The possibility that coal barges will soon be plying the south arm of the Fraser River has raised concerns about the environmental impact it could have on the waterway and Richmond residents.
Its right up there at the top of the list of incredibly bad projects for the Fraser River Estuary, said Coun. Harold Steves.
Its the same as having Panamex tankers shipping jet fuel down the river. Except, in this case were going to accept coal from the States which is being rejected by American citizens for shipping out of their communities, and were looking to ship it out of Canada because our environmental laws are so lax that were ripe for the picking.
Surrey Fraser Docks submitted a project permit application last summer to Port Metro Vancouver to develop a coal transfer facility just off the south eastern tip of Annacis Island that would initially handle up to four million metric tonnes annually from a massive deposit in the western U.S., called the Powder River Basin.
The proposal is to initially ship coal down the river in 284-foot-long by 72-foot-wide barges roughly once a day 320 trips during the first year. In years two to five, the number of trips down the river is planned to double to 640. Year six would see it double again to 1,280 trips and move eight million tones of coal. Each trip would be made by one barge pulled by a tug.
Once the barges reach the Sand Heads area off Steveston Harbour, just beyond the mouth of the Fraser River, they will be tied to a second one to complete the trip in tandem to Texada Island where a storage and distribution facility would load the coal onto deep sea vessels bound for markets in Asia.
Each barge has the capacity to haul 8,000 DWT (dead weight tonnage) and will be filled to 85 per cent of their maximum. The weight is roughly equivalent to 3,746 average-sized cars.
Steves said one of his main concerns is the health of those along the proposed route due to dust coming from the coal while being transported, and the global environmental impact of burning coal.
Its coal dust, but its also the fact that as far as Im concerned the burning of coal should be curtailed worldwide. There should be no new coal plants burning coal.
Former federal fishery biologist and aquatic ecologist Otto Langer said his overarching concerns focus on the future nature of the Fraser River.
Basically, what do we want the lower Fraser River for, he said. Do we want to make it into a Rotterdam-type port, which is where Port Metro Vancouver seems to want to go with shipping jet fuel, the Roberts Bank expansion, and now coal.
Rotterdam is Europes largest port and was the worlds busiest until 2002 when eclipsed by Shanghai. Langer added he is also fearful of the environmental concerns to wildlife.
Coal dust will clog the gills of fish and do damage, he said.
Its a fairly sharp, abrasive material. Coal per se is not toxic itself, but its a pretty nasty, little, fine, angular material that can do a lot of damage to the fine gill tissues of animals that live in the ocean.
Currently, Fraser Surrey Docks is a multi-purpose terminal moving containers, steel, agricultural products and special equipment, said Jim Crandles, the port authoritys director of planning and development. No new berths are required at the site and no storage of coal is expected, except for emergency purposes, Crandles added.
Since the proposed project is being planned on port property and no specific development is earmarked for the marine environment, Port Metro Vancouver is the sole agency involved in granting the permit to proceed.
Part of its project review process includes an environmental review component.
Issues of noise, dust and other environmental affects like a spill in the marine environment are all part of the review process, and an important part of this one, Crandles said.
Since the projects permit was applied for, the port authority has undertaken public reviews and has been in contact with regional governments along the proposed route.
The coal would be transported to the dock via railcar from the Powder River Basin, a geologic region in southeast Montana and northeast Wyoming that supplies about 40 per cent of coal in the United States.
Surrey and White Rock councils have already voiced opposition to the plan, focusing concerns