Prior to Weyburn city council making its decision on the Hazco proposal, the ad hoc committee put together to investigate the waste site proposal compiled a list of pros and cons for council to look at, along reports from two people who visited similar sites.

The information was compiled during April and was brought to the last meeting of the committee on Wednesday evening at City Hall. Their report formed the basis of the information presented to council on Monday.

Similar sites to what Hazco was proposing for Weyburn were visited by Dylan Clarke in Manitoba and by Wally Zarry in Calgary.

Clarke, who represents the Southeast Regional Economic Development Authority (SEREDA) on the committee, talked about his visit over Easter to Hazco's landfill site at Virden, Man., which is the same type as what they would like to site here. Hazco proposed to establish a non-hazardous oilfield and industrial waste in conjunction with the City of Weyburn's existing landfill.

One of the main issues raised at Weyburn's public meeting on the issue was whether there will be an odour at the site, so Clarke checked whether the site at Virden emitted any sort of odour. On the day he visited there, he said he was downwind of the site on a warm spring day, and could smell no odour.

He talked to workers there and provided photos of the site for the committee to look at, and said the site looked clean and well-run.

Clarke pointed out that Virden's site included a water separation cell, which the company had not mentioned for Weyburn's proposed facility.

In the meantime, Wally Zarry (who was not a member of the ad hoc committee) happened to visiting the part of Calgary near the Chaparell landfill, and was able to tour the facility with Hazco representative John Thompson. This landfill has a residential neighbourhood within four blocks, plus there is a new neighbourhood being developed within the same distance from this site.

On the way to this site, said Zarry, Thompson stopped the vehicle and pointed to a nearly hilly area and said that was the site.

"I never would have known, it was just a big hill," he said, adding there is a trout stream nearby that feeds into the Bow River that continues to have a population of trout in it.

"If anyone had doubts about Hazco, if anybody saw this they would change their minds It's certainly not an eyesore and there's no smell. They monitor the water all the time. With this dirt they put it to grass and grow a few trees," he told the committee.

As far as water quality issues, city manager Bob Smith said his investigation of this issue showed this is very unlikely to be an issue given the proposed location of the site. From talking with area oil companies who would use such a site, Smith said 70 per cent of the materials would come from flare pits.

Smith also checked with various government officials in Alberta's government about Hazco's reputation, and found that while they questioned some of the regulations in their early days, they were and are careful to follow all Environment's guidelines, and provide good cooperation with Alberta's guidelines, which for the most part are more stringent than Saskatchewan's.

Committee member Dave Kerr said he called his daughter in Edmonton, who works as an engineer in the oil industry, and was told Hazco has one of the best reputations in that province as being good to work with.

Coun. Rob Stephanson noted the city's landfill currently farms some oilfield-contaminated dirt already, doing some bioremediation, which Hazco isn't even proposing for their operation. He pointed out odour would only be likely if bioremediation was undertaken, and added that any odourous soil materials are sent to Newalta's operation at Halbrite.

The list of cons about Hazco's proposal include aesthetics, as the general appearance of the site may not be desirable with piles of dirt being hauled into cells; ownership, as the city will become responsible for the materials once they are hauled to the site; location, as the company insists on locating the facility in conjunction with the city's current landfill site, or the opportunity will be lost; and public perception, as there will always be speculation on the part of the public, regardless of what information is presented to them.

On the pro side of the issue, the area can be converted into a park area once the cells are full; revenue gained from the service could be used to close and relocate the landfill, and for a recycling program; employment opportunities; enhanced economic development, with opportunities for growth in trucking, fuel sales, restaurants, etc.; it would provide a valuable service for the oil industry; and the aesthetics of the site could be mitigated by the planting of fast-growing trees as a cover.

No recommendation was provided one way or the other, with the information and pros/cons list provided to council to help them decide.