Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Fraser Surrey Docks LPApplication to Amend Permit No. 2012 – 072
Direct Transfer Coal Facility
Consultation Summary ReportRound 2 Public Consultation July 17 – August 21, 2015
Prepared by:
Kirk & Co. Consulting Ltd.
September 2015
Consultation Summary Report (Round 2 Public Consultation) September 2015 Fraser Surrey Docks LP Application to Amend Permit No. 2012 – 072 1
About Kirk & Co. Consulting Ltd. Kirk & Co. is a recognized industry leader in designing and implementing comprehensive public and stakeholder consultation and engagement programs. Utilizing best practices, consultation and engagement programs are designed to maximize opportunities for input. Kirk & Co. independently analyzes and reports on public and stakeholder input.
The views represented in this report reflect the priorities and concerns of respondents. They may not be representative of the views of the public and other stakeholders as a whole because respondents self-selected into the public consultation, and therefore do not reflect a random sample.
Consultation Summary Report (Round 2 Public Consultation) Fraser Surrey Docks LP Application to Amend Permit No. 2012 – 072 2
Table of Contents 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 3
1.1. Application to Amend Permit No. 2012 – 072 Direct Transfer Coal Facility ...................................... 3
2. Round 2 Public Consultation – July 17 – August 21, 2015 ........................................................................ 3
2.1 Purpose – Round 2 Public Consultation .............................................................................................. 3
2.2 Notification ......................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 5
2.4 Participation ........................................................................................................................................ 6
3. Results ....................................................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Key Themes – Feedback Form and Written Submissions ................................................................... 7
3.2 Key Themes – Small Group Meetings ............................................................................................... 11
September 2015
Consultation Summary Report (Round 2 Public Consultation) Fraser Surrey Docks LP Application to Amend Permit No. 2012 – 072 3
1. Introduction1.1. Application to Amend Permit No. 2012 – 072 Direct Transfer Coal Facility On August 21, 2014, Fraser Surrey Docks LP (FSD) was granted a project permit by Port Metro Vancouver that gives it approval to build and operate a Direct Transfer Coal Facility within its existing lease area.
On May 4, 2015, FSD announced it was considering applying to amend its existing project permit in order to load coal directly to ocean-going vessels (OGVs). FSD sought comments, May 4 to 19, 2015, from the public and stakeholders on the proposed scope of the studies associated with the amendment under consideration to its existing permit.
On June 19, 2015, FSD applied to amend its existing project permit. The application was made following consideration of feedback received during Round 1 Public Comment Period and information provided by subject-matter experts.
The proposed amendment would allow FSD to load coal directly from the facility to OGVs. Using OGVs would allow FSD to eliminate or reduce the number of barges required. The proposed amendment to the existing project permit would have no impact on the volume of coal permitted to be shipped through FSD, which is 4 million metric tonnes per year. In 2014 approximately 38 metric million tonnes of coal were handled by two existing terminals in Port Metro Vancouver’s jurisdiction.
More information about FSD’s application to amend Permit No. 2012 – 072 can be found at www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment.
2. Round 2 Public Consultation – July 17 – August 21, 20152.1 Purpose – Round 2 Public Consultation The purpose of Round 2 Public Consultation, July 17 to August 21, 2015, undertaken by FSD after submission of the project permit application was to provide the opportunity for all stakeholders to submit comments on the project permit. During the public consultation FSD sought comments regarding the proposed changes to the design and on the results of the studies associated with the amendment to the existing project permit.
These studies included the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Air Quality Assessment (AQA), Marine Risk Assessment, Environmental Management Plan (EMP), Water Management Plan, Fire Life Safety Plan, and Spill Response Plan.
Changes to the project that will be made if the amendment is granted, include:
• The current size and height of the marine vessel loader would be increased (up to a maximumheight of 36.2 metres), allowing for direct loading to OGVs.
• The use of OGVs would replace most or all barges. If approved, FSD expects to replace all 640barges with 80 Panamax class OGVs, but would retain barging as a potential secondary option.
• It is anticipated that the use of OGVs would further mitigate the potential for dust, as coal wouldbe transported in OGVs with closed hatches.
• The conveyance system, rail receiving building, receiving pit and rail tracks would be shifted on-site to accommodate the larger marine vessel loader.
• The footprint of the facility area would decrease by approximately 10–15%, which would reducethe amount of rainwater runoff collected.
A copy of the Discussion Guide and Feedback Form can be found in Appendix A.
September 2015
Consultation Summary Report (Round 2 Public Consultation) September 2015 Fraser Surrey Docks LP Application to Amend Permit No. 2012 – 072 4
2.2 Notification The following notification methods were utilized to inform the public and stakeholders of the public consultation period:
• Notification Emails: 115 emails were sent to stakeholders (local governments, environmentalorganizations, health authorities, MLAs and others) on July 17, 2015, with information about thepublic consultation.
• Phone Calls: Phone calls were made to stakeholders (local governments, environmentalorganizations, health authorities, MLAs and others) to inform them of the public consultation, asfollow-up to the email notification.
• Online Advertising: Online notification advertisements ran from July 17 – August 21, 2015, on thefollowing sites, with the following results:
• Surrey Leader: 28,102 impressions• New Westminster Record: 15,006 impressions
• Newspaper Advertising: Advertisements ran in the following community newspapers between July22 and July 30, 2015:
Publications Dates • Surrey Leader• New Westminster NewsLeader• Burnaby Now• New Westminster Record• Delta Optimist
Wednesday, July 22 and Wednesday, July 29
• Surrey Now• Richmond News• Peace Arch News
Thursday, July 23 and Thursday, July 30
A copy of the advertisements that ran in the community newspapers can be found in Appendix B.
• Postcard Mailer: 10,386 households in Surrey and New Westminster received a postcard thatinformed recipients of ways to participate in the public consultation period. The postcards were sentduring the week of July 20, 2015 to households near FSD.
The postcard mailer and maps illustrating where the postcards were delivered can be found inAppendix B.
• Website: Notification of the public consultation period and a button that linked to the DiscussionGuide and online Feedback Form were displayed on Fraser Surrey Docks’ home page(www.fsd.bc.ca) from July 17 – August 21, 2015. A link to the webpage with information about theamendment (www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment) was also displayed on the Projects Updates page.
A copy of the website can be found in Appendix B.
• Information Bulletin: On July 17, 2015, an information bulletin was sent to regional and provincialmedia to advise them of the public consultation period.
A copy of the information bulletin be found in Appendix B.
A copy of the advertisements that ran online can be found in Appendix B.
Consultation Summary Report (Round 2 Public Consultation) September 2015 Fraser Surrey Docks LP Application to Amend Permit No. 2012 – 072 5
2.3 Methods Materials, including the Discussion Guide and Feedback Form and the full application submitted to Port Metro Vancouver, were made available online at www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment beginning on July 17, 2015. Feedback was collected through the following methods:
• Discussion Guide and Feedback Form
A Discussion Guide provided an overview of the proposed changes to the existing project permitand also included a Feedback Form where respondents’ feedback could be captured andsubmitted.
The Discussion Guide and Feedback Form reviewed aspects of the existing project permit that FSDapplied to amend, and sought comments regarding the proposed changes to the design and on theresults of the studies associated with the amendment.
The Discussion Guide and Feedback Form were available for download, and an online version ofthe Feedback Form was available at www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment during the public consultationperiod. A copy of the Discussion Guide and Feedback Form can be found in Appendix A.
• Small Group Meetings
Two small group meetings were held in Surrey on July 29 and July 30, 2015. The small groupmeetings were open to members of the public and advertised as part of the notification outlinedin Section 2.2. Meeting attendees included residents from Surrey and New Westminster, andrepresentatives from local and regional government, health authorities, community groups andindustry.
Representatives of FSD attended the meetings, along with a facilitator and meeting recorder fromKirk & Co. A representative from Port Metro Vancouver attended and observed the meetings.Participants were provided with the Discussion Guide and Feedback Form, and display boards werealso set up at the meetings to provide an additional opportunity to review the materials. A copy ofthe display boards can be found in Appendix C.
Representatives of FSD provided information about the application for an amendment, focusing onthe proposed changes to the design and on the results of the studies associated with theamendment. Participants were invited to ask questions and provide feedback during the meetings.
Key themes from these meetings are summarized in Section 3.2 on page 11.
• Email, Mail and Phone
Participants were provided with the opportunity to submit Feedback Forms by email or mail, orprovide open submissions by email, mail or phone.
Consultation Summary Report (Round 2 Public Consultation) September 2015 Fraser Surrey Docks LP Application to Amend Permit No. 2012 – 072 6
2.4 Participation A summary of the input received can be found starting in Section 3 on page 7.
During the public consultation period the following submissions were received:
• 375 submissions were received from residents in Richmond, Surrey, Delta and NewWestminster.
• 787 submissions were received from residents in Metro Vancouver (excluding those mentionedabove).
• 991 submissions were received from residents of B.C. and Canada (excluding those mentionedabove).
• 1,389 submissions were received from residents outside of Canada.
*49 individuals did not identify a place of residence.
During the public consultation period feedback was received through the following methods:
• Online Feedback Form: 40 received• Written Submissions: 3,551 received
o Emails: 2,040o Postcards submitted to Port Metro Vancouver: 137o Form Letter from residents of the United States: 1,374
• Small Group Meetings: 2 meetings (22 participants)
Input received through the online Feedback Form and written submissions has been summarized in Section 3.
Most of the submissions received from Canadian respondents were sent via an embedded email template sponsored by the Dogwood Initiative (see Appendix D). Respondents entered their information and a response into the template which generated delivery of an email to [email protected], Port Metro Vancouver, and the Federal Transport Minister.
A copy of the postcards submitted to Port Metro Vancouver can be found in Appendix D.
1,374 responses were received from residents of the United States. These responses were made in an identical letter which is summarized on page 10, with the full draft in Appendix E.
In addition to the submissions received during the public consultation period a petition was presented to Jeff Scott (President and CEO of Fraser Surrey Docks LP), by a representative of Communities and Coal, at the Port Metro Vancouver Annual General Meeting on June 2, 2015. Please see Appendix F for the petition.
Port Metro Vancouver is leading the First Nations, local government and agency consultation for FSD’s application. Port Metro Vancouver will consider First Nations, local government and agency input along with feedback from the Round 2 Public Consultation period, and further technical information, as part of its consideration to amend FSD’s existing project permit.
Consultation Summary Report (Round 2 Public Consultation) September 2015 Fraser Surrey Docks LP Application to Amend Permit No. 2012 – 072 7
3. ResultsThe following provides a summary of the key themes from submissions received from online FeedbackForms, written submissions (emails and letters), and the small group meetings during the publicconsultation period from July 17 to August 21, 2015. As much as possible, the language expressed byrespondents has been retained in the key themes.
3.1 Key Themes – Feedback Form and Written Submissions The results received through the online Feedback Form and written submissions are categorized according to theme and frequency. This summary of key themes reflects the comments provided by respondents.
The following does not included key themes from the form letter received from residents of the United States. The U.S. key themes are summarized separately on page 10.
FSD will respond to the comments provided by respondents through a consideration memo, which will be posted online at www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment in September 2015.
Note: The number of comments may exceed the total commenting, as respondents may have commented on more than one topic.
Respondents provided the following comments expressing opposition to the project:
• Respondents expressed general opposition to building a coal port on the Fraser River. (1356)
• Respondents expressed concerns regarding the coal industry, including the impacts of mining,transferring, and burning of coal and that the coal industry is in decline. (612)
• Respondents commented that the approval process is not credible, that PMV is biased, feedbackshould not be sent to the proponent and that the amendment needed an independent third-partyreview. (570)
• Respondents stated that the region is assuming all the risk with little economic benefit and theproponent is only building the project for profit. (455)
• Respondents expressed concerns that burning fossil fuels is leading to global warming. (337)
• Respondents said there is a need for provincial and federal governments to invest in alternativetechnologies or renewable energy. (324)
• Respondents stated that there had been no public hearings or meaningful consideration of publicinput in permitting decisions. (295)
• Respondents stated concerns regarding the use of barges, and that there has not been anassessment done on the impacts along the proposed barge route to Texada Island. (258)
Consultation Summary Report (Round 2 Public Consultation) September 2015 Fraser Surrey Docks LP Application to Amend Permit No. 2012 – 072 8
• Respondents stated opposition to Canadian ports exporting U.S. thermal coal and stated thatseveral proposals to ship coal from ports along the U.S. west coast have been met withresistance. (227)
• Respondents opposed to the use of ocean-going vessels at a port on the Fraser River. (4)
Respondents provided the following comments regarding studies for the project:
• Respondents said that there is a need for a full Health Impact Assessment. (392)
• Respondents stated that there was no consideration of the cumulative impacts of shipping trafficfrom multiple existing and proposed export projects. (249)
• Respondents expressed concerns regarding the Environmental Impact Assessment including thatit does not consider cumulative environmental impacts, that it should include impacts along theentire shipping route, that the Environment Management Plan and Water Management Plan needto be expanded, and that there needs to be more studies to consider the impacts to marinehabitats. (111)
• Respondents commented that there needed to be additional studies on the impacts from thefacility. (24)
• Respondents expressed concerns regarding the Human Health Risk Assessment including that itdoes not review cumulative health risks of industry in the area, the scope is too narrow, and itneeds to be conducted by an independent third party. (21)
• Respondents stated that the Spill Response Plan is not comprehensive and is unable to mitigatespills. (11)
• Respondents expressed concerns regarding the Air Quality Assessment, including that it is flawedand that it needs a larger scope to address impacts along the entire rail and shipping route. (6)
Respondents provided the following comments expressing concern for the impacts from the project:
• Respondents expressed concerns about the environmental impacts that exporting coal along theFraser River would have on marine habitats, wildlife (salmon, orcas and other whale populations)and the coastline, including the increased risk of spills, pollution and shipping traffic. (829)
• Respondents expressed concerns about the long-term health impacts of coal and stated thatresidents must protect the local area for present and future generations. (552)
• Respondents stated that the air quality in the region is getting worse. (175)
Consultation Summary Report (Round 2 Public Consultation) September 2015 Fraser Surrey Docks LP Application to Amend Permit No. 2012 – 072 9
• Respondents expressed concerns about the impacts of coal dust to the air quality and health ofresidents in the region, specifically children, and expressed concerns about the impacts of coal,including cancer, asthma and allergies. (139)
• Respondents commented on the impacts of increased marine and rail traffic. (83)
• Respondents expressed concerns about the development of a new coal port and that theincrease in coal dust could have a negative impact on property values in the surroundingcommunities, including New Westminster, Surrey and Delta, and other general negative impactsto these communities. (76)
• Respondents expressed concerns regarding the removal of the George Massey Tunnel and statedthat it would lead to more dredging on the Fraser River. (22)
Respondents provided the following comments related to the review and consultation process for the project:
• Respondents commented that B.C. needs to have a say in the approval of a new coal facilityincluding that local governments should be part of the approval process and that the process isundemocratic. (468)
• Respondents were concerned that health officers are not part of the approval process and statedthey need to review the studies before a new coal port is built. (12)
Consultation Summary Report (Round 2 Public Consultation) September 2015 Fraser Surrey Docks LP Application to Amend Permit No. 2012 – 072 10
Form letter received from residents of the United States regarding Fraser Surrey Docks application to amend Permit No. 2012 – 072
• Expressed opposition to the construction of any coal facility on the banks of the Fraser River.
