 getting on the land -- 11 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Well basically what would 12 happen is -- let's say, you know -- that's -- that's a 13 cluster of quarters that we farmed. We had another cluster 14 east of the Vinca bridge and the county of Lamont. 15 So we mobilised all this equipment, we get -- 16 you know, we have our field plans with crop rotations and we 17 got to haul everything back in and address this issue. 18 We're still addressing the issue on that 19 quarter, even though there's an intercept system. And when 20 you look historically, we didn't have to do that. 21 So, my thoughts are these. It's going to take 22 some time to get it back to the state that it was. That's 23 from the Ag perspective. If we go into -- let's say it -- 24 some time in the future, we're going to do something 25 different there, our elevated groundwater table would

461

1 probably prevent us on those areas. So, I think it's 2 imperative that this project be designed probably. 3 And on the Ag basis, the delayed seeding, crop 4 rotation, you'd leave this large area, then pack the land 5 with water, you have a weed control problem, you have -- you 6 have all these interactions that happen in agriculture. And 7 we've been dealing with them. 8 Some of these farms, in 1971 at the Vinco 9 Bridge property, we were the reserve championship of 10 pedigreed canola seed in this country and some of those 11 fields in 1976 and 1980, we placed very high in the Calgary 12 seed show and various see shows in the province and across 13 western Canada. We were also an authorized establishment for 14 the Canadian Seed Growers Association. 15 Between the impact of the oil wells on the 16 Vinco Bridge properties as shown on the map, and this, we 17 basically got out of the seed business and reduced that. And 18 when I state "authorized establishment," we had status where 19 we could take pedigree seed at certain levels, foundation 20 levels, buy it from other producers, clean it and then re- 21 market it and that's what we were doing in those days. 22 But the over all impact, we had to change some 23 of our operations. And I'm not stating that the impact of 24 the plant made it but the combination of the oilfield 25 activity, the lack of their maintenance on those leases and

462

1 these water problems, and the weed problems, it just rendered 2 it useless. So, we had to change that. 3 And then when we get to commercial operation, 4 commercial grain and oil seed operations on those quarters, 5 we often would seed everything else and then come back in 6 there and mobilize equipment twenty-five (25) miles, thirty 7 (30) miles because we also farmed through the early '80s we 8 farmed in three (3) counties: Sturgeon, Lamont and Smokey 9 Lake. In the late '80s, Lamont and Sturgeon and that's, you 10 know, that's where that is at. 11 So, when I look at this overall, I see -- also 12 on those maps, I'd like to make this point: On the southwest 13 of 19, on all of the Applicant's representations - and I 14 failed to mention this in the aerials - but they show a large 15 depressional area that has a lake on it; that has since been 16 drained either in 2000 or 2001. I can prove that but it's 17 shown on the maps; that's not evident there. 18 We worked with the county and the other 19 adjacent landowner and the natural water flow was to the 20 creek, the other side. So, all that land is now farmable 21 with the exception now this eastern half and, so, that's 22 where we're at from a production standpoint. 23 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Smulski, I'd just -- 24 please try and focus on the questions that I have. 25 MR. KEN SMULSKI: All right.

463

1 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Smulski, well, first 2 let me confirm this. I understand from a map that I saw in 3 your materials, you're outside of the heavy industrial 4 zoning? 5 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Where? 6 MR. CHAIRPERSON: On your lands that lie to 7 the -- 8 MR. KEN SMULSKI: The west? 9 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- the west. 10 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Yeah, you'd -- if you take 11 a look, if you take IMP-1W and just to the left there, you 12 can see the rail spur going in. I'll show you something, 13 just let me get up here. 14 What you've got here is -- this is the rail 15 spur into Decasa (phonetic), formerly Dupont. This is -- 16 this section here, sir, is probably one of the highest valued 17 sections in the whole province as far as industrial 18 development because you take this line here, going in here, 19 they just run the spur up here and it's serviced. 20 This here is Agrium's quarter which acts as a 21 buffer. We own this quarter, we have our own buffer. This 22 is in separate ownership, so, you've got your half mile 23 buffer automatically. 24 Where else are you going to find that in this 25 province? You've got the access, you've got the power and

