Texada Coal Proposal update

Here is the text of an email that Donald sent out on Feb 19:

Hi all,
Significant news! The push-back has bought us some time again! But many details of the new requirements are still kept deliberately unclear, scope is minimized, and they still want a closed-door process.

Due to the extent and magnitude of the organized push-back that they have received, it seems like the Port of Metro Vancouver is realizing that they would be walking themselves into an insurrection to push through their approval prior to at least seeming to address the concerns of the Health Authorities and local governments. A real HIA (Health Impact Assessment) would take 6 to 12 months to undertake. This would be after a long period of "scoping" to decide who and what are to be included in the HIA.

So the good news is that we have a "delay" of unclear length. A delay is a good start and can be useful. The bad news is that this is not a real HIA.
No only is this is not a real HIA, but it seems to not include any impacts beyond the Surrey Fraser Docks. Certainly there is no mention of assessing the health impacts on Texada.

Port officials said Wednesday an environmental impact assessment submitted by Fraser Surrey Docks in November did not include enough information on the potential human health impacts of the $15-million project.
The terminal owner has been directed to provide further documentation related to the health impacts.
The port says it won't accept more formal public or agency comments after receiving the new information.
Instead, it will then complete the project review and issue a decision.

The question is, how we can use this delay and opening of the Pandora's Box to force the real appraisal of health impacts. And how to we get Texada included as an impacted community, as well as communities along the rail and barge route, from the US border to Lasqueti Island? We are going to need to be very loud about this incredible double standard.

Below is the link to a short article, followed by VTACC press release in response.

As we discover more, I will keep you posted. Meanwhile, tonight lets raise a drink to a delay!

Donald Gordon

Just out now, broke by Metro News http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/947322/port-delays-decision-on-surrey...

For Immediate release

February 19 2014

Port Announces New Study of Health Impacts of FS Docks Coal Export Plan, Many Unanswered Questions
-- applies only to Fraser Surrey Docks: why are residents impacted by Neptune expansion or Texada Island denied the same revised assessment?

Vancouver -- the Port Authority today announced a new health impact study requirement for the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks coal port.

Voters Taking Action on Climate Change puts forward the following questions that should be answered regarding the announced study:

Scope

will impacts associated with shipping coal by rail (diesel exhaust, coal dust, delays, and especially noise impacts, which were largely overlooked in the EIA) be included in the study?
will impacts associated with shipping coal by barge to Texada Island be included? Potential impacts to communities on Texada?
why isn't the Port requiring Fraser Surrey Docks to reassess environmental impacts, when their review under the previous EIA was also heavily critiqued?

Terms of reference

Were the Health Authorities/Medical Health Officers involved in setting the terms of reference for the study? Were they involved in selecting the consultants to conduct the study? Will the public be consulted on issues and concerns to be addressed in the study? All of these topics must be addressed for the study to be credible and transparent.

Neptune Terminals

it appears this revised health study only addresses the Fraser Surrey Docks project. Both the City of North Vancouver and Burnaby have called for a Health Impact Assessment of the Neptune Terminals expansion. That project will see a potential tripling of coal movements through Burnaby and North Vancouver -- from the current level of approximately 6 million tonnes/yr to 18.5 million/tonnes/yr. The Neptune and Fraser Surrey Docks were both submitted to the Port Authority in mid 2012; the Neptune project was rushed through approved by January 2013 and the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal is still under study, even though it is smaller in size.
There is no reason to believe that potential health impacts from the Neptune expansion were given any more careful consideration than has been the case to date with the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal. Residents in North Vancouver, Burnaby and down the rail line from Neptune Terminals deserve the same careful analysis of potential health risks as residents in Surrey, Delta and White Rock are expecting on the FS Docks proposal.

Cumulative impacts of all expansion

recently the Port Authority approved a $230M upgrade to Westshore Terminals in Delta that could see up to one more coal train per day running to that facility. Why hasn't the Port Authority committed to a cumulative health impact assessment of all coal export proposals, rather than pursuing this piecemeal approach?

Climate Impacts
Voters Taking Action on Climate Change appreciates that the Port Authority has begun to respond to public concerns over expanded coal exports. However, in the case of the proposal to export US thermal coal from Fraser Surrey Docks, our over riding concern remains the same: the proposal is incompatible with what needs to be done to avoid runaway climate change.
The province of BC banned thermal coal electricity generation in 2007 because of its climate impacts. Today's BC government promotes LNG exports to help Asian countries reduce the use of thermal coal for the same reason. The International Energy Agency says that 80 percent of remaining thermal coal must remain in the ground to avoid a climate disaster. The Fraser Surrey Docks project brings minimal benefit to BC and puts our future at risk. It should be cancelled.
-- 30--