• Expressed concern that the proposal would increase open-car coal train traffic through residential communities, increasing residents’ exposure to diesel exhaust (a known carcinogen), coal dust, nighttime noise and damaging vibration from heavy coal trains.
• Expressed concern that the coal exported from Fraser Surrey Docks would result in global warming.
• Commented that the proposal would increase freighter traffic in the Salish Sea, increase the risk of oil spills and shipping accidents, and increase impacts on wild salmon and endangered orca populations.
• Requested that full public hearings, an independent health impact assessment (HIA) and that a fully-scoped environmental assessment be conducted before any approvals are granted for the project.
• Stated that the lack of meaningful consultation with the public, local and regional governments and health authorities has been an issue of ongoing concern during the review of the project.
• Commented that the removal of the George Massey Tunnel would result in deeper dredging of the Fraser River allowing larger draft vessels to reach the facility and a greater volume of coal to be exported.
• Stated that there is no future in exporting thermal coal.
A copy of the form letter from residents of the United States is available in Appendix E.
Consultation Summary Report (Round 2 Public Consultation) September 2015 Fraser Surrey Docks LP Application to Amend Permit No. 2012 – 072 11
3.2 Key Themes – Small Group Meetings Two small group meetings were held in Surrey on July 29 and July 30, 2015. The small group meetings were open to members of the public and advertised as part of the notification outlined in section 2.2.
Meeting attendees included residents from Surrey and New Westminster and representatives from local and regional government, health authorities, community groups and industry. Representatives of FSD attended the meetings, along with a facilitator and meeting recorder from Kirk & Co. A representative from Port Metro Vancouver attended and observed the meetings. Participants were provided with the Discussion Guide and Feedback Form, and display boards were also set up at the meetings to provide an additional opportunity to review the materials.
Representatives of FSD provided information about the application for an amendment, focusing on the proposed changes to the design and on the results of the studies associated with the amendment. Participants were invited to ask questions and provide feedback during the meetings.
The following are the key themes from the small group meetings. As much as possible, the language expressed by participants has been retained.
Meeting Key Themes July 29, 2015, 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. Sheraton Vancouver Guildford Hotel Surrey, B.C.
• Participants sought clarification regarding the changes to the project as aresult of the application, including whether FSD would be using ocean-going vessels (OGVs) exclusively or if barging would be retained as asecondary option.
• Participants were interested in the use of Panamax-sized vessels, askingfor clarification about the potential need for additional dredging of theFraser River following the removal of the George Massey Tunnel, andwhether OGVs would be topped up with coal at another location prior todeparting for Asia.
• Participants asked whether the facility would have shore powercapability or whether FSD would plan to install shore power in the future.
• Participants were concerned about impacts of construction andoperations, including increased noise from queuing of rail cars,stockpiling of coal on the site, and decreases in property values.
• Participants asked about the wastewater system at the facility, includingwhether storm water would be released into the Fraser River, if therewas on-site storage for wastewater, and whether Metro Vancouver hadthe capacity to deal with the waste water discharge from the facility.
• Participants asked if the Air Quality Assessment accounted for multipleshipping scenarios, including a scenario where FSD moved coal by bargeand OGV. They were also interested in the contents of the Air QualityManagement Plan and if a draft would be made available for review andcomment.
Consultation Summary Report (Round 2 Public Consultation) September 2015 Fraser Surrey Docks LP Application to Amend Permit No. 2012 – 072 12
Meeting Key Themes
July 30, 2015, 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. SFU Surrey Surrey, B.C.
• Participants stated that Port Metro Vancouver should be running thepublic consultation rather than FSD, to ensure a third-party, arms-length oversight for the consultation process.
• A participant noted that they had witnessed an increase in noise overthe past few years and were concerned with further increases as aresult of the project. They noted a concern regarding a decrease intheir property value as a result of increased industrial activity.
• Participants sought clarification about the transport of coal from themine site to the terminal by rail, expressing concerns about impacts ofcoal dust on communities such as White Rock. Participants expressedconcern that, even with spraying, and a covered direct transfer process,coal dust would be created at some point during transport.
• Participants noted that while they did not agree with the movement ofcoal through Fraser Surrey Docks, that the proposed amendment andshipment of coal in closed OGVs would be better than the existing planto ship coal by uncovered barges.
• Participants questioned whether Canada should be shipping coal andFSD’s role in its export. A participant noted that while they understoodthat FSD had a business to run, that it should look at whether coalshould be used elsewhere in the world.
• Participants asked who was responsible in case of a fuel spill in theFraser River, and where the closest Coast Guard station was located.
• Participants asked whether FSD had studied the cumulativeenvironmental and traffic effects of existing and proposed industrialactivity in Metro Vancouver.
Consultation Summary ReportAppendix A
Discussion Guide and Feedback Form
FRASER SURREY DOCKS LP | ROUND 2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM | JULY 2015
Round 2 Public ConsultationApplication to Amend Permit No. 2012 – 072 Direct Transfer Coal Facility
July 17 – August 21, 2015
Discussion Guide and Feedback Form
FRASER SURREY DOCKS LP | ROUND 2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM | JULY 20151
Application to Amend Permit No. 2012 – 072 Direct Transfer Coal Facility On August 21, 2014, Fraser Surrey Docks LP (FSD) was granted a permit by Port Metro Vancouver that gives it approval to build and operate a Direct Transfer Coal Facility within its existing lease area.
FSD has submitted an application to Port Metro Vancouver to amend its existing permit. This application has been made following an initial public comment period (May 4 – May 19, 2015) that was undertaken by FSD regarding the scope of studies that have been completed as part of the amendment application.
The proposed amendment to the project permit would allow FSD to load coal directly from the facility to ocean-going vessels (OGVs). Using OGVs would eliminate or reduce the number of barges required to transport coal. The proposed amendment to the existing permit would have no impact on the volume of coal permitted to be shipped through FSD (4 million metric tonnes per year).
Discussion Guide and Feedback Form
This Discussion Guide and Feedback Form are available online at www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment.
This Discussion Guide outlines aspects of the existing permit that FSD has applied to amend, and seeks feedback on the proposed changes to the design and on the results of the studies associated with the amendment to Permit No. 2012 – 072.
How Can I Provide Feedback? • Submit your Feedback Form:
• Online
• By email
• By mail
• Provide a written submission
• Register to attend a small group meeting
• RSVP by telephone or email
Contact Information• Web: www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment
• Email: [email protected]
• Telephone: 604 - 891-1695
• Mail: PO Box 2233 Vancouver Main, Vancouver, BC V6B 3W2
Reporting
• Community and stakeholder feedback will be summarized and posted online at www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment.
FRASER SURREY DOCKS LP | ROUND 2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM | JULY 2015 2
Round 2 Public Consultation: Application to Amend Permit No. 2012 – 072 July 17 – August 21, 2015
Round 2 Public Consultation outlines aspects of the existing permit that FSD has applied to amend, and seeks comments regarding the proposed changes to the design and on the results of the studies associated with the amendment to the existing permit.
Round 2 Public Consultation includes a five-week consultation period with a Discussion Guide and Feedback Form, the opportunity to provide written submissions, and small group meetings.
Small Group Meetings
Meetings will be held with stakeholders to gather feedback on the proposed changes and the results of studies associated with the amendment.
Port Metro Vancouver is reviewing FSD’s application to amend its existing permit, along with feedback from the Round 2 Public Consultation period, and further technical information, as part of its consideration to amend FSD’s existing permit.
FSD Application to Port Metro Vancouver for Project Permit
2 Rounds of Consultation
Project Permit No. 2012 – 072 Granted by Port Metro Vancouver August 21, 2014
Round 1 Public Comment Period (Consideration of Amendment) May 4 – 19, 2015
Round 2 Public Consultation (Amendment Application)July 17 – August 21, 2015
FSD Amendment Application Submitted to Port Metro VancouverJune 19, 2015
Port Metro Vancouver Internal Review and Consideration of Public Consultation Feedback
Port Metro Vancouver Decision on FSD Amendment Application
Project Timeline
Date Time Location
Wednesday, July 29 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. Sheraton Guildford Hotel 15269 104 Ave, Surrey, B.C.
Thursday, July 30 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Simon Fraser University, Surrey Campus 250 -13450 102 Ave, Surrey, B.C.
FRASER SURREY DOCKS LP | ROUND 2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM | JULY 20153
Round 1 Public Comment Period (Complete): Consideration to Amend Permit No. 2012 – 072 May 4 – May 19, 2015
FSD held a public comment period (May 4 – 19, 2015) regarding its consideration to apply for an amendment. The public comment period provided an opportunity for the public and stakeholders to review the proposed changes to the existing permit and to comment on the proposed scope of the studies associated with the amendment.
These studies included the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Air Quality Assessment (AQA), Marine Risk Assessment, Environmental Management Plan (EMP), Water Management Plan, Fire Life Safety Plan, and Spill Response Plan.
The input received during the public comment period was summarized in a Consultation Summary Report and was considered by FSD, along with information provided by subject-matter experts, as part of the application for an amendment. A Consideration Memo that demonstrates how FSD considered the input is available, along with the Consultation Summary Report, at www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment.
Port Metro Vancouver Permit Process – Direct Transfer Coal Facility
Port Metro Vancouver is the permitting authority for the Direct Transfer Coal Facility, and on August 21, 2014, Port Metro Vancouver issued a project permit to Fraser Surrey Docks LP for the development of the facility to handle up to 4 million metric tonnes of coal per year. The permitting process for the original project permit considered environmental and technical information, as well as First Nations, municipal, agency and community input. In completing its federal environmental review, and per Section 67 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, Port Metro Vancouver considered the information and the proposed mitigation measures provided by FSD, along with other relevant information.
In the original permit application, Port Metro Vancouver concluded that, with the implementation of proposed mitigation measures and subject to the conditions of the permit, the project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.
38 MMT
4 MMT
Volume currently shipped through Port Metro Vancouver
Source: Port Metro Vancouver (2014) “Statistics Overview”.* Million Metric Tonnes
Volume to be shipped through Fraser Surrey Docks
38 MMT* of coal are currently transported through terminals in Port Metro Vancouver’s jurisdiction annually. Fraser Surrey Docks has been permitted to handle MMT, following a thorough review process.
4
Moving Coal Through Port Metro Vancouver
FRASER SURREY DOCKS LP | ROUND 2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM | JULY 2015 4
125 railcars per train(up to a maximum of 135 cars)4 Trains
Overview of the Proposed AmendmentApplication to Amend Permit No. 2012 – 072 Direct Transfer Coal Facility
The following outlines the changes to the project that would be made if the amendment is granted:
• The current size and height of the marine vessel loader would be increased (up to a maximum height of 36.2 metres), allowing for direct loading to OGVs.
• The use of OGVs would replace most or all barges. If approved, FSD expects to replace all 640 barges with 80 Panamax class OGVs, but would retain barging as a potential secondary option.
• It is anticipated that the use of OGVs would further mitigate the potential for dust, as coal would be transported in a closed hatch on OGVs.
• The conveyance system, rail receiving building, receiving pit and rail tracks would be shifted on-site to accommodate the larger marine vessel loader.
• The footprint of the facility area would decrease by approximately 10–15%, which would reduce the amount of rainwater runoff collected.
1Ocean-Going Vessel 8 Barges
or=
The following are potential shipping scenarios based on 4 million metric tonnes per year:
Potential Shipping Scenarios Loaded Trains / Year Loaded OGVs / Year* Loaded Barges / Year*
Current permit approval 320 0 640
25% shift to OGVs (with amendment) 320 20 480
50% shift to OGVs (with amendment) 320 40 320
75% shift to OGVs (with amendment) 320 60 160
100% shift to OGVs (with amendment) 320 80 0
*Numbers represent return-trip vessel movements.
FRASER SURREY DOCKS LP | ROUND 2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM | JULY 20155
Modifications to Original Project Design Primary changes associated with the proposed amendment would be as follows:
Project Features Approved Permit Proposed Amendment
Volume of coal shipped
4 million metric tonnes / year No change
Mode of shipping
640 barge return trips / year (1,280 barge movements)
Use of 80 Panamax class ocean-going vessels (OGVs) to replace 640 barges
Dust mitigation Dust mitigation measures meet regulatory standards
Additional dust mitigation through use of closed hatches on OGVs and spraying of empty outbound railcars
Jobs Estimated 20–25 full-time jobs
An increase of up to 20 additional full-time jobs (up to a total of 40–45 full-time jobs), due to extra shifts required to load OGVs (based on 100% shift to OGVs)
Marine vessel loader
14.3 metre (m) outreach (length of boom) from the edge of the berth and a maximum height of 15.0 m
27.4 m outreach from the edge of the berth and a maximum height of 36.2 m
Wastewater settling basins
A two-stage primary and a secondary settling basin with an approximate capacity of 300 m3
Settling basins shifted 37 m west and rotated 90 degrees counter-clockwise
Capacity of settling basins stays the same
Also included is a 560,000-litre tank for contingency storage purposes for storm events
Basins would reside under the out feed conveyor for more effective use of space and water management practices
Rail receiving building and receiving pit
A soft-sided fabric building spanning 17 m in length; bottom discharge pit with 125-tonne surge bin
A metal sided building; shifted 12 m east and 16 m south
Rail receiving building and pit dimensions stay the same
Overall water catchment area (facility footprint)
5,340 m2 Decreased to 3,680 m2
Estimated to reduce water runoff by 10 –15%
Rail tracks Relocation of the front gate Removal of Shed 4
Adjustments to the rail loop
No relocation of the front gate
1
2
3
FRASER SURREY DOCKS LP | ROUND 2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM | JULY 2015 6
Proposed Design Project Rendering
Fraser Surrey Docks Existing Facility
1
1
2
2
3
3
Marine vessel loader
Location of proposed facility
Wastewater settling basins
Rail receiving building
FRASER SURREY DOCKS LP | ROUND 2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM | JULY 20157
2 Wastewater settling basins
1
2
1 Marine vessel loader
4. Coal is directly loaded into hatch of ocean-going vessel
1. Train arrives in yard
2. Coal is directly transferred into rail receiving building and covered receiving pit*
*There will be no stockpiles on-site.
3. Coal is directly transferred onto covered conveyor
Direct Transfer ProcessUp to 2 trains can be accommodated on-site at one time, and coal would remain undisturbed in railcars until it is ready to be transferred.