464

1 whatever. So in thirty (30) years or whatever, if I want to 2 do something there, I've got the best section and I've got -- 3 I cannot speak to this owner, he's adjacent to us up there 4 but we have worked together before. We have a long standing 5 understanding over three (3) generations. I know of no bad 6 words between the families. 7 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Smulski, I know it's 8 getting late, so -- 9 MR. KEN SMULSKI: So my comment is, the 10 zoning here, if we were to enter into any agreement, the 11 county would fall over themselves to re-zone it because the 12 automatic buffers are here. We own the land here. This is 13 Ag., this is in private lands. There's no residences here 14 and this is all owned by other industrial activities. 15 MR. CHAIRPERSON: But just to confirm, 16 currently it is zoned agriculture? 17 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Yeah, but a phone call, 18 they would change it. 19 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And, Mr. Smulski, with 20 respect to that, and you have obviously been very involved 21 with Strathcona County -- Sturgeon County, I'm sorry, in the 22 past on other issues. 23 Did you make any representations when they 24 were re-doing their zoning in this area? 25 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Well, from that standpoint,

465

1 if you know anything about land development, you would know 2 that that's an automatic; just by looking at it. 3 MR. CHAIRPERSON: That wasn't the nat -- I 4 wasn't going anywhere with that, other than to ask you 5 whether you -- 6 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Well, I've had some contact 7 with the councillors over time and at some of the development 8 maps and whatever they have shown, all that area is as 9 industrial. 10 MR. CHAIRPERSON: No, Mr. Smulski, it's not 11 my question. And you're trying to read into where I'm going 12 with the question. I'm not going anywhere other than to get 13 a simple answer to the question. 14 Did you engage the municipality or engage in 15 the process when Sturgeon County was considering the land use 16 bylaw that resulted in the industrial Heartland zoning? 17 MR. KEN SMULSKI: I had provided some comment 18 to the local councillor who was in attendance at some of the 19 meetings, was observing some of these meetings. I talked 20 with him. 21 At various times they have sent us letters, 22 which I have in my historical documents, where they had the 23 zoning on Section 19 as all heavy industrial. It is 24 currently zoned agriculture, but, it has previously been 25 represented as heavy industrial.

466

1 And if you look at the overall plan, it's a 2 fit, because of the buffers, the automatic buffers, with 3 ownership. 4 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And, Mr. Smulski, I take 5 it, from your comments, that unlike some of the other 6 Intervenors in this review, you don't take exception to the 7 fact that these lands that you own are in an agricultural 8 zoned area immediately adjacent or abutting to a heavy 9 industrial area? 10 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Explain that to me, sir? 11 MR. CHAIRPERSON: You don't object to 12 bordering on a heavy industrial zone -- 13 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Well, I guess I didn't 14 state it but, you know, we're not activists, we're people 15 here in Alberta that settled there in 1912. We've tried to 16 do everything we can to properly represent our opinion and 17 the opinions of these professionals in what we think would be 18 proper industrial development. 19 In my opinion, I think after we finish this 20 meeting we're going to have a new term or we're going to have 21 what I would deem real economic activity which is defined as 22 economic activity with minimal impact or minimized impact 23 with proper planning and I think that's where we can go here; 24 that's my thoughts. 25 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And I have one (1) final

