UCP to restore sandpit regulations, easing supply of fracking material

Alberta’s UCP government proposed legislation Tuesday that would redefine “minerals” and “pits,” allowing about 500 sand projects to proceed without having to submit environmental impact assessments.

Bill 31, the Environmental Protection Statutes Amendment Act, would clarify existing laws so that silica sand, extracted mostly for hydraulic fracturing oil operations, or fracking, is not considered a mineral.

Silica sand, sometimes called frac sand, is currently considered a mineral under the existing Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, making many sand operations, including Alberta-based Wayfinder’s Big Molly sand facility northwest of Edmonton, quarries.

A quarry, unlike a pit, would typically involve digging deeper below the surface for minerals, could carry more environmental risk, and would require an environmental impact assessment (EIA) if it dug up more than 45,000 tonnes per year.

But if the sand is not considered a mineral, such a project would be considered a pit, and authorization or special conditions would be up to the discretion of the director of Environment and Parks.

The proposed legislation comes in response to a May 6 Alberta Court of Appeal decision that ruled the sand is a mineral, and Wayfinder should have been required to submit an EIA. Following the court decision, Wayfinder’s Big Molly, and about 500 other sand and gravel operations that met the 45,000 tonne per year threshold, would be subject to an assessment.

But the government said Tuesday those legal definitions created confusion for businesses, and only added time, cost and effort without achieving any further environmental protection.

Environment and Parks Minister Jason Nixon said in a news release Tuesday that the bill will provide “clarity and consistency” for the industry while still maintaining stringent environmental protection regulations.

“Job creators should not need interpreters to understand legislation and regulatory laws. That’s why the government is taking action to ensure that sand and gravel operators have clear definitions that are accurate in legislation. Environment and Parks has had an effective and environmentally sound regulatory system in place for more than 15 years to review and approve projects,” he said in the release.

Before the Court of Appeal decision, all projects removing sand, gravel, clay or marl were regulated as pits under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act. Tuesday’s legislation would revert to the previous rules. As of press time, Wayfinder had not responded to a request for comment.

The applicant in the case, Armin Alexis, a member of the Alexis Nakota Sioux First Nation, had asked the director to order Wayfinder to submit an EIA.

Hereditary Chief Rod Alexis, Armin Alexis’ uncle, said that the family wasn’t surprised by the court’s decision, but is concerned about the local water supply and said wildlife were already being negatively affected by nearby industrial projects. “The whole ecosystem is our major concern,” he said.

An EIA would have carefully assessed the potential environmental costs of the Big Molly project, he said.

“To do a proper impact study, you have to ask the people,” he said.

NDP Opposition Leader Rachel Notley said more consultation and outreach needs to be done with those who might be impacted.