Project Rendering (continued)
FRASER SURREY DOCKS LP | ROUND 2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM | JULY 2015 8
Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Amendment Mitigation measures have been identified and updated in consideration of the amendment, including the following areas:
• Dust• Noise
• Marine Emergency Response• Spills
Most mitigation measures proposed in the original application would remain applicable under the proposed amendment. The following is a summary of updated mitigation measures associated with the proposed amendment for the areas identified above:
a) Dust mitigation – updated mitigation measures include:• Construction:
• Visual site inspections when conditions are dry• Minimizing exposure time of unpaved surfaces• Covering stockpiled soils• Modification or reduction of activities that contribute to track-out of soil
• Rail transit:• Spraying of empty outbound railcars with veneer suppressantNote: The respray facility is now in operation in Pasco, Washington, for applying additional suppressant priorto arrival at FSD
• Receiving and conveyance:• Use of wet dust suppressant for unloading and material transfer points
• Loading:• Better control of drop height, due to vessel ballast• The containment of coal on covered conveyors, from the receiving pit and into the
hatches of OGVs• A reduced need for water suppression system during loading (not required for loading to
OGVs as opposed to barges)• OGV transit:
• Containment of coal inside the hold of OGVs, which would be covered with a hatch
b) Noise mitigation – updated mitigation measures include:• Most construction activities will take place between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. to minimize potential
impacts to neighbouring communities. This timing is consistent with City of Surrey and Corporationof Delta noise bylaws
• FSD will ensure appropriate communication is provided to residents for any planned construction workoutside of noise bylaws
c) Marine emergency response – updated mitigation measures include:• Fewer overall vessel movements associated with the use of OGVs, which would result in a reduced
probability of project-related marine incidents• Use of Canadian pilots for FSD-bound vessels
d) Spill mitigation – updated mitigation measures include:• An updated Spill Response Plan with respect to changes to the project, bringing all aspects to relevance
for the proposed amendment, including the following protocols:• Immediate notification of necessary FSD personnel and external parties• First response and containment of coal and liquid spills• Spill cleanup and reporting
• Reporting the spill to proper authorities per the process established in the Spill Response Plan
FRASER SURREY DOCKS LP | ROUND 2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM | JULY 20159
A detailed Mitigations Summary Table can be found in FSD’s application package at www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment.
Based on these mitigation measures and the findings of the studies undertaken, FSD has concluded that the proposed amendment to the project permit may result in:
• Improved measures to control coal dust during loading and vessel transit, due to the closed hatch on vesselsversus open barges.
• A reduction in the volume of water needed for dust suppression, and requiring treatment and discharge.
• A reduction in marine vessel movements on the Fraser River. The amendment would result in 80 annual OGVround trips, compared to 640 annual tug-and-barge round trips for the same total volume (4 MMT) to beshipped annually.
• More effective control and management of marine vessel movements during fisheries openings, due to thereduced number of vessel movements along the river.
• A reduction in the number of idling tugs at FSD or along the Fraser River, compared to the shipping scenariofor the existing permit.
In addition, an Air Quality Management Plan would be developed prior to operation, and would include air monitoring to validate the results of the Addendums to the Air Quality Assessment and the Human Health Risk Assessment.
FRASER SURREY DOCKS LP | ROUND 2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM | JULY 2015 10
Updated Studies Fraser Surrey Docks LP (FSD) has worked with subject-matter experts to review the studies that were undertaken for the existing permit.
The intention of this review was to identify and analyze any potential impacts associated with the proposed amendment. Addendums or updates to the following studies have been completed based on changes that would result from the proposed amendment.
1. Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) – SNC-Lavalin Inc. (Environment & Water)
• Addendum Report to the Human Health Risk Assessment
2. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) – SNC-Lavalin Inc. (Environment & Water)
• Addendum to the Environmental Impact Assessment
3. Air Quality Assessment (AQA) – Levelton Consultants Ltd.
• Air Quality Assessment Addendum
4. Marine Risk Assessment – DNV (Det Norske Veritas)
• Risk Assessment Update
5. Environmental Management Plan (EMP) – Soleil Environmental Consultants Ltd.
• Summary of Changes to Environmental Management Plan
6. Water Management Plan – Omni Engineering Inc.
• Water Management Plan Addendum
7. Fire Life Safety Plan – Hatch Mott MacDonald
• Direct Transfer Coal Facility Fire Life Safety Plan
8. Spill Response Plan – Fraser Surrey Docks LP
• Direct Transfer Coal Facility Spill Response Plan
The updated studies, as listed above, are being reviewed by Port Metro Vancouver as part of FSD’s application to amend the existing permit.
FRASER SURREY DOCKS LP | ROUND 2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM | JULY 201511
1. Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) – SNC-Lavalin Inc. (Environment & Water)
OverviewA Human Health Risk Assessment (2014) was undertaken for the original project design.
In consideration of the proposed amendment, SNC-Lavalin Inc. (SNC-Lavalin) completed a review of the HHRA to determine the potential impacts of the proposed amendment, and provided an Addendum Report to the Human Health Risk Assessment (2015).
The results noted in the Addendum Report to the Human Health Risk Assessment (2015) are, in part, based on the results of the Air Quality Assessment (AQA) Addendum (2015) conducted by Levelton Consultants Ltd. for the proposed amendment.
Scope of AssessmentSNC-Lavalin’s scope of work included:
• A review of the changes to the project associated with the proposed amendment;
• A review of the extent to which the HHRA accurately estimates human health risks, taking into account the changes to the project associated with the proposed amendment;
• A description and discussion of the changes to the project associated with the proposed amendment that are material to the HHRA; and,
• A review and analysis of the extent to which mitigation measures should be updated, where applicable.
Key FindingsSNC-Lavalin concluded that the proposed amendment does not change the conclusions as presented in the 2014 HHRA. A conservative approach was used and the results indicate that the proposed amendment is safe for people in the area (residents, commercial workers, urban park users, agricultural receptors), including people living and working in the area surrounding the facility.
This updated study is applicable for the proposed change from barges to OGVs.
Mitigation MeasuresAn Air Quality Management Plan would be developed prior to operation, and would include air monitoring to validate the results of the Addendums to the AQA and the HHRA.
Assessment Highlights
The proposed amendment does not change the conclusions as presented in the 2014 HHRA.
Based the conservative approach used, the results indicate that the project, with the proposed amendment, is safe for people in the area.
FRASER SURREY DOCKS LP | ROUND 2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM | JULY 2015 12
2. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) – SNC-Lavalin Inc. (Environment & Water)
Overview An Environmental Impact Assessment (2013) was undertaken for the original project design.
In consideration of the proposed amendment, SNC-Lavalin undertook a review of the EIA to update the environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures associated with loading coal directly to ocean-going vessels (OGVs), as opposed to barges, and provided an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Assessment (2015). The results of SNC-Lavalin’s review have been noted and are summarized below.
Scope of AssessmentSNC-Lavalin’s scope of work included:
• Review of changes to the project associated with theproposed amendment;
• Review of environmental regulations that may applyto the amendment and/or vessel size;
• Discussion on the extent to which the EIA adequatelydescribes the potential environmental impacts, takinginto account the proposed project changes; and
• Discussion of the extent to which the potentialimpacts should be reconsidered or reassessed,where applicable.
Key FindingsSNC-Lavalin concluded that the environmental effects and proposed mitigation measures identified within the EIA are adequate to address the project changes and, therefore, the proposed amendment results in no change to the overall conclusion of the EIA (2013). There is no change to the volume of coal permitted to be shipped through FSD (4 million metric tonnes per year) and, therefore, the change from barges to OGVs will reduce the number of vessel movements on the Fraser River, reducing the potential for environmental risks. Furthermore, the closed hatch containment on OGVs is expected to reduce dust during transit and loading at the facility.
SNC-Lavalin concluded that the project, with the amendment, is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental, socio-economic or health effects, taking into account the implementation of appropriate mitigation management measures, as identified in the EIA (2013) and in the EIA Addendum (2015).
This updated study is applicable for the proposed change from barges to OGVs.
Mitigation MeasuresSNC-Lavalin determined that the mitigation measures proposed in the original EIA are applicable and relevant to the proposed project changes.
Assessment Highlights
The proposed amendment would result in no change to the overall conclusion of the EIA (2013) and, overall, the project with the amendment is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental, socio-economic or health effects, taking into account the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.
The proposed shift from barges to OGVs is expected to reduce dust during transit and loading at the facility, as well as the number of vessel movements on the Fraser River, which lowers the potential for environmental risks.
The environmental effects and proposed mitigation measures identified within the EIA are adequate to address the project changes.
FRASER SURREY DOCKS LP | ROUND 2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM | JULY 201513
Overview An Air Quality Assessment (2014) was undertaken by Levelton Consultants Ltd. (Levelton) for the original project design.
In consideration of the proposed amendment, Levelton conducted a review of the AQA (2014) to evaluate the incremental impacts from the proposed project changes.
The cumulative maximum predicted air quality impacts were determined using a combination of a conservative emission scenario (e.g., in terms of simultaneously operating emission sources at maximum throughput), the meteorology that leads to the highest predicted result, and historical ambient air contaminant concentrations as background.
Scope of AssessmentLevelton’s scope of work included: • A review of potential air quality impacts, considering the
changes to the project associated with the proposedamendment, including the proposed coal operations atFSD (i.e., emissions from marine vessels, and fugitive dustgenerated from material transfer points, as well as duringcoal unloading and loading), and in-transit emissionsources (including emissions from marine vessels on theFraser River);
• A description and discussion of the refinements to theproject associated with the proposed amendment thatare material to the AQA; and,
• A review and analysis of the extent to which thepotential impacts should be updated, including changesto the assessment methodology, where applicable.
Key FindingsLevelton has drawn the following conclusions, which are consistent with the conclusions drawn in the original AQA:
• Predicted air quality impacts, including ambientbackground at sensitive receptors and within residentialneighbourhoods in the vicinity of FSD, are generally lowand remain below all ambient air quality objectives;
• The predicted air contaminant concentrations quicklydiminish as emissions disperse further away from FSD’sfacility;
• All maximum predicted concentrations are on FSD’sfacility fenceline and are not near residential orpopulated areas;
• For all air contaminants and averaging periods, therewere no predicted exceedances of the ambient airquality objectives with ambient background added,with the exception of predicted annual nitrogen dioxide(NO
2 ) located immediately to the west and on the FSD
facility fence line, which is consistent with the results ofthe original AQA;
• Predicted annual NO2 exceedances with ambient
background added are located immediately to the westof the modelled facility fenceline and on the fencelineover the Fraser River. This is an area where the tugs andvessels operate, and public access is generally limited orcontrolled due to terminal marine operations;
• The magnitude of the maximum predicted annual NO2
exceedance is reduced slightly from the 2014 AQA; and,
• Maximum predicted impacts from fugitive coal dusthave decreased from the original AQA.
This updated study is applicable for the proposed change from barges to OGVs.
Mitigation MeasuresLevelton noted that the planned project and operational mitigation measures will assist in the management and mitigation of combustion and fugitive dust emissions from the project and from agricultural goods operations.
Assessment Highlights
Predicted air quality impacts, including ambient background at sensitive receptors and within residential neighbourhoods in the vicinity of FSD, are generally low and remain below all ambient air quality objectives.
All maximum predicted concentrations are on FSD’s facility fenceline and are not near residential or populated areas.
For all air contaminants and averaging periods, there were no predicted exceedances of the ambient air quality objectives with ambient background added, with the exception of predicted annual nitrogen dioxide (NO
2 ) located immediately to the west and on the FSD
fenceline over the Fraser River, which is consistent with the results of the 2014 AQA.
3. Air Quality Assessment (AQA) – Levelton Consultants Ltd.
FRASER SURREY DOCKS LP | ROUND 2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM | JULY 2015 14
4. Marine Risk Assessment – DNV (Det Norske Veritas)
Overview A Risk Assessment Study (2012) was undertaken for the original project design prior to the approval of the existing permit by Port Metro Vancouver on August 21, 2014.
In consideration of the proposed amendment, DNV (Det Norske Veritas) undertook a review of the Risk Assessment Study (2012) to review the marine vessel movement and navigation risks associated with the transit of 80 Panamax class vessels, as opposed to 640 barges. The results are outlined in a Risk Assessment Update (2015) and are summarized below.
Scope of AssessmentDNV’s scope of work included:
• An update to the potential vessel accident frequency,consequence and risk from the previous projectedactivity of 640 barge movements to 80 OGVmovements, and a range of scenarios in-between;
• A linear adjustment of the accident frequency, based onthe updated number of vessel movements; and,
• An update to the marine risk assessment based on theupdated frequency of OGVs compared to barges.
Key FindingsIn review of the Risk Assessment Study (2012), DNV noted that the study area remains relevant, due to the fact that the only parameter that has changed is the number of study vessels transiting the Fraser River.
In the Risk Assessment Update (2015), DNV concluded that all the risks assessed (including collision, structural failure/foundering, fire/explosion, powered grounding, drift grounding, impact at FSD, striking at FSD) in the original Risk Assessment Study (2012) are acceptable, although low-cost risk reduction measures should still be considered for implementation.
DNV found that, while the original Risk Assessment Study (2012) remains relevant, the probability of marine incidents is reduced with the proposed amendment due to the reduced number of vessel movements on the Fraser River. The Risk Assessment Update (2015) concluded that the proposed coal export operations are acceptable according to the risk acceptance criteria in the applied risk matrix.
This updated study is applicable for the proposed change from barges to OGVs.
Mitigation MeasuresDNV determined possible risk reduction measures, including:
• All operational vessels will be inspected at regularintervals to ensure they meet Transport Canadaregulations;
• Operations will not be conducted in high windconditions, in order to lessen the chances of an accident;
• All nighttime operations will follow mandatory lightingand manning requirements;
• Vessels will be required to conduct pre-arrival testsand inspections on critical systems before entering oroperating in more restrictive waters in the study area;
• Canadian pilotage (Pacific Pilotage Authority) will berequired for FSD-bound vessels; and,
• A strong safety culture with management systemsupport will be maintained.
Assessment Highlights
While the original Risk Assessment Study (2012) remains relevant, the probability of marine incidents is reduced with the proposed amendment due to the reduced number of vessel movements on the Fraser River.
The proposed coal export operations are acceptable according to the risk acceptance criteria used in the Risk Assessment Update.
All the risks assessed in the original Risk Assessment Study (2012) are considered acceptable, although low-cost risk reduction measures should still be considered for implementation.
FRASER SURREY DOCKS LP | ROUND 2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM | JULY 201515
5. Environmental Management Plan (EMP) – Soleil Environmental Consultants Ltd.
Overview An Environmental Management Plan (2013) was undertaken for the original project design prior to the approval of the existing permit by Port Metro Vancouver on August 21, 2014.
In consideration of the proposed amendment, Soleil Environmental Consultants Ltd. (Soleil) undertook a review of the current EMP, including the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). The Summary of Changes to Environmental Management Plan (2015) was provided regarding changes resulting from the proposed amendment during project construction.