467

1 question, Mr. Smulski, and it relates to the discussion of 2 the intercept system and you had the discussion on the 3 setback. 4 And when Dr. Kupper was here with Agrium's 5 panel, I asked the question as to whether they would be able 6 to interpret and identify mounding of groundwater to the west 7 and to the north of the proposed gyp stack. 8 And at that point react by putting in an 9 intercept system and you said, clearly, you could identify 10 mounding of groundwater through the modelling or monitoring 11 wells. 12 And I take it from your submission you want to 13 at least preserve the opportunity to put in an intercept 14 system and what I'm uncertain of is whether you're advocating 15 the installation of an intercept system in the initial 16 project design? 17 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Well, first of all, Mr. 18 Chairman, I'd like to clarify from where I sit in my 19 historical dealings with that firm and that individual and 20 their representations to me. 21 Anything historically that they've represented 22 to me has not proved to me to be truly correct. So, what he 23 represents to me is nothing more than straw coming out of the 24 back of a combine. 25 And you have to understand something here,

468

1 sir. I have dealt with these people for several years and 2 their representations to me have not been what has come out 3 in this Hearing as far as overall impact and true engineering 4 and true science. 5 And so, from where I sit, if somebody like 6 that tells me, that's no different than somebody I go to buy 7 a crawler tractor from and he tells me he's done the under 8 carriage or down the bottom end of an engine and it isn't 9 done, it's the same representation to me. 10 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Smulski, I appreciate 11 you have a long history -- 12 MR. KEN SMULSKI: And if it wasn't for that 13 firm and that individual, I probably wouldn't have engaged 14 Dr. Ho. and look at where it's got us. 15 MR. CHAIRPERSON: But, Mr. Smulski, did you 16 understand the question that I posed to you? And -- 17 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Well, that's the whole 18 question if you look at Dr. Ho's work and some of the cross- 19 examination, the modelling, from my interpretation and the 20 cross-examination, from what they're presenting and what we 21 found are not correct. 22 Hence, the comment, we work within the 23 framework or the Chair and the panel, we come forward in 24 March, we evaluate more data and perhaps we need a little bit 25 of tightening up of the data in April or May with Dr. Ho, and

469

1 then we know where we're at. 2 We've got these people engaged. We've got the 3 test holes. Let's do it properly and -- so, if you have an 4 approval process, then it -- maybe it's an approval process 5 with some conditions. 6 And I said -- you know, we can't stop the 7 project, we can't start it right now. We have to be 8 somewhere in between. 9 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And -- and Mr. Smulski, 10 I'll try one (1) more time, because that was the nature of my 11 question to you, and it was as simple as this: is -- if the 12 gyp stack were approved, and -- and I'm trying to get an 13 understanding of your position -- if -- because, I take it 14 you're not objecting fundamentally to the gyp stack? 15 But, if it were approved are you -- is it your 16 position that -- that the intercept should be continued along 17 the west boundary of the proposed gyp stack and the north 18 boundary of the proposed gyp stack? 19 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Sir, if they were to 20 intercept that water from the west side of the proposed stack 21 and tie it into the current intercept system, I think they're 22 going to run into some capacity problems. 23 Overall, I think you have to do it right at 24 the front end and engineer it, because if you leave it for 25 four (4) or five (5) or six (6) years, -- again, I think Dr.

470

1 Ho said it best, this co-ordinated effort. 2 What did you -- you -- on your comments, when 3 you had a co-ordinated effort between the engineering and 4 everything you've described it -- 5 DR. RICHARD HO: What I would refer that to 6 is a -- a system approaching the front end design. You take 7 into consideration of your -- what you want is the storage 8 capacity as well as the stability as well as any 9 environmental impact which would -- should include, you 10 know -- not to create any contaminate flow outside of the 11 premises as well as to -- to prevent any damming of natural 12 groundwater flow, sir. 13 MR. KEN SMULSKI: In answer your question, 14 Mr. Chairman, I -- I think that you need more setback. You 15 need the intercept system at the front end of the design and 16 that may prove from my limited knowledge and engaging these 17 professionals and my knowledge of these projects, you may 18 have to -- right at the intersection of 564 and Highway 643, 19 you may have to have a gathering station to intercept the 20 water and then put it back over somewhere. 21 And that may ultimately be the design that 22 would prove out. And maybe for those -- that -- that 23 situation on the northeast of 19, maybe there has to be a 24 tile system tying into that intercept to help alleviate that 25 problem, long term.

