Orica Canada officials say they're puzzled by the groundswell of public opposition to their East Luther explosives storage site in 2009 when there was no similar opposition when the company was granted temporary zoning in 2007.

And, they indicated during a tour of the facility last Thursday, it is especially disconcerting since the only difference between what had been at the site for the prior 13 years and what is there now is that the storage facilities are slightly bigger and vastly improved, and there is now a modern office and workshop area.

Whether Orica can continue the 15-year-old operation is going to be decided by the Ontario Municipal Board in a hearing that commences with a pre-hearing conference Nov. 3. No one can reliably predict the costs of such a hearing, as it would almost invariably involve a battery of lawyers and expert witnesses on both sides.

The public opposition has been based, among other things, on a perception of a threat to groundwater and to Luther Lake as well as fears of explosions or toxic fumes in the event of a fire. There are also public concerns about security.

The "groundswell" might also have arisen in part from details of Orica accidents over the years. Those, including a Botany Bay, Australia, chemical spill and a major highway explosion in northern Ontario, are readily available on the Internet.

Area Manager Stan Harlen, Vice-President Richard Brown, and public relations spokesman Neal Mednick had arranged the tour partially in response to a recent Peter Turrell letter published in this newspaper.

In the letter, Mr. Turrell — the closest neighbour to the Orica site — accused the company of lying and of threatening legal action against anyone who would attempt to disrupt its business, including by blockading the roadway.

"I would love to hear what we have lied about," said Mr. Mednick, adding that there has never been a threat of legal action of any kind.

Mr. Brown said Superior Court Justice Jane Milanetti had asked whether Orica intended to sue the Township.

"I told her we had no intentions of suing anyone," he said.

On the oft-cited Orica accidents, Mr. Brown said the Botany Bay spill was from the plant of a predecessor company (the parent of Canadian Industries Limited.) The spill was of a chemical not present at the ELGV site (ethylene dicholide). He said the estimated $160 million Orica is spending for the mop-up should serve as evidence that Orica does not walk away from problems for which it is responsible.

The Northern Ontario explosion was a cargo of dynamite.

The Orica vehicles, as demonstrated Thursday, carry ammonium nitrate (in prill form) in one steel enclosed compartment and the emulsion in another. A sensitizing agent is in a third compartment. Detonation devices are carried in a second vehicle.

There is no mixing of the explosive materials on the Orica site. The company officials said "manufacturing" is included in the federal license simply because that is the standard form, although it may refer to the manufacturing process at the point of use.

Mr. Harlen said the emulsion in the 44-tonne capacity silo is classified as "a base explosive (that) requires the addition of a sensitizing agent to make it reliably detonate."

The AN prills, in the 60-tonne capacity silo some distance removed, "are not explosives but classified as an oxidizing agent."

He said the magazines (where the detonators and boosters are stored) are constructed in accordance with the 2001 regulations for industrial magazines — "steel outer walls, wood inner walls, filled with gravel/stone, and designed to be ballistic proof. "

At the mining site, a booster is attached to the computerized primer on a 20-to-50-foot conduit and placed at the bottom of the blasting site. Then the emulsion, prills and sensitizing agent are mixed mechanically and poured into the hole, followed by the electronic detonation.

But is the ELGV site safe? Orica says it is.

Even so, said Mr. Harlen, the company plans to take additional measures, such as creating a ditch to capture any possible runoff should there be a spill of any kind, and to contain it in an impermeable holding pond, to satisfy residential concerns.

"We haven't done so as we don't know if we'll be here (until after the OMB hearing)," said Mr. Brown.

Is the site a threat to Luther Lake? The terrain appears to rise from the marsh to a crest west of the Orica installation, and then to slope gently eastward away from the lake and the site (although a topographical grid map was not available).

Washing and maintenance of vehicles are done on site. The water and any petroleum products resulting are collected and piped to an evaporator. After evaporation, any residue is collected and removed to an appropriate disposal site.

On security, the entrance gate is opened only after visitors have identified themselves. This reporter was greeted at the main gate and escorted to the installation. His lighter had to be deposited in a mail box at the entrance. His cell phone had to be turned off when visiting the magazines.

Why was the ELGV site chosen by Orica? "The site is central to our customers," said Mr. Brown. "It has safety distances. It's hard to find separations from residences these days. It was chosen because it's perfect, and was being used (for the same purpose) for 13 years."