Scope of AssessmentSoleil’s scope of work included a review of the changes to the project associated with the proposed amendment, including excavation, sediment and erosion control, dewatering practices and the removal of Shed 4 on site.
Key FindingsIn their review of the EMP, Soleil found that the proposed amendment has changed the project footprint, resulting in a reduced impact on local drainages. Soleil determined that the proposed amendment will not change the proposed construction techniques or the mitigation measures associated with construction activities.
Soleil concluded that the construction methods and mitigation measures have not changed substantially, and that these changes are not specifically related to the proposed amendment.
This updated plan is applicable for the proposed change from barges to OGVs.
Mitigation MeasuresSoleil determined that the preliminary CEMP prepared for the project, and included as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (SNC-Lavalin, 2013), still provides a suitable framework for mitigating potential impacts from construction activities.
Assessment Highlights
The construction methods and mitigation measures have not changed substantially, and the preliminary Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) prepared for the project still provides a suitable framework for mitigating impacts from construction activities.
The project, with the amendment, will not change the proposed construction techniques or the mitigation measures associated with construction activities.
The project, with the amendment, would change the project footprint, resulting in a reduced impact on local drainages.
FRASER SURREY DOCKS LP | ROUND 2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM | JULY 2015 16
6. Water Management Plan – Omni Engineering Inc.
Overview A Water Management Plan (2014) was undertaken for the original project design prior to the approval of the existing permit by Port Metro Vancouver on August 21, 2014.
In consideration of the proposed amendment, Omni Engineering Inc. (Omni) undertook a review of the Water Management Plan to confirm the relevance of the water management systems in relation to the proposed project changes.
Scope of AssessmentOmni’s scope of work included a review of changes associated with the proposed amendment, including:
• Updated wastewater containment area andassociated water volumes;
• Relocation and resizing of the wastewater settlingcapacities accordingly;
• Minor modification to the out feed conveyor spilltrays; and,
• Vessel loading dust mitigation technologystrategies.
Key FindingsOmni concluded that, since hydraulic calculations are based upon the original larger area of 5,340 m2, these calculations now serve as a conservative measure and will not be revised. Omni concluded that the original Water Management Plan remains applicable to the proposed project changes.
In review of the Water Management Plan, Omni made the following changes:
• The containment area configuration has beenchanged, which has resulted in a slight decrease inthe contained area from 5,340 m2 to 3,680 m2; and,
• Section 2.10, Volumes of Discharge Water, has beenupdated to reflect the change in process area.
This updated plan is applicable for the proposed change from barges to OGVs.
Mitigation MeasuresOmni did not recommend any mitigation measures further to those provided in the original Water Management Plan (2014).
Assessment Highlights
The containment area configuration has been changed, which has resulted in a slight decrease in the contained area from 5,340 m2 to 3,680 m2.
As hydraulic calculations are based upon the original area of 5,340 m2, these calculations now serve as a conservative measure and, therefore, do not need to be revised.
FRASER SURREY DOCKS LP | ROUND 2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM | JULY 201517
7. Fire Life Safety Plan – Hatch Mott MacDonald
Overview A Fire Safety Plan (2012) was undertaken on the original project design prior to the approval of the existing permit by Port Metro Vancouver on August 21, 2014.
In consideration of the proposed amendment, Hatch Mott MacDonald (HMM) undertook a review of the Fire Safety Plan (2012) to confirm the relevance of the fire and safety management in relation to the change from barges to ocean-going vessels. Further to this, HMM conducted a full operational review to update the existing plan as a whole, bringing all aspects of the plan to relevance, and developed a Fire Life Safety Plan (2015). The plan specifies the fire safety provisions that will be implemented for the Direct Transfer Coal Facility.
Scope of AssessmentHMM’s scope of work included:
• A complete revision of the Fire Safety Plan (2012)for the proposed coal operations at FSD, takinginto consideration the changes associated with theproposed amendment, including:
• Planned revisions to the proposed operation(barge loader to marine vessel loader);
• Revised operations of loading vessels;
• Summary of the requirements and regulatoryframeworks for a coal handling facility;
• Description of the hazards and consequent risks;and,
• Detailing the planned design mitigation andoperational controls contained within the design.
Key FindingsThe vessel and barge loading system has been designed to comply with the applicable standards and guidance. Additionally, the coal facility will comply with federal Occupational Health and Safety regulations. These design features include: dust control, ignition control, fire detection and alarm, and firefighting systems. Other safety features of the plan include: operating procedures, maintenance management process, and planned inspections.
This plan also includes an Emergency Response Plan, which is intended to:
• Minimize the human health, safety, environmentaland property effects of an emergency;
• Coordinate the FSD Emergency Response Teamefforts; and,
• Facilitate and expedite the restoration of normaloperating conditions following an emergency.
This updated plan is applicable for the proposed change from barges to OGVs.
Mitigation MeasuresHMM identified the following additional measures to mitigate risks:
• The transfer design, skirting design, closed tail box,and deluge system will be designed to minimizethe risk of spillage; and,
• All pulleys will be fitted with bearing temperaturemonitors.
Safeguards (signage, controlled access, and training) were reviewed as sufficient and reasonable to mitigate the presented risk.
Assessment Highlights
Hatch Mott MacDonald undertook a complete revision of the Fire Safety Plan (2012) for the proposed coal operations at FSD, taking into consideration the changes to the project associated with the proposed amendment, and developed a Fire Life Safety Plan (2015).
The vessel and barge loading system has been designed to comply with the applicable standards and guidance.
The coal facility will comply with federal Occupational Health and Safety regulations.
FRASER SURREY DOCKS LP | ROUND 2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM | JULY 2015 18
8. Spill Response Plan – Fraser Surrey Docks LP
Overview A Spill Response Plan (2013) for FSD’s terminal and FSD’s berth corridor was undertaken on the original project design prior to the approval of the existing permit by Port Metro Vancouver on August 21, 2014.
In consideration of the proposed amendment, FSD undertook an internal review of its existing Spill Response Plan to confirm the relevance of the plan in relation to the change from loading barges to loading ocean-going vessels.
Scope of AssessmentFSD’s scope of work included an internal review of the changes to the project associated with the proposed amendment and an update to the Spill Response Plan, bringing all aspects of the plan to relevance for the proposed amendment.
Key FindingsIn reviewing the Spill Response Plan (2013) for the facility and berth corridor, Fraser Surrey Docks has updated the plan to include response procedures for coal and liquid spills to land and water, and the response of personnel of marine vessels berthed at FSD to assist in the event of a spill to water, as well as protocols for cleanup and reporting of spills.
The updated Spill Response Plan (2015) outlines the procedures set in place to respond to a coal or liquid spill event at the Direct Transfer Coal Facility and the berths at FSD.
The plan has been put in place to:
• Minimize and/or eliminate the damage and danger that could affect employees, property and the environment in the event of a spill; and,
• Ensure an effective and coordinated response to a spill at FSD.
This updated plan is applicable for the proposed change from barges to OGVs.
Mitigation MeasuresFSD has put in place measures to mitigate spills, including, but not limited to:
• Immediate notification of necessary FSD personnel and external parties.
• First response and spill containment of coal and liquid spills, including:
• Prevention of the spill from entering sewer drains or contacting exposed soil;
• Elimination of all ignition sources if flammable material is involved;
• Stopping the spread of the spill with absorbents, sandbags, rubber drain covers, etc.;
• Removal of injured personnel from the emergency area; and,
• Stopping the source of the liquid release and the spread of the spill to the water by closing valves, standing drums upright, etc.
• Spill cleanup and reporting, including:
• Use of the Material Safety Data Sheet to determine appropriate cleanup procedures for the material;
• Storage of all contaminated material, such as chips, sand, sludge, etc. in marked drums pending disposal in accordance with environmental legislation; and,
• Reporting the spill to proper authorities per the process established in the Spill Response Plan.
Assessment Highlights
This updated plan is applicable for the proposed change from barges to ocean-going vessels.
The updated plan includes response procedures for coal and liquid spills to land and water, and protocols for the response of marine vessel personnel to assist in the event of a spill to water while berthed at FSD, as well as for cleanup and reporting of spills.
FRASER SURREY DOCKS LP | ROUND 2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM | JULY 201519
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. Why is Fraser Surrey Docks LP (FSD) building a Direct Transfer Coal Facility?
• FSD is a major multi-purpose marine terminal thatfacilitates shipping of a variety of goods, including generalcargo, steel, forest products and agricultural products.
• FSD has been permitted to handle 4 million metric tonnes(MMT) of coal per year. Currently, 38 million metric tonnesof coal are transported through Port Metro Vancouverannually. FSD received its permit following a thoroughreview process (completed August 2014).
2. Why is FSD applying to amend its existing permit tobuild a Direct Transfer Coal Facility?
• The proposed amendment would allow FSD to load coaldirectly from the facility to ocean-going vessels (OGVs),reducing the need for barges. OGVs have more capacitythan barges. One loaded OGV can carry four trainloads andthe same amount as eight loaded barges.
• The amendment to the existing permit would have noimpact on the volume of coal permitted to shippedthrough FSD (4 million metric tonnes per year).
• Due to changes in commercial and market conditions, FSDanticipates shipping most or all of the permitted volumeby OGVs. The use of OGVs would reduce the number ofmarine vessel movements.
3. Why did FSD decide to proceed with formal submissionof a permit amendment application to Port MetroVancouver?
• The proposed amendment is expected to improve onFSD’s existing permit. FSD, along with subject-matterexperts, reviewed the results of the updated studies andfound that there were no adverse effects related to theamendment, and therefore is confident in proceeding tothe next stage.
• FSD will continue to consider and respond to publicfeedback on the proposed amendment. The Round 2Public Consultation period has been increased from threeweeks to four weeks, in response to requests for more timefor public comment and consideration.
4. What changes would the proposed amendmentinclude?
• The proposed amendment would increase the currentsize and height of the marine vessel loader (to a maximumheight of 36.2 metres), allowing for direct loading to OGVs.
• Use of OGVs would replace most or all barges. If approved,
FSD plans to replace all barges with Panamax class OGVs(80 OGVs vs 640 barges), but would retain barging as apotential secondary option.
• It is anticipated that the use of OGVs would further mitigatethe potential for fugitive dust, as coal would be transportedin a closed hatch.
• The conveyance system, receiving pit, and rail tracks wouldbe shifted on-site to accommodate the larger vessel loader,and Shed 4 would be removed.
• The footprint of the loading area would decrease, which isestimated to reduce water runoff.
5. Will this change the volume of coal that FSD is permitted to transport through the facility?
• The proposed amendment to the permit would not haveany impact on the amount of coal that FSD is permitted totransport through the facility. The existing permit is for4 MMT of coal per year.
6. How would the proposed amendment change vessel movements on the Fraser River?
• The proposed amendment would allow FSD to load coaldirectly from the facility to OGVs, reducing the use ofbarges and reducing the number of vessel movementsfrom the original project permit. An OGV can carry thevolume of four trainloads. In comparison, eight bargeswould be required to carry the same amount(1 OGV = 8 barges).
• FSD anticipates shipping coal mostly or entirely by OGVs,while retaining barging as a secondary option.
7. What type of vessels would be used with the proposed amendment?
• Any vessel accommodated at FSD would be in accordancewith the current size limitations, and would be within PMVNavigational Channel Guidelines, for the Fraser River.
• The proposed marine vessel loader would be able toaccommodate Panamax class vessels that would notexceed an 11.5-metre draft when loaded.
FRASER SURREY DOCKS LP | ROUND 2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM | JULY 2015 20
8. How many OGVs currently call at FSD per year?
• FSD has handled up to 400 vessels and 76 thousandrailcars per year. These numbers fluctuate based on marketconditions.
9. Why is it necessary for the height of the vessel loader to be increased?
• OGVs sit higher in the water than barges, and the loadermust be able to reach over the side of the vessel into thehatch. This height will allow the marine vessel loader theappropriate reach to load coal directly into the specificvessel hatch it is loading.
• The marine vessel loader would require a maximumheight of 36.2 metres to load coal directly into OGVs. Bycomparison, the gantry cranes used to move containerson-site at FSD are 55 metres high with the boom down,and are 82 metres high with the boom up.
10. What is being done to reduce coal dust from railcars?
• The coal will be sprayed with a binding agent at the minesite during loading into railcars. Once the railcars areloaded, a dust suppressant is applied to the coal in eachrailcar. In addition, the rail carrier has constructed a respraystation in Pasco, Washington, which will provide additionaldust mitigation for coal shipments en route to FSD.
• In addition, it is proposed that dust suppressants beapplied to empty railcars exiting the receiving buildingwithin the containment area and returning to the mine.
• Although FSD is not responsible for the movement ofproducts by rail, we are working closely with the mines andour rail partners to ensure that dust mitigation strategiesare consistently applied.
11. Will FSD be keeping stockpiles of coal on-site?
• There will be no stockpiles of coal on-site. The facility willcontinue to be a direct transfer from rail to ocean-goingvessel.
• Coal would remain undisturbed in railcars until it is ready tobe loaded to OGVs.
• FSD anticipates receiving an average of one train perday, so vessel loading would occur over four days. Thescheduling of railcar arrivals will be done in accordancewith vessel schedule to ensure that train staging at theterminal is minimized. FSD has been direct-transferring a
variety of products for over 50 years, and has experienced staff whose sole responsibility is to coordinate the arrival and departure times of railcars and vessels.
12. How does this proposed amendment affect the studies that were completed for the original permit application?
• The following studies (available at www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment) have been reviewed and updated asnecessary, in most cases with an addendum to theoriginal study:
• Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) –SNC-Lavalin Inc. (Environment & Water)
• Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) –SNC-Lavalin Inc. (Environment & Water)
• Air Quality Assessment (AQA) – LeveltonConsultants Ltd.
• Marine Risk Assessment – DNV (Det NorskeVeritas)
• Environmental Management Plan (EMP) – SoleilEnvironmental Consultants Ltd.
• Water Management Plan – Omni Engineering Inc.
• Fire Life Safety Plan – Hatch Mott MacDonald
• Spill Response Plan – Fraser Surrey Docks LP
13. What does this permit amendment application mean with respect to the recent wastewater permit application to Metro Vancouver?
• The waste discharge permit application submitted toMetro Vancouver is for a maximum volume dischargerate of 5 litres per second of treated wastewater, and thiswould not change as a result of the amendment. Overall,FSD’s treated wastewater would be approximately 9,000tonnes of the 172 million tonnes of regional wastewaterflowing through the Annacis Island facility every year,which includes a number of other industrial usersundergoing similar treatment.
• Wastewater from the proposed facility would first betreated on-site and discharged directly to the AnnacisIsland Treatment Facility via Metro Vancouver’s NorthSurrey Interceptor Sewer, which runs directly under the FSDfacility. As such, wastewater would be treated to meet orexceed Metro Vancouver’s rigorous standards protectingwater quality.