471

1 And this work that we would do with Dr. Ho and 2 these people as we go to spring, would provide good 3 opportunity to observe those things. 4 And, I'm all for industrial activity or 5 economic activity or business. This is what this country was 6 founded on. These pioneers came over there because they fled 7 state-run government and that's part of my concluding address 8 to this hearing is that we need to move forward but in a 9 proper, overall format. 10 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Smulski, -- and you 11 will get an opportunity to make that final address -- now is 12 your opportunity for what we would generally call "re- 13 direct". 14 And that's an opportunity and -- and you've 15 done it really throughout the questioning of your panel. But 16 that's an opportunity for you to pose questions to your 17 experts or to present evidence in recent, that really 18 clarifies the evidence that was put forward in the 19 questioning, and that's why I say much of that you've done 20 throughout your presentation. 21 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Hmm mmm. 22 MR. CHAIRPERSON: But, if you -- if you have 23 any -- 24 MR. KEN SMULSKI: I -- 25 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- additional evidence of

472

1 that nature, now is the time. 2 MR. KEN SMULSKI: I -- I'd like to ask Mr. 3 Fields, you know -- his opinion on the set back and from a 4 construction standpoint, if they have to move that dyke on 5 the west face of the proposed expansion 6 From a construction standpoint, you've got the 7 bore hole logs, you set it back further. What the parameter 8 -- what sort of parameters from the contractors standpoint, 9 Mr. Fields? 10 MR. MICHAEL FIELDS: Actually, in reviewing 11 that, it's a lot easier to set it back fifty (50) or sixty 12 (60) feet and have the room later on down the road, than to 13 put the pile there and the stack right there. 14 And there is lots of room in the stack area to 15 the north and lots of volume there for -- for thirty (30) 16 years of materials. So, I believe an additional setback is 17 a -- is a good idea. 18 MR. KEN SMULSKI: I'd like to pose this 19 question of Paul Machibroda, from a geo-technical standpoint, 20 Paul, what do you think? 21 MR. PAUL MACHIBRODA: Well, I think that this 22 is part of the -- pardon me, I think that this is part of the 23 design and I think that the -- there is a -- there is a firm 24 engaged and -- you know. Agrium basically, they have their 25 design people and, essentially, I think it's all a question

473

1 of further development. 2 I think somebody has to take responsibility 3 for what is being designed and what will ultimately be built. 4 And I think that that design team I think is in place and I 5 think that what we're trying to do here is, essentially, 6 point out some of the deficiencies that may exist at this 7 time, but, I'm not sure that this is the -- for us to provide 8 the rest of the answers, at this point in time. 9 I think it's for the design team to review 10 their information and determine where the gaps are and 11 present the design that is functional. 12 MR. KEN SMULSKI: My comments are, you know, 13 I'm prepared to bring these people back in in March or even 14 later because I think it will, ultimately, build a better 15 product and be better for the Applicant long term from their 16 environmental liability standpoint. 17 And I think they need to address that 18 internally and I think -- when I look at from a -- if I was 19 an investor and looking at due diligence on firms in heavy 20 industrial activity and manufacturing, I'd want to see some 21 of these things and they can become one of the leaders in 22 this. 23 I mean, I think it's well within their 24 resource base and their capital structure to do these things 25 and I think that they can provide some leadership here. And

474

1 I think from the work that we've engaged with Dr. Ho, to 2 continue further and get blanket approval without some 3 setbacks, some more geotech and have them prove up some of 4 their design -- and I think, ultimately, for them when they 5 came to this Hearing, I think we probably surprised them in 6 our approach here. 7 But, as I said in my opening address, I 8 believe, you now, we're going to provide scientific 9 observation and comment and historical comment and I believe 10 we've done that very well. 11 I'd also like to address the fact of our 12 number of wells, I think on a comparative basis, I think 13 we've far exceeded the industrial standards in the area; not 14 only for Agrium but for other industrial activity considering 15 we're basically a privately funded farm operation with some 16 other entities spun off. 17 And I think from the standpoint of our panel 18 that we've put together here, I think we've done a very good 19 job; providing good comment to the Chair, the panel, the 20 other Intervenors and the Applicant. I think it was a very 21 good approach we took from the front end. 22 But, I can comment on where that was based on 23 but I think that's for the mid March meeting. 24 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Sounds to me like final 25 argument, sir.

475

1 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Well, I think, you know, we 2 can't stop it, we can't start it at this level. Let them 3 supply these people with more information. I'm sure these 4 people have done their -- they've spent this time on it, as 5 true professionals, they'd like to continue the engagement 6 and then bring forward a better product. 7 I mean, I'll tell you, from my standpoint to 8 have worked with these people that past -- with Dr. Ho since 9 '92 has been a really good experience for me from a 10 professional standpoint. I mean, he's highly esteemed and 11 I'm sure the people, the other people here, certainly feel 12 that way and Mr. Machibroda and his firm. 13 I mean, this is one (1) of the great things of 14 the Prairies or Mr. Fields. I've had some experience with 15 when we first established our machine operation in Edmonton, 16 we sublet an office down from the Graham Brothers' operations 17 and I had met him then and we had had many discussions on 18 various construction products and methods over the years over 19 coffee and I haven't seen Mike probably in six (6) or eight 20 (8) years. 21 And, you know, he came in from just a slurry 22 wall and I wanted to provide somebody that wouldn't provide a 23 conflict from me and my machine business or the Applicant. 24 You know, we've always called on these experts, so, it's a 25 truly objective comment.

476

1 And like, just like today, I didn't want to 2 bring two (2) or three (3) of my farm operators into the 3 discussion, I just thought it would have backed up the 4 meeting. I think we can clearly see it from a geo-technical, 5 visual, Dr. Ho's comments, Mr. Fields, myself, Mr. 6 Machibroda's. 7 I didn't think we needed to back up the 8 Hearing with some -- although I think they would have 9 provided good comments, certainly, from what they would have 10 saw working in the fields, in deer and wildlife and just 11 other things. 12 But, for the sake of the Hearing in respect of 13 the Chair and the panel and the Applicant, we elected not to 14 bring them forward and just from a time standpoint. And I 15 think, in respect of that, if you want to, you know, if they 16 would like to provide more data and have us critique it, it's 17 almost like an environmental audit which I think, internally, 18 when they bought these facilities, I think that was lacking 19 in due diligence is my read on it. 20 And I think they've had to opportunity to see 21 some good cross-examination from these people that are 22 totally independent of their project and I think it's been 23 good for all and I think we need to address that. 24 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Now, Mr. Smulski, is that 25 -- I didn't mean to cut you off. Is -- is that the end of

477

1 your statement? 2 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Well, if I would have 3 finished a little earlier, I had a game of eight (8) ball I 4 wanted to play but I guess I'll have to postpone that to next 5 Friday and I wanted to do the two (2) guitar show and relate 6 it to value at. 7 Maybe we'll do that at the end of the whole 8 meeting and we'll shut the mics off and then we'll do the two 9 (2) guitar with the -- with the values and I have a story of 10 these buckets, there's a famous story in the law circles from 11 the early '60s of a cream can with some dollars being poured 12 on a desk on a land transaction which after we get off 13 comment and after these Hearings are all finished, I'd be 14 happy to provide that story to lighten things up. 15 MR. CHAIRPERSON: I -- I've never done a 16 Hearing with guitars. 17 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Well, I was -- you know, 18 with respect to time we were going to bring it in and two (2) 19 guitars and show values and -- and how it relates to land in 20 the prairies or a setting. 21 Often times when I get involved in 22 negotiations and my history is I've settled disputes between 23 good sized trucking entities and large equipment 24 manufacturers in the US. There's kind of -- it's risen to 25 folklore status in the Dakotas and we've done some work with