FRASER SURREY DOCKS LP | ROUND 2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM | JULY 201521
Reference Documents The following documents provided to Port Metro Vancouver as part of FSD’s application for an amendment are available at www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment:
• Application for an Amendment to Permit No.2012 – 072 Direct Transfer Coal Facility (2015)
• Addendum Report to the Human Health RiskAssessment (HHRA) (2015)
• Addendum to the Environmental ImpactAssessment (EIA) (2015)
• Air Quality Assessment (AQA) Addendum(2015)
• Risk Assessment Update (2015)
• Summary of changes to the EnvironmentalManagement Plan (2015)
• Water Management Plan Addendum (2015)
• Fire Life Safety Plan (2015)
• Spill Response Plan (2015)
Consultation materials from Round 1 Public Comment Period:
• Discussion Guide and Feedback Form
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Consultation Summary Report
• Consideration Memo
The documents listed above, as well as supporting documents for the existing project permit and the public comment period, are available at www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment.
FRASER SURREY DOCKS LP | ROUND 2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM | JULY 2015 22
Feed
back
For
m
Feedback FormWe want to hear from you.We would like your input regarding proposed changes to the project design and the results of studies associated with the application to amend Permit No. 2012 – 072.
Please complete the questions below or complete the online feedback form at www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment.
1. Use of ocean-going vesselsPlease provide any comments you may have regarding the proposed change, from 640 barges to80 ocean-going vessels, associated with the application to amend Permit No. 2012 – 072.
FRASER SURREY DOCKS LP | ROUND 2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM | JULY 201523
Feed
back
For
m
2. Updated studies completed for the application to amend Permit No. 2012 – 072Please provide any comments you may have regarding the results of the updated studies associated with theapplication to amend Permit No. 2012 – 072. An overview of the results can be found on pages 11–18 in thisDiscussion Guide and the associated documents can be found at www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment.
FRASER SURREY DOCKS LP | ROUND 2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM | JULY 2015 24
3. Please provide any additional comments you may have regarding the application to amendPermit No. 2012 – 072:
Feed
back
For
m
FRASER SURREY DOCKS LP | ROUND 2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION | DISCUSSION GUIDE AND FEEDBACK FORM | JULY 201525
The deadline to submit feedback is August 21, 2015
You can return completed feedback forms:
Online: www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment
By email: [email protected]
By mail: PO Box 2233 Vancouver Main, Vancouver, BC V6B 3W2
For general project information:
www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment
Phone: 604 - 891-1695
Please submit your feedback form by August 21, 2015.
Fraser Surrey Docks LP (FSD) will consider your input, along with information provided by subject-matter experts, as part of its application for an amendment to Permit No. 2012 – 072.
Please provide your contact information (optional):
Name:
Organization (if applicable):
Role (if applicable):
Address:
Postal Code:
Email:
Phone:
Any personal contact information you provide to Fraser Surrey Docks LP on this form is collected and protected in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If you have any questions regarding the consideration to amend Permit No. 2012 – 072 Direct Transfer Coal Facility or Fraser Surrey Docks LP and/or the information collection undertaken on this form, please contact Fraser Surrey Docks LP at [email protected].
Feed
back
For
m
Consultation Summary ReportAppendix B
Notification
www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment
Round 2 Public ConsultationApplication to Amend Permit No. 2012 – 072 Direct Transfer Coal FacilityJuly 17 – August 21, 2015
Fraser Surrey Docks LP (FSD) has applied to amend its existing permit from Port Metro Vancouver that gives it approval to build and operate a Direct Transfer Coal Facility within its existing lease area.
If the amendment is granted it would have no impact on the volume of coal permitted to be shipped through FSD. The proposed amendment would allow FSD to load coal directly from the facility to ocean-going vessels, eliminating or reducing the number of barges required.
For details on how to provide feedback on the proposed changes to the design and on the results of the studies associated with the proposed amendment, please visit www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment, and:
• Read the Discussion Guide and submit your Feedback Form:• Online• By email• By mail
• Provide a written submission• Register by phone or email to attend a small group meeting
(see details at www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment)
Fraser Surrey Docks LP (FSD) is the largest employer on the Fraser River waterfront, with more than 300 full-time employees. FSD has been a major employer and contributor to local communities for over 50 years, handling over 3 billion dollars’ worth of goods annually.
On the Fraser River waterfront since 1962
Round 2 Public Consultation, July 17 – August 21, 2015 Application to Amend Permit No. 2012 – 072 Direct Transfer Coal Facilitywww.fsd.bc.ca/amendmentOn the Fraser River waterfront since 1962
... - ··-.-�� FRASER - - . �-. lA� ' -.,;..,.;;, _}i '.,,�SURREY � � DOCKSLP
Pac1£1c R1m Stevedoring ,.... _ � _.. :- ,��--- �
Company• Services• ContactUs• Yilhat'sNew• Links• Environment ProJectUpdates Amendment
Home• .4mendment
Amendment
Round 2 Public Consultation ApplKa!ion to Amend Permit No. 2012 - 072 Direct Transfer Coal Facility
July 17 -August 21, 2015
Secrrch tin�� P
Fraser Surrey Docks LP (FSD) has applied to amend its existing permit from Port Metro Vancouver that gives it approval to build and operate a Direct Transfer Coal Facility\'Mhin its existing lease area. FSCYs decision to proceed v.ith the amendment application follovved a pub l ie comment period (May 4 to 19, 201S) and a technical review of the results of updated studies.
The proposed amendment would allO','V FSO to load coal directly from the facility to ocean-going vessels, Ymich would eliminate or reduce the numb er of barges required. Jf the amendment is granted it woukl have no impact on th-� volume of coal permitted to be shipped througll Fraser Surrey Docks.
Please read the dSScusstOn guide to review the changes to the existing permit for which FSO has applied and prO'tnde feedback on the proposed changes to the project design, as well as on the results of the studies associated with the proposed amendment.
lorscusstOn Guide and Feedback Form (PDF)
How Can J Provide Feedback?
On int Byema1I
By mail
• PrCMde a written sub mission
jontine Feedback Form
• Register by telephone or email to inend i s�II group meeting (see detMls below)
Correspondence and Inquiries
Phone· 604-891-1695
Email: [email protected]
\Yeb: fsd.bc.ca/amendment
Mail: PO Box 2233 Vancower Main, Vancouver. BC V6B 3W2
Small Group Meeting Schedule:
!Date !rome r--oca:ion
ltt<lnes<lay, July�. 2015 1 :00 pm, - 3:00 p.m. lshera1on Wilcfforcl Ho;el 15269 104Alll, SUrr,y, B.C.
�u,saay, July 30, 201 > �:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. l!;.:mon Fraser Un,wrsi.y, Surrey �am pus �O, 13450102 Ave, Surrey, 8.C.
Feedback Analysis and Reporting: • Community and stakeholder feeaback will be summarized and pos:� online at www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment
Reference O«umenu
Apphcation for an An,..-,df"o,1nt to Ptrmit Uo 2012 - 072 Dir.a Tra.nr'er Co.a F�i ity
www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment
On the Fraser River waterfront since 1962
Round 2 Public ConsultationApplication to Amend Permit No. 2012 – 072 Direct Transfer Coal Facility
July 17 – August 21, 2015
Fraser Surrey Docks LP (FSD) has applied to amend its existing permit from Port Metro Vancouver (August 21, 2014) that gives it approval to build and operate a Direct Transfer Coal Facility within its existing lease area.
If the amendment is granted it would have no impact on the volume of coal permitted to be shipped through FSD.
The proposed amendment would allow FSD to load coal directly from the facility to ocean-going vessels, which would eliminate or reduce the number of barges required.
Please visit www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment to provide feedback on the proposed changes to the design, as well as the results of the studies associated with the amendment.
www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment
On the Fraser River waterfront since 1962
How Can I Provide Feedback?• Read the Discussion Guide and submit your Feedback Form:
• Online• By email• By mail
• Provide a written submission• Register by phone or email to attend a small group meeting
(details at www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment)
Contact InformationPhone: 604 - 891-1695Email: [email protected]: www.fsd.bc.ca/amendmentMail: PO Box 2233 Vancouver Main, Vancouver, BC V6B 3W2
Feedback Analysis and Reporting• Community and stakeholder feedback will be summarized and
posted online at www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment
Fraser Surrey Docks LP (FSD) is the largest employer on the Fraser River waterfront, with more than 300 full-time employees. FSD has been a major employer and contributor to local communities for over 50 years, handling over 3 billion dollars’ worth of goods annually.
Page 1 of 1 July 17, 2015
Information Bulletin Fraser Surrey Docks LP Application to Amend Permit No. 2012 – 072 Direct Transfer Coal Facility Round 2 Public Consultation, July 17 – August 21, 2015
Information Bulletin July 17, 2015
Fraser Surrey Docks LP Application to Amend Permit No. 2012 – 072 Direct Transfer Coal Facility
Round 2 Public Consultation, July 17 – August 21, 2015
Surrey, B.C. – Fraser Surrey Docks LP (FSD) has applied for an amendment to its existing permit from Port Metro Vancouver that gives it approval to build and operate a Direct Transfer Coal Facility within its existing lease area. FSD’s decision to proceed with the amendment application followed a public comment period (May 4 to 19, 2015) and a technical review of the results of updated studies.
On August 21, 2014, FSD was granted a permit by Port Metro Vancouver for a Direct Transfer Coal Facility, following a review process that included environment and human health studies undertaken by subject-matter experts, as well as two rounds of public consultation. The proposed amendment to the existing permit would allow FSD to load coal directly from the facility to ocean-going vessels, which would eliminate or reduce the number of barges required. If the amendment is granted it would have no impact on the volume of coal permitted to be shipped through FSD.
Input received during the May 2015 public comment period has been compiled in a Consultation Summary Report and FSD has also prepared a Consideration Memo, demonstrating how input received has been considered. These documents are available at www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment.
Round 2 Public Consultation July 17 – August 21, 2015 FSD is undertaking public consultation regarding the proposed amendment to its existing permit. FSD is seeking feedback on the proposed changes to the design as well as on the results of the studies associated with the amendment. A Discussion Guide and Feedback Form is available at www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment.
How Can I Provide Feedback? Read the Discussion Guide and submit your feedback:
• Online: www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment• Email: [email protected]• Mail: PO Box 2233 Vancouver Main, Vancouver, BC V6B 3W2• Phone: 604-891-1695• Register by phone or email to attend a small group meeting (see details at
www.fsd.bc.ca/amendment)
Fraser Surrey Docks LP FSD is the largest employer on the Fraser River waterfront, with more than 300 full-time employees. FSD has been a major employer and contributor to local communities for over 50 years, handling over 3 billion dollars‘ worth of goods annually. FSD has directly contributed over 280 million dollars to B.C. communities over the last 5 years through wages, taxes and buying local goods and services.
Contact
Jill Buchanan Email: [email protected] Phone: 604-582-2244
Sie rra Ri dge
Taylor P l
Path
Glen Crt
Six th St
Fishe r S t
Agnes S t
Lorne St
Al l i son P l
Pine Rd
Tenb
y St
L eopo l d Pl
Speen R
d
Alm
ond
Pl
Bra id St
Haze l n u t Pl
Pa thway
Nana imo St
Al len S t
Co lumb ia St
Tupper Ave
Welsh St
Dyke R
d
Sydney S t
La rson Rd
Be lmon t St
On tar io St
Brandon St
112 Ave
Lee St
Ar row Lane
Moody S t
De lest re A ve
Manit oba St
Bonson St
Bo le St
Brookes S t
Kennedy St
Mil ton St
Pr imul a P l
Chu rch i ll St
Byrne Rd
Ken t St
Noot ka S t
We lls Gray Pl
McKenzi e S t
Granv i l le St
Sapp
er S
t
D ixon St
E E ig hth Ave
Access Rd
E Co
lumb
ia S
t
Lev i S t
Manzani ta Pl
Emory S t
Clu te St N el s o n's
Cre s
E Ro
yal A
ve
Ca rneg ie S t
Hil l Ave
1 0th Ave E
Jam ie
son
C rt
10 th Ave
Access Rd
6th S t
Sinc la ir Ave
Schoo l S t
Th ir teenth S t
Spruce
Rd
Peel e St
Elmer St
113 Ave
Quad ling Ave
15 th Ave
Duf fe rin S t
Arch
er S
tKnox S t
Maple S t
Monroe Ave
Godwin Crt
Carro
ll St
Jackson S t
Strand Ave
Debeck St
McKay
St
125A S t
Q uebec S t
Lien Rd
Sco tt StWil l iam St
Oak St
Henderson Ave
Pine St
Cornwa ll St
Thrif
t St
Houl t St
Louel len S t
Mowat S t
Shaw S t
Wedgewood St
McDon ald
S t
Blackwood S t
E ll io t St
Begbie S t
Laurel St
Lancas te r St
Loug
heed
Hwy
Bay
Stewart A ve
St. George St
Burn
s St
Ewen Ave
Elfo rd S t
Park
Row
Ladner S t
Span Rd
Ward St
Sta r C res
Cedar S t
Colb
y St
W inth rop St
R ickman P l
Black ie St
Co ld icutt St
Gira rd Ave
B r idge St
Acce
ss R
d
Black ford S t
San gster Pl
Sp ruce St
Guilb
y St
Edworthy WayCar iboo Dr
Fau lk
ner R
d
Sh i les St
C umberland Pl
Win ram Rd
Th ird Ave
Karrman Ave
Merivale S t
Fi rst St
South
F raser
Pe r imi te
r Rd
Bernatchey St
Dunlo
p S t
Endersby St
Allis
on S
t
Wal
ker S
t
Jackson Cres
Ging e r Dr
Black berry Dr
Roder ick Ave
S unse t Ave
King George B lvd
M u lbe rry P l
Grayson Ave
Su rrey S t
Shaw Ave
Vic tor ia S t
Au cklan d S t
19 th Ave
Nin th Ave
Ross D r
Napanee St
Ovens Ave
Glover Ave
Sandr ingham Ave
Hamilt on S t
Ames
s St
Blackman S t
Harv
ey S
t
S haw Ave
111A Ave
Osborne Ave
Capi lano Way
10 th Ave
De lest re A ve
Coqu it l am St
E Durham S t
12 th Ave
Wilber fo rce S t
Langley St
E Seven th Ave
110 Ave
125
St
L ive rpoo l St
Rous
seau
St
B run
e t te Ave
McInnes St
Un ited
Blvd
112A Ave
125B
St
Elg in S t
St . P at rick S t
113B Ave
Cascade St
Dickenson St
Blai
r Ave
Yarrow Pl
Cla rkson S t
C olb o rne St
Oakl and St
Olsen R
d
Sim pson St
Hosp ita l S tC hil l iw ack St
Park Cres
Burnaby St
18th Ave
Hart St
Gauth ie r A ve
116 Ave
Garfi
eld S
t
11th Ave
Sapp
erto
n Av
e
Ma jor St
St. Andr ews St
Mo tt C re s
4th S t
Massey St
Court ney Cres
H o lmes S t
Pr incess S t
Regi na S t
Durham St
Bria r Rd
Wils
on S
t
York S t
Wrigh t St
Cunn ingham St
1 5 th Ave
Fade
r St
Kelly
St
M ine
r St
114 Ave
Keary S t
Albe rta St
Sou th
F ras
er Way
124 St
C h urch il l Ave
Indus
tr ia l
Rd
O ld Yale Rd
Tannery Rd
McBr ide Blvd
Ash St
N in th St
Timbe rla nd Rd
2nd St
Edgar A ve
11th Ave
17 th Ave
Carib
oo Rd
A rmst rong Av e
Ele ve nth St
Th ird St
Al de r son Ave
Sherbrooke S t
1s t S t
Newcombe St
Aval
on Av
e
14 th Ave
Seven th St
Ca rna rvon St
13 th Ave
Seven th Ave
12 th Ave
Fif t h S t
Q ueens Ave
F i ft h Av e
T hird Ave
Second St
F ir s t S t
Four th Ave
16 th Ave
Fourth St
Cumbe r la nd S t
Off R
amp
Ar bu tus St
Lagun a Crt
B u shb y St
Elwel l St
P a t tu l lo P l
Lorin
g St
Rich
ard
S t
Governor s Crt
Sa l te r S t
Sequo ia Rd
Er in Ave
109 Ave
Mona A ve
Cher
r y S t
Crai
g Av
e
Cres t Dr
Buch
anan
Ave
G lenb rook Dr
Devo
y S t
Ches
tnu t
St
Br idge
Rd
Garre
t t St
C anfo r Ave
124
St
125A
St
Mu sq ueam Dr
Qua ys id e D r
E Six th A v
e
Agnes S t
Bra id St
Fron t StTenth St
Ri ch mo n d St
Rich
mond
St
Fu rness S t
N orth Arm
Fraser
River BridgeviewPark
HumePark
SappertonPark
BurnabyLake Park
George HLeaf Park
George DerbyConservation Area
RobertBurnaby Park
TerryHughes Park
QuennsPark
MoodyPark
New WestminsterQuay
Scott R
d
Stewardson Way
Braid St
E Eighth Ave
Columbia St
Brunet
te Ave
Eighth AveSixth St
Sixth Ave
Eighth St
Royal Ave
E Colu
mbia
St
Twelfth St
SS1
10th Ave
North
Rd Hwy 1
Surrey
Coquit lam
Delta
Burnaby
NewWestminsterQueensPark
BrunetteCreek
GlenbrookeNorth
Sapperton
Maillardville
SS7
*LC0044
*LC0044
*LC0044
LC0031
LC0031
LC0031LC0032
LC0032LC0032
LC0033
LC0033
LC0033
LC0033
LC0034
LC0034
LC0034
LC0035
LC0035
LC0036
LC0036
LC0036
LC0036
LC0036
LC0037LC0037
LC0037
LC0038
LC0038
LC0038
LC0038
LC0039
LC0040
LC0040
LC0040
LC0041
LC0041
LC0041
LC0042
LC0043
LC0043
LC0045
LC0045
LC0046
LC0046
LC0046
LC0047
LC0047
V5E
V3V
V3K
V3N
V5A
V3M
V3L
GD0001
LB0001
LB0001
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 10.125 km ±
BCFSA / RTA: V3L
FSA MapCarte de RTA
Copyright © Canada Post Corporation, 2015 - This map is provided for the sole use of Canada Post customers in preparing their mail. Any other use, including resale and the use of the map as a component of another product or service, is strictly prohibited. The map is provided "as is" and Canada Post disclaims any warranty whatsoever. The map must be used only during the validity period noted and must be destroyed following the expiry of such validity period. If no validity period is indicated on the map, the map must be destroyed 30 days from the date you obtained the map from Householder Counts & Maps. All rights not expressly granted are reserved by Canada Post and its licensors.Tous droits réservés © Société canadienne des postes, 2015 - L'utilisation de cette carte est réservée exclusivement aux clients de Postes Canada pour la préparation de leur courrier. Toute autre utilisation, y compris la revente ou l'utilisation de la carte comme complément à un autre produit ou service, est strictement interdite. La carte est fournie « telle quelle » et Postes Canada décline toute garantie de quelque nature que ce soit. La carte ne peut être utilisée que pendant la période de validité susmentionnée et doit être détruite après l'expiration de ladite période de validité. Si aucune période de validité n'est indiquée sur la carte, la carte doit être détruite dans les trente jours suivant la date où vous l'avez obtenue par Nombre de chefs de ménage et cartes. Tous les droits qui ne sont pas expressément accordés dans le cadre des modalités d'utilisation sont réservés à Postes Canada et à ses concédants.
The Delivery Mode names that have an asterisk (*) indicate Modes that are split between more than one (1) FSA.Les noms des modes de livraison avec un astérisque (*) indiquent des modes partagés entre plusieurs RTA.
16th Ave
To
Q uee nsborough Bridge
Front St
19th Ave
Marlb
orou
gh A
ve
Graham Ave
Elgin
Ave
Audley Blvd
Twenty-Second S t
Irmin St
Carson St
Humphries Ave
12th Ave
Duncan St
Nordel Crt Modesto Dr
Ewart St
Keith St
Boyne StPatrick St
Market Cross
Arcola St
South
Fras
er Way
Bran
tford
Ave
McKee St
Howes St
1st S t
Alaska
Way
Santa Monica Dr
Southpoint Dr
Eighteenth St
Gi lley Rd
Portland St
Hwy 91
McBrid e Blvd
90 Ave
Pembina St
83 Ave
Nordel Way
Ash St
Ninth St
Wood St
Bryant St
Stanley St
80 Ave
Main St
Sixteen th S t
2nd St
Balmoral St
Griffi
ths A
ve
Trapp Ave
Salis
bury
Ave
Chester Rd
Stride Ave
18th AveThird St
108 S
t
Eleventh St
Meadow Ave
Beresford St
Brooke Rd
Sper
ling A
ve
Dubl in St
Seventh St
Mary Ave
Carnarvon St
Riverbend Dr
Hwy 91A
11th Ave
Dunlop Rd86 Ave
Willard St
17th Ave
Annaci
s Pky
Cl inton St
Dyke Rd
Thirteenth St
Nanaimo St
Cumbe rland S t
Elwell St
6th St
Hamilton S t
Fourteenth St
Fifth St
Mar ine Way
Byrne Rd
Nevi lle St
Westminster Hwy
Fraserwood Way
Seventh Ave
13th Ave
South
Fras e
r Per im
i ter Rd
Queens Ave
Southridge Dr
Second St
Firs t St
Salter St
London St
82 Ave
14th Ave
84 Ave
Fourth AveFifth Ave
South Dyke Rd
River Rd
Fourth St
North F raser Way
Edmonds St
Edinburgh St
Ewen Ave
Gille
y Ave
12th Ave
Cliveden Ave
Derwent Way
South Fraser Perimiter Road
87 Ave
Lake
view
Ave
Duffe
rin A
ve
River Dr
Olive
r Dr
McGr
egor
Ave
Dock
RdWiggins St
Walth
am A
ve
MacP
herso
n Ave
Quayside Dr
E Sixth
Ave
114
St
Agnes St
Boun
dary
Rd
Belgrave Way
Wil tshi re Blvd
4th St
Walker Ave
Bulle
r Ave
10th Ave Tenth St
116
St
G lenb roo k Dr
Third Ave
Kendale View
Rowl
ing
Pl
Delsom Cres
Quayside Dr
Surrey
Delta
Burnaby
Richmond
NewWestminster
96 Ave
Boyd St
88 Ave
80 Ave
Stewardson Way
Rumble St
Derwent Way
Sixth StEighth St
Imperial St
Eighth Ave
Marine Dr
Marine Way
River Rd
112 S
t
Roya
l Oak
Ave
Nordel Way
McBride Blvd
10th AveKingsway
Hwy 91
Queensborough Bridge
Hwy 91
Hwy 91
Hwy 91 A
North Arm
Anna
cis Channel
Gund
ersen
Sloug
h
Fraser Rive
r
SS91
Froggers CreekRavine Park
Methews CreekRavine Park
KisbeyPark MalvernPark
QuennsParkPowerhousePark
Byrne CreekRavine Park
Ron McLeanPark
AlbertCrescent
E WoodlandsVegetation Study A
AnnievillePark
NorthDelta ParkSunburyPark
WillardPark
MackiePark
RoyalHeights Park
Burnaby FraserForeshore Park
Delta NatureReserve
EastburnKelvin
West End
GlenbrookeNorthMiddlegate
Queensborough
ConnaughtHeights
NorthDelta
*LC0044
*LC0067
LC0001 LC0001
LC0001
LC0002
LC0002
LC0002
LC0003
LC0003
LC0003
LC0004
LC0004
LC0004
LC0004
LC0004
LC0005
LC0005
LC0005LC0005
LC0006
LC0006LC0006
LC0007
LC0007
LC0008
LC0008
LC0008
LC0009
LC0009
LC0010
LC0010
LC0011
LC0011
LC0012
LC0012
LC0013
LC0013
LC0014
LC0014
LC0015LC0016
LC0016
LC0017
LC0018
LC0019
LC0019
LC0020LC0021 LC0022
LC0022
LC0023
LC0024
LC0024
LC0024
LC0024
LC0025
LC0025
LC0025
LC0026
V5E
V3V
V4C
V5H
V5J
V3N
V6V
V6W
V3L
V4G
V3M LB0001
LB0001
LB0001LB0001
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.60.2 km ±
BCFSA / RTA: V3M
FSA MapCarte de RTA
Copyright © Canada Post Corporation, 2015 - This map is provided for the sole use of Canada Post customers in preparing their mail. Any other use, including resale and the use of the map as a component of another product or service, is strictly prohibited. The map is provided "as is" and Canada Post disclaims any warranty whatsoever. The map must be used only during the validity period noted and must be destroyed following the expiry of such validity period. If no validity period is indicated on the map, the map must be destroyed 30 days from the date you obtained the map from Householder Counts & Maps. All rights not expressly granted are reserved by Canada Post and its licensors.Tous droits réservés © Société canadienne des postes, 2015 - L'utilisation de cette carte est réservée exclusivement aux clients de Postes Canada pour la préparation de leur courrier. Toute autre utilisation, y compris la revente ou l'utilisation de la carte comme complément à un autre produit ou service, est strictement interdite. La carte est fournie « telle quelle » et Postes Canada décline toute garantie de quelque nature que ce soit. La carte ne peut être utilisée que pendant la période de validité susmentionnée et doit être détruite après l'expiration de ladite période de validité. Si aucune période de validité n'est indiquée sur la carte, la carte doit être détruite dans les trente jours suivant la date où vous l'avez obtenue par Nombre de chefs de ménage et cartes. Tous les droits qui ne sont pas expressément accordés dans le cadre des modalités d'utilisation sont réservés à Postes Canada et à ses concédants.
The Delivery Mode names that have an asterisk (*) indicate Modes that are split between more than one (1) FSA.Les noms des modes de livraison avec un astérisque (*) indiquent des modes partagés entre plusieurs RTA.
Audley Blvd
To
Qu eens b or ough Bridge
Southpoint Dr
Twenty-Second S t
Elwell St
Ho lt R d
97 Ave
Duncan St
Q uee
n Mary Blvd
Boyne St
103A Ave
St Andrews Dr124 St
103 Ave
122 S
t
P ark Dr
143A
St
Indus
tr ial R
d
Howes St
111 Ave
Alaska
Way
121 S
t
Ol d Yale Rd
109 Ave
128A
St
138 S
t
123A
St
105 Ave
101 Ave
Semiahmoo Rd
130 S
t
108 Ave
139 S
t
107 Ave
127 S
t
Salis
bury
Ave
117 Ave17th Ave
141 S
t
106 Ave
98 Ave
94 Ave
Eighteenth St
90 Ave89A Ave
Br idgeview Dr
K indersley Dr
McBride Blvd
Pembina St
Ash St
Ninth St
Timberla
nd
Rd
Southridge Dr
110 Ave
96A Ave
Wood St
106A Ave
112 Ave
115A Ave
Tannery Rd
136 S
t
18th Ave
Mary AveSixteenth St
11th Ave
105 Ave
107A Ave
Cumberland St
Chester Rd
129 S
t
158 S
t
115B AveStrid
e Ave
Third St
116A Ave
Eleventh St
113 Ave
91 Ave
Marine Way
Westm inster Hwy
98 Ave
Dublin St
114 Ave
Seven th S t
Carnarvon St
105A Ave
Hwy 91A
102 Ave
112 Ave
Annaci
s Pky
Thirteenth St
Nanaimo St
103A Ave
Edmonds S t
Hamil ton St
Four teenth St
Fifth St
16th Ave
Grace Rd
90 Ave
150
St
S eventh Ave
116 Ave
South
Fras
er Way
Queens Ave
12th Ave
First St
Second St
Salter St
London St
14th Ave
144 S
t
115 Ave
Fourth Ave
99 Ave
Nordel Way
Fifth Ave
South Dyke Rd
Wha
lley
Blvd
Four th St
Cliveden Ave
South Fraser Pe rimiter
Road
Edinburgh St
100 AveSouth
Fras
er Peri
miter R
dEwen Ave
92 Ave 92 Ave
100 Ave
148 S
t
157 S
t
Front St
87 Ave
129A
St
Green Timbers Way
123 S
t
Gle n Avon Dr
F le etwood W
a y
118
St
Carluke Cres
142A St
Surrey Rd
River Dr
125A
St
143 S
t
142 S
t14
2A S
t
146 S
t
151 S
t
Dock
Rd
125 S
t
R ich mo nd St
126A
St
Ro xburgh Rd
Musqueam Dr
Quayside D r
146 S
t
114
St
Agnes St
Boun
dary
Rd
Belgrave Way
124 S
t
City
Pky
156 S
t
154 S
t
South Frase r Perimiter Rd
Prince Charles Blv d
Universi ty Dr
10th Ave
126 S
t
Tenth St
134
St
116
St
115A St
140 S
t
132 S
t
96B Ave
Third
Ave
G ing e r Dr
King Rd
Derwent Way
Quayside Dr
Surrey
Coquit lam
Delta
PortCoquit lam
Burnaby
NewWestminster
Scott R
d
Boyd St
Nordel Way
112 S
t
Twentieth St
Griffiths Dr
E Colum
bia St
Derwent Way
Sixth St
Sixth Ave
River Rd
Eighth Ave
108 Ave
104 Ave
96 Ave
120 S
t
Twelfth St
Grosvenor Rd
128 S
t
King
George Hwy
Kingsway10th Ave
Fraser Hwy
King George Blvd
Hwy 91
Hwy 91
Hwy 1
Hwy 91 A
Hwy 91A
North Arm
Annacis ChannelFra
ser River
SS91
SS1
LowerEllendale Park
VictoriaPark
RoyalKwantlen Park
HollandPark
Green TimbersUrban Forest
HawthornePark
HjorthRoad Park
HollyPark
RichmondPark
QuennsPark
WillardPark
DelviewPark
RoyalHeights Park
InvergarryPark
QueensParkEastburn
WhalleyPortMann
Kelvin
JohnsonHeights
West End
GlenbrookeNorthMiddlegate
Queensborough
ConnaughtHeights
NorthDelta
Bridgeview
LC0001
LC0001
LC0001
LC0002
LC0003
LC0003
LC0004LC0005
LC0005
LC0005
LC0005
LC0006
LC0006
LC0007
LC0007
LC0008
LC0011
LC0011
LC0012
LC0012
LC0013
LC0013 LC0014
LC0014
LC0015
LC0015
LC0016
LC0017
LC0017
LC0018
LC0021
LC0021
LC0022LC0023
LC0023
LC0024
LC0024
LC0024
LC0025
LC0025
LC0026LC0027
LC0027
LC0027
LC0027
LC0028
LC0031
LC0031
LC0031
LC0031
LC0031
V5E
V4C
V3R
V3K
V3S
V3N
V3M
V6V
V3W
V4N
V3L
V3T
V3V
V3V
LB0001
0 0.95 1.9 2.85 3.80.475 km ±
BCFSA / RTA: V3V
FSA MapCarte de RTA
Copyright © Canada Post Corporation, 2015 - This map is provided for the sole use of Canada Post customers in preparing their mail. Any other use, including resale and the use of the map as a component of another product or service, is strictly prohibited. The map is provided "as is" and Canada Post disclaims any warranty whatsoever. The map must be used only during the validity period noted and must be destroyed following the expiry of such validity period. If no validity period is indicated on the map, the map must be destroyed 30 days from the date you obtained the map from Householder Counts & Maps. All rights not expressly granted are reserved by Canada Post and its licensors.Tous droits réservés © Société canadienne des postes, 2015 - L'utilisation de cette carte est réservée exclusivement aux clients de Postes Canada pour la préparation de leur courrier. Toute autre utilisation, y compris la revente ou l'utilisation de la carte comme complément à un autre produit ou service, est strictement interdite. La carte est fournie « telle quelle » et Postes Canada décline toute garantie de quelque nature que ce soit. La carte ne peut être utilisée que pendant la période de validité susmentionnée et doit être détruite après l'expiration de ladite période de validité. Si aucune période de validité n'est indiquée sur la carte, la carte doit être détruite dans les trente jours suivant la date où vous l'avez obtenue par Nombre de chefs de ménage et cartes. Tous les droits qui ne sont pas expressément accordés dans le cadre des modalités d'utilisation sont réservés à Postes Canada et à ses concédants.