478

1 the SRB and other things and that's the perspective from 2 which I come from is to provide some good observation and 3 some solutions. 4 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Smulski, because you did 5 have something in re-direct, I don't think there'll be any 6 questions arising but I'm going to ask Ms. Williamson. She's 7 shaking her head. 8 MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: Thank you. I'm 9 shaking it -- 10 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Neufeld...? 11 MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: Just for the record, 12 I'm shaking it in the negative direction. 13 MR. RICHARD NEUFELD: I think I have an eight 14 (8) ball game to go to, sir. 15 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Good luck. 16 Mr. Smulski, before I adjourn until 8:30 17 tomorrow morning... 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Smulski...? 22 MR. KEN SMULSKI: You've got to understand 23 something, Mr. Chairman, when you run these entities like I 24 do, often times the operators would finish at 10:00, I'd be 25 hauling parts or moving machines, then I'd get on the machine

479

1 to run the night shift, so to me I'm just getting into third 2 gear. I'm ready to continue for two (2) or three (3) hours 3 if need be, it doesn't bother me. 4 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Well -- 5 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Both hands are on the wheel 6 or the steering clutch is straight ahead. 7 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- I'm happy to hear that. 8 What I was going to say and -- and these will be the final 9 remarks on the subject because I don't want to have a debate 10 Mr. Smulski but the reasons why we run the process the way we 11 do and which preclude some of the things that you've 12 suggested, as valuable as they may be to the process -- 13 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Hmm hmm. 14 MR. CHAIRPERSON: -- they're not part of this 15 process. That doesn't mean that Mr. Smulski and his expert 16 cannot -- cannot have a dialogue directly with Agrium and 17 their experts and the Board encourages those kinds of 18 exchanges but this process has a beginning and various stages 19 and an end and it's important that we move continuously from 20 beginning to end. 21 With that I'm going to adjourn us for the 22 evening. We're starting at 8:30 tomorrow morning with 23 Alberta Crown. 24 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Will they want to cross- 25 examine what we've done here or they did?

480

1 MR. CHAIRPERSON: They did, sir. 2 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Okay. Oh, because -- 3 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Stepaniuk -- 4 MR. KEN SMULSKI: -- Mr. Stepaniuk and yeah, 5 they exchanged -- what would be my responsibility in the 6 morning? I have some commitments and if I could maybe have a 7 late attendance, I can get some machines off the yard that 8 have recently returned. 9 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Well, Mr. Smulski, what we 10 -- what we'll have in the morning and I'm not sure how much 11 direct we have, although it seems to me that we had a couple 12 of hours, Ms. Williamson? 13 MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: It would be 14 Alberta's plan to be completed with its direct by about 9:30. 15 MR. CHAIRPERSON: All right. 16 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Is that direct to me? 17 MR. CHAIRPERSON: No, well that's direct -- 18 MS. MICHELLE WILLIAMSON: Our direct evidence. 19 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Their direct evidence. 20 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Oh, then bringing forward 21 their case. 22 MR. CHAIRPERSON: And then there would be an 23 opportunity to question. 24 MR. J.P. MOUSSEAU: And maybe I can walk Mr. 25 Smulski through this off the record. I --

481

1 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Yes. 2 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Oh, that would -- maybe that 3 would work well. 4 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Yeah. 5 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Smulski, thank you very 6 much and thank you to your experts. 7 MR. KEN SMULSKI: Thank you all. 8 MR. CHAIRPERSON: It was very helpful. 9 10 --- Upon adjourning at 10:48 p.m. 11 12 Certified Correct 13 14 15 16 _____________________ 17 Carol Geehan 18 Court Reporter 19 20 21 22 23 24 25