The Delivery Mode names that have an asterisk (*) indicate Modes that are split between more than one (1) FSA.Les noms des modes de livraison avec un astérisque (*) indiquent des modes partagés entre plusieurs RTA.
H al l Pl
Brandy D r G re e nh i l l Pl
10 9B St
115
St11
5 St
Da ly Pl
76 Ave
119
St
114A
St
71 Ave
Gi roday PlWh itb y Pl
94 Ave
113
St
8 8A A ve
Sterl ing Cr t
Arbou r P l
Shea
ves C
rt
Evans P l
T urne
r Pl
G i l m our C res
78 Ave
S ta m ford
Pl
V i sta P
l
Bo yn ton P l
Sunse t D r
Daws on P l
117B
St
76A Ave
74B Ave
Hw y 91
111B
St
Knudson Rd
Wadham Dr
82A Ave
84B Ave
79 Ave
83 Ave
85B Ave
Aud ley B lvd
83A Ave
G lenbrook Pl
83 Ave
118B
St
Bever l y D r
75B Ave
84A Ave
Hardy P l
112A
St
85A Ave
M alt o n Dr
Queens Pl
114A
St
90A Ave
Tron
dhei
m D r
118A
St
113B St
Ebor
Rd
Fir cr
est Dr
Royal Cres
Parkw
ood P l
Nechako Dr
1 18A
St
112A
St
111A
St
S u l livan P l
120A
St
79 Ave
Taylo r Way
Carl is le Rd
Car v
er Cres
76A Ave
Ke nd ale Pl
93A Ave
84 Ave
11 0A St
115A
St
113A
St
9 2A Ave
Alaska
Rd
118A
St
Ba rk ley D r
River W
ay
Larson Rd
87 Ave
93A Ave
86A Ave
Princess D r
Iv e r son C res
Cund
y Ave
111
St
Skagi t Dr
Crow n Cr es
120A
St
M odes to P l
Wi l tsh ire P l
Warwick Rd
M i nster Dr S
93 Ave
96 A ve
118A
St
R iver R
d
114
St
Hea th Cres
74 A ve
116A S t
Ram ona Way
De lc res t D r
Pa tr ic ia Dr
91 Ave
Fu lle r C res S
83A Ave
Gle nr ose D r
78 Ave
74A Ave
80A Ave
98 Ave
110
St
78B Ave109A
St
Bu rbank Dr
E le va tor Rd
Brem
r idge
Dr
114A St
He rmosa D r
91 Av e
77A Ave
115
St84B Ave
82B Ave
78B Ave
94A Ave
95 Ave
82A Ave
79A Ave
Fairfie ld P l
112B
St
115
St
Shepherd Way89A Ave
Gunde
rson R
d
78A Ave
113B
St
117B
St
117
St
118
St
Made r Lane
116
St
81A Ave
71A Ave
75 Ave
97A Ave
Swen
son
Way
Nich
olso
n Rd
W estv
i ew D r
Yor k C res
79A Ave
Hard
y Rd
118
St
Ca ldew S t
85B A ve
Fu ll er Cres N
120A
St
Norde l Way
De lv is ta Dr
Westsi de Dr
114A
St
81A Ave
86A Ave
117A
St
Co l l ings Way
No rum
Rd
81 Ave
Norde l Cr t
85 Ave
A ldf
ord
Ave
79A Ave
B r id l i ng ton Dr
Garre tt Dr
Pemb
erto
n Cr
es
119
St
7 2A Ave
112
St87A Ave
111 St
77 Ave
73 Ave
Terrace D r
81 Ave
110
St
Cent re S t
Dawson Cres
R obso
n Rd
Rus sell Dr
89 Ave
111B
St
Kenda le Way
South F ras
er P eri
mi t er Rd
89A Ave
Holt Rd
72A Ave
D elwo od Dr
92 A Ave
94 Ave
84A Ave
73A Ave
97 Ave
119A
St
M ode sto Dr
115A
St
85A Ave
Garfie ld Dr
M on roe Dr
Alaska
Way
114
St
C l iveden Ave
96A Ave
83 Ave
Santa Monica Dr
80 Ave
Main St
B a rr ymo re Dr
Brooke Rd
Dunl op Rd
75A Ave
92 A ve
90 A ve
115
St
No rde l Way
86 Ave
82 Ave
84 Ave
South F ras er Per im i ter Road
117
St
Bat e
s Rd
Wa lkw ay
80A Ave
120 A St
Watson Cr t
119B St
Jam e s Pl
119
St
118
St
Fe rn Way
Cow ley D r N
116A
St
Sunbury Pl
Byro
n Rd
113A
St
F iley Dr
Brew
ster
Dr E
Stegav ik C rt
A rp e Cr es
Canyon Cres
Mins
ter D
r E
112A
St
115A
St
Dels om Wa y
N orum C r es
110A
St
108
St
117A
StMi
tch e
ll Way
112A
St
Mins
t er D
r W
B re ws ter Dr W
Don cas t
er Cr
es
8 6A Ave
De lnova Dr
Blake Dr
Watson D r
Har rog ate Dr
117A
St
Sheaves Rd
Suncrest Dr
S wa n
son D
r11
3 St
Sca rbo r ough Dr
119A St
McAdam Rd
87 Ave
74 A ve
118
St
116A
St
Be lg rave Way
D elsom Cres
114
St
117
St
118
St
108
St
W il t sh i re B l vd
116 St
116B
St
85 Ave
95 Ave
95A Ave
119A
St
113B
St
78 Ave
95A Ave
88A Ave
116A
St
Craw
ford
Dr
Der w
ent W
ay
Kend ale View
Ann acis Chan nel
Gunde
rsen S
lough
Fraser Rive
r
KennedyPark
AnnievillePark
NorthDelta Park
MackiePark
DelviewPark
RoyalHeights Park
Delta NatureReserveChalmersPark GundersonPark
90 Ave
Regal Dr
88 Ave
96 Ave
80 Ave
72 Ave
Nordel W
ay
River Rd
112 S
t
120 S
t
Hwy 91
Surrey
Delta
NorthDelta
SS91
*LC0058
*LC0058
*LC0058
LC0061
LC0061
LC0061
LC0062
LC0062
LC0062
LC0062
LC0063LC0063
LC0063
LC0063
LC0064
LC0064
LC0064
LC0065
LC0065
LC0065
LC0065
LC0066
LC0066
LC0066
LC0066
LC0067
LC0067
LC0067LC0067
LC0068
LC0068
LC0068
LC0068
LC0071
LC0071
LC0071
LC0071
LC0072
LC0072
LC0072
LC0072
LC0073
LC0073
LC0073
LC0074
LC0074
LC0074LC0074
LC0074
LC0075LC0075
LC0075
LC0076
LC0076
LC0076
LC0077
LC0077 LC0077
LC0077
LC0078
LC0078
LC0078
LC0081
LC0081
LC0081
LC0081
LC0081
LC0082
LC0082
LC0082
LC0082
LC0082
LC0083
LC0083
LC0084
LC0084LC0084
LC0084
LC0085
LC0085
LC0085
LC0085
LC0086
LC0086
LC0086
LC0087
LC0087
LC0087
LC0087
LC0087
LC0087
LC0088LC0088
LC0088
LC0088
LC0088
LC0091
LC0091 LC0091
LC0092
LC0092LC0092
LC0093
LC0093
LC0093
LC0094
LC0094
LC0094
LC0095
LC0095
LC0095
LC0096
LC0096
LC0097
LC0097
LC0097
LC0097
LC0097
LC0098LC0098
LC0098
V3V
V3M
V4E
V3W
V4G
V4C
LB0001
LB0001
DR0000
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 10.125 km ±
BCFSA / RTA: V4C
FSA MapCarte de RTA
Copyright © Canada Post Corporation, 2015 - This map is provided for the sole use of Canada Post customers in preparing their mail. Any other use, including resale and the use of the map as a component of another product or service, is strictly prohibited. The map is provided "as is" and Canada Post disclaims any warranty whatsoever. The map must be used only during the validity period noted and must be destroyed following the expiry of such validity period. If no validity period is indicated on the map, the map must be destroyed 30 days from the date you obtained the map from Householder Counts & Maps. All rights not expressly granted are reserved by Canada Post and its licensors.Tous droits réservés © Société canadienne des postes, 2015 - L'utilisation de cette carte est réservée exclusivement aux clients de Postes Canada pour la préparation de leur courrier. Toute autre utilisation, y compris la revente ou l'utilisation de la carte comme complément à un autre produit ou service, est strictement interdite. La carte est fournie « telle quelle » et Postes Canada décline toute garantie de quelque nature que ce soit. La carte ne peut être utilisée que pendant la période de validité susmentionnée et doit être détruite après l'expiration de ladite période de validité. Si aucune période de validité n'est indiquée sur la carte, la carte doit être détruite dans les trente jours suivant la date où vous l'avez obtenue par Nombre de chefs de ménage et cartes. Tous les droits qui ne sont pas expressément accordés dans le cadre des modalités d'utilisation sont réservés à Postes Canada et à ses concédants.
The Delivery Mode names that have an asterisk (*) indicate Modes that are split between more than one (1) FSA.Les noms des modes de livraison avec un astérisque (*) indiquent des modes partagés entre plusieurs RTA.
Consultation Summary ReportAppendix C
Display Boards
Forest products
Food products
Consumer goods
Fraser Surrey Docks LP On the Fraser River waterfront since 1962
The largest modern, multi-purpose marine terminal on the West Coast of North America, handling a variety of cargo and commodities that are important to our economy and daily life, including:
Fraser Surrey Docks facilities aerial photo
Since 1962 Major employer and contributor to local communities for more than 50 years
3billion dollars’ worth of goods handled annually
Largest employer on the Fraser River waterfront
300+full-time employees
Agricultural products
Building materials and machinery
Directly contributed over million dollars to B.C. communities
over the last 5 years280$
Direct Transfer Coal Facility
38 MMT
4 MMT
Volume currently shipped through Port Metro Vancouver
Volume to be shipped through Fraser Surrey Docks
FSD Application to Port Metro Vancouver for Project Permit
2 Rounds of Consultation
Project Permit No. 2012 – 072 Granted by Port Metro Vancouver August 21, 2014
Round 1 Public Comment Period (Consideration of Amendment) May 4 – 19, 2015
FSD Amendment Application Submitted toPort Metro Vancouver June 19, 2015
Round 2 Public Consultation (Amendment Application)July 17 – August 21, 2015
Port Metro Vancouver Consideration of Public Consultation Feedback
Port Metro Vancouver Decision on FSD Amendment Application
Project Timeline
On August 21, 2014 Fraser Surrey Docks LP (FSD) was granted a permit by Port Metro Vancouver for a Direct Transfer Coal Facility to handle 4 million metric tonnes (MMT) of coal per year.
FSD has applied to amend its existing permit, which would allow FSD to load coal directly to ocean-going vessels (OGVs), eliminating or significantly reducing the number of barges required.
Moving Coal Through Port Metro Vancouver
38 MMT of coal are currently transported through terminals inPort Metro Vancouver’s jurisdiction annually. Fraser Surrey Docks has been permitted to handle MMT, following a thoroughreview process.
4
* Source: Port Metro Vancouver (2014) “Statistics Overview”.
*
8 Barges1Ocean-Going Vessel125 railcars per train(up to a maximum of 135 cars)4 Trains
Proposed Permit Amendment Load coal directly to ocean-going vessels If the amendment is granted it would allow Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) to load coal directly to ocean-going vessels (OGVs), which would eliminate or significantly reduce the number of barges required.
The amendment would have no impact on the volume of coal permitted to be shipped through FSD (4 million metric tonnes per year).
One loaded Panamax class OGV can carry approximately four trainloads of coal, and the same volume as eight loaded barges (1 OGV = 8 barges).
4. Coal is directly loaded into hatchof ocean-going vessel
1. Train arrives in yard
2. Coal is directly transferred into rail receivingbuilding and covered receiving pit*
3. Coal is directly transferredonto covered conveyor
OGVs to Replace Most or All Barges Potential shipping scenarios
*There will be no stockpiles on-site.
= or
Direct Transfer Process Up to 2 trains can be accommodated on-site at one time, and coal would remain undisturbed in railcars until it is ready to be transferred.
Potential Shipping Scenarios Loaded Trains / Year Loaded OGVs / Year* Loaded Barges / Year*
Current permit approval 320 0 640
25% shift to OGVs (with amendment) 320 20 480
50% shift to OGVs (with amendment) 320 40 320
75% shift to OGVs (with amendment) 320 60 160
100% shift to OGVs (with amendment) 320 80 0
*Numbers represent return-trip vessel movements.
Proposed Changes to the PermitProject Features Approved Permit Proposed Amendment
Volume of coal shipped 4 million metric tonnes / year No change
Mode of shipping 640 barge return trips / year (1,280 barge movements)
Use of 80 Panamax class ocean-going vessels (OGVs) to replace 640 barges
Dust mitigation Dust mitigation measures meet regulatory standards
Additional dust mitigation through use of closed hatches on OGVs and spraying of empty outbound railcars
Jobs Estimated 20–25 full-time jobs An increase of up to 20 additional full-time jobs (up to a total of 40–45 full-time jobs), due to extra shifts required to load OGVs (based on 100% shift to OGVs)
Marine vessel loader 14.3 metre (m) outreach (length of boom) from the edge of the berth and a maximum height of 15.0 m
27.4 m outreach from the edge of the berth and a maximum height of 36.2 m
Wastewater settling basins A two-stage primary and a secondary settling basin with an approximate capacity of 300 m3
Settling basins shifted 37 m west and rotated 90 degrees counter-clockwise
Capacity of settling basins stays the same
Also included is a 560,000-litre tank for contingency storage purposes for storm events
Basins would reside under the out feed conveyor for more effective use of space and water management practices
Rail receiving building and receiving pit
A soft-sided fabric building spanning 17 m in length; bottom discharge pit with 125-tonne surge bin
A metal sided building; shifted 12 m east and 16 m south
Rail receiving building and pit dimensions stay the same
Overall water catchment area (facility footprint)
5,340 m2 Decreased to 3,680 m2
Estimated to reduce water runoff by 10 –15%
Rail tracks Relocation of the front gate Removal of Shed 4
Adjustments to the rail loop
No relocation of the front gate
1
2
3
Proposed Project DesignProject Rendering
1
1
2
2
3
3
Marine vessel loader
Wastewater settling basins
Rail receiving building and pit
Proposed Project DesignProject Rendering
1
2
1
2
Marine vessel loader
Wastewater settling basins
FSD Existing FacilityLocation of Proposed Facility
StudiesThe following studies were conducted by subject-matter experts for the original project Permit No. 2012 – 072, which was granted approval on August 21, 2014, and have been updated for the proposed amendment:
Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) – SNC-Lavalin Inc. (Environment & Water)
The HHRA (2014) evaluated the potential health risks of exposure to substances that may be in the environment as a result of the project.
The Addendum Report to the Human Health Risk Assessment (2015) reviewed the changes to the project associated with the proposed amendment and the extent to which the HHRA (2014) accurately estimates human health risks, and concluded that the proposed amendment is safe for people in the area.
Environmental Management Plan (EMP) – Soleil Environmental Consultants Ltd.
The EMP (2013) was developed to ensure that all measures required to protect the environment and comply with environmental legislation are identified and implemented during construction and operations of the project.
In consideration of the proposed amendment Soleil undertook a review of the EMP, including the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to reflect changes resulting from the proposed amendment during project construction. Soleil concluded that construction methods and mitigation measures have not changed substantially, and therefore, the preliminary CEMP prepared for the project still provides a suitable framework for mitigating impacts from construction activities.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) – SNC-Lavalin Inc. (Environment & Water)
The EIA (2013) reviewed information and project studies that were available, and outlined additional mitigation measures that were designed in response to input from two rounds of consultation.
The Addendum to the Environmental Impact Assessment (2015) updated the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the proposed amendment. The EIA Addendum concluded that the amendment is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental, socio-economic or health effects, taking into account the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.
Water Management Plan – Omni Engineering Inc.
The Water Management Plan (2014) provided a description of the Water Management Systems proposed for the project.
In review of the Water Management Plan, Omni made minor updates to reflect changes resulting from the proposed amendment and concluded that the original Water Management Plan (2014) prepared for the project is still relevant to the proposed amendment, as the process area has decreased in size.
Air Quality Assessment (AQA) – Levelton Consultants Ltd.
The AQA (2014) evaluated a comprehensive list of emission sources from the project.
The Air Quality Assessment Addendum (2015) reviewed potential air quality impacts, considering the changes to the project associated with the proposed amendment, including on-site operations and in-transit emission sources. Levelton concluded that predicted air quality impacts, including ambient background at sensitive receptors and within residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of FSD, are generally low and remain below all ambient air quality objectives.
Fire Life Safety Plan – Hatch Mott MacDonald
The Fire Safety Plan (2012) was developed to ensure employee safety, comply with existing laws, regulations and codes, and protect FSD’s property.
In consideration of the amendment, Hatch Mott MacDonald reviewed the Fire Safety Plan (2012) to confirm the relevance of the fire and safety management impacts described to the proposed project changes. Further to this, Hatch Mott MacDonald conducted a full operational review to update the existing plan as a whole, bringing all aspects of the plan to relevance, and developed a Fire Life Safety Plan (2015).
Marine Risk Assessment – DNV (Det Norske Veritas)
The Marine Risk Assessment (2012) assessed the possible navigational risks associated with the marine transport operations of the project.
The Risk Assessment Update (2015) reviewed the navigational impacts associated with changing from barges to OGVs. While the original Risk Assessment Study (2012) remains relevant, the probability of marine incidents in reduced with the proposed amendment due to the lower number of vessel movements on the Fraser River. The proposed amendment to the coal export operations is acceptable, according to the risk acceptance criteria used in the Risk Assessment Update.
Spill Response Plan – Fraser Surrey Docks LP
The Spill Response Plan (2013) provided a description of spill response procedures for the facility and berth corridor, as well as responsibilities for reporting and clean-up.
The revised Spill Response Plan (2015) was updated to include response procedures for liquid spills and coal spills to land and water. The revised plan includes a Marine Vessel Response section outlining vessel personnel actions and conduct requested in response to a spill event, and the protocols for cleanup and reporting of spills.
Soleil
Consultation Summary ReportAppendix D
beyondcoal.ca website
Portcard submitted to Port Metro Vancouver
Consultation Summary ReportAppendix E
Form Letter from residents of the United States
Jeff Scott
CEO Fraser Surrey Docks LP PO Box 2233 Vancouver Main Vancouver, BC V6B 3W2
cc: Fraser Surrey Docks;Port Metro Vancouver CEO Robin Silvester;Federal Minister of Transport, Lisa Raitt
Re: your proposal to build a coal port serving ocean going vessels on the Fraser River
Dear Mr. Scott,
I am from the U.S., and so I am writing to say I strongly agree with the May 10th letterbelow, in agreement with the concerned Canadians that are speaking out in opposition:
We write in response to your announcement that you intend to replace plans for a coal bargeloading facility with plans to build a coal port serving ocean‐going vessels at your Surreysite.
We wish to inform you of our ongoing opposition to the construction of any coal operationson the banks of the Fraser River, for reasons including the following:
• This proposal will increase open‐car coal train traffic through our residentialcommunities. More coal train traffic means our families will be exposed to more dieselexhaust (a known carcinogen), more coal dust, and more nighttime noise from train whistlesat levels deemed unsafe by the World Health Organization. Homes in neighbourhoods closest torail lines will also be exposed to more potentially damaging vibration from heavy coaltrains more than 2 kilometres long.
• When burned, the coal exported from Fraser Surrey Docks would release as much globalwarming pollution as the 6th largest polluter in Canada ‐ just behind the two biggest tarsands processing facilities and the three biggest coal‐fired power plants. Just last week UNClimate Chief Christiana Figueres said that in order to avoid runaway, catastrophic climatechange there is no room in the world for new coal developments. That includes new ports likethe one you’re proposing.
• This proposal will increase freighter traffic in the Salish Sea, increasing risk of oilspills and shipping accidents and impacts on wild salmon and endangered orca populations.
We remind you that in June 2013, Metro Vancouver, our regional government, votedoverwhelmingly to oppose any coal exports from your Fraser River site. Numerous individualmunicipalities, including New Westminster, Surrey, White Rock, Delta, Richmond and Vancouverhave either opposed this project outright or demanded full public hearings, an independenthealth impact assessment (HIA) and a fully‐scoped environmental assessment before anyapprovals were granted for your project.
The call for an HIA to fully evaluate the risks posed by your proposal came directly fromour regional health authorities. Numerous health care groups and doctors have supported thisrequest.
As you know, to date these requests remain unanswered. Public hearings, an HIA and a fully scoped EA have not taken place for this project. In general, the lack of meaningful consultation with the public, local and regional governments and health authorities has been an issue of ongoing concern during the review of your project.
There is widespread opposition to your project. The cities of Surrey and New Westminster have indicated they will apply to intervene in the legal challenge of the Port’s previous approval of your direct transfer coal facility, initiated by Communities and Coal, Voters Taking Action on Climate Change and two individual applicants. The Musqueam Nation has filed its own, separate legal challenge of the permitting of your facility as well. Further, we note that your company has been a strong advocate for removal of the George Massey Tunnel and deeper dredging of the Fraser River — modifications to the river would allow deeper draft vessels to reach your facility, effectively turning the Fraser into a “marine highway.”
We are deeply concerned that if these modifications come to pass your facility will begin exporting larger volumes of coal on bigger vessels. This will mean still more coal trains through our communities, more noise, diesel exhaust and coal dust, more ship traffic in the Salish Sea, and more climate‐harming pollution when the exported coal is burned. This is not something we want to see happen in our region, and we know that our neighbours in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana are working hard to stop more coal trains from running through, and new coal ports from being built, in their communities to avoid these same impacts.
Mr. Scott, we have nothing against your company and wish it well, but there is no future in exporting thermal coal. The end of the age of coal has been acknowledged by a wide range of organizations including the World Bank, HSBC, Goldman Sachs, the International Energy Agency the US Export‐Import Bank and even executives of your company’s owner, the MacQuarrie Group. We share their concerns about coal and climate change and our opposition to this project will not end. We want our communities to host the ports of tomorrow, not the ports of yesterday. We urge you to abandon plans for this coal port and seek a different path forward.
Sincerely,
Consultation Summary ReportAppendix F
Petition Presented to Jeff Scott on June 2, 2015,
by Paula Williams of Communities and Coal
Note: The complete list of the individuals and organizations who signed this letter is available at the petitioners' website RealPortHearings.org.
Jeff Scott CEO Fraser Surrey Docks LP 11060 Elevator Road Surrey BC V3V 2R7
May 10 2015
Re: your proposal to build a coal port serving ocean going vessels on the Fraser River
Dear Mr. Scott,
We write in response to your announcement that you intend to replace plans for a coal barge loading facility with plans to build a coal port serving ocean-going vessels at your Surrey site. We wish to inform you of our ongoing opposition to the construction of any coal operations on the banks of the Fraser River, for reasons including the following:
• This proposal will increase open-car coal train traffic through our residential communities. More coaltrain traffic means our families will be exposed to more diesel exhaust (a known carcinogen), morecoal dust, and more nighttime noise from train whistles at levels deemed unsafe by the WorldHealth Organization. Homes in neighbourhoods closest to rail lines will also be exposed to morepotentially damaging vibration from heavy coal trains more than 2 kilometres long.
• When burned, the coal exported from Fraser Surrey Docks would release as much global warmingpollution as the 6th largest polluter in Canada - just behind the two biggest tar sands processingfacilities and the three biggest coal-fired power plants. Just last week UN Climate Chief ChristianaFigueres said that in order to avoid runaway, catastrophic climate change there is no room in theworld for new coal developments. That includes new ports like the one you’re proposing.
• This proposal will increase freighter traffic in the Salish Sea, increasing risk of oil spills and shippingaccidents and impacts on wild salmon and endangered orca populations.
We remind you that in June 2013, Metro Vancouver, our regional government, voted overwhelmingly to oppose any coal exports from your Fraser River site. Numerous individual municipalities, including New Westminster, Surrey, White Rock, Delta, Richmond and Vancouver have either opposed this project outright or demanded full public hearings, an independent health impact assessment (HIA) and a fully-scoped environmental assessment before any approvals were granted for your project.
The call for an HIA to fully evaluate the risks posed by your proposal came directly from our regional health authorities. Numerous health care groups and doctors have supported this request.
As you know, to date these requests remain unanswered. Public hearings, an HIA and a fully scoped EA have not taken place for this project. In general, the lack of meaningful consultation with the public, local and regional governments and health authorities has been an issue of ongoing concern during the review of your project.
There is widespread opposition to your project. The cities of Surrey and New Westminster have indicated they will apply to intervene in the legal challenge of the Port’s previous approval of your direct transfer coal facility, initiated by Communities and Coal, Voters Taking Action on Climate
Change and two individual applicants. The Musqueam Nation has filed its own, separate legal challenge of the permitting of your facility as well.
Further, we note that your company has been a strong advocate for removal of the George Massey Tunnel and deeper dredging of the Fraser River — modifications to the river would allow deeper draft vessels to reach your facility, effectively turning the Fraser into a “marine highway.” We are deeply concerned that if these modifications come to pass your facility will begin exporting larger volumes of coal on bigger vessels. This will mean still more coal trains through our communities, more noise, diesel exhaust and coal dust, more ship traffic in the Salish Sea, and more climate-harming pollution when the exported coal is burned.
This is not something we want to see happen in our region, and we know that our neighbours in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana are working hard to stop more coal trains from running through, and new coal ports from being built, in their communities to avoid these same impacts.
Mr. Scott, we have nothing against your company and wish it well, but there is no future in exporting thermal coal. The end of the age of coal has been acknowledged by a wide range of organizations including the World Bank, HSBC, Goldman Sachs, the International Energy Agency the US Export-Import Bank and even executives of your company’s owner, the MacQuarrie Group. We share their concerns about coal and climate change and our opposition to this project will not end. We want our communities to host the ports of tomorrow, not the ports of yesterday.
We urge you to abandon plans for this coal port and seek a different path forward.
Sincerely,
Paula Williams, Communities and Coal Laura Benson, Dogwood Initiative Eoghan Moriarty, Real Port Hearings Kevin Washbrook, Voters Taking Action on Climate Change
Open letter coordinators.
58 organizations and businesses have endorsed this letter. The list includes numerous organizations working to stop US thermal coal exports in both British Columbia and the western United States. Their logos appear on the next four pages of the letter. Visit RealPortHearings.org to click on their logos and visit their sites.
Below the organizational endorsements, 2944 people have signed the letter as individuals. Each has indicated their home community. Most of the signatories are from southwestern BC, though many living near the coal rail route in Washington and other states have also signed the letter. Many individuals have also indicated organizational affinity but
are not signing on behalf of those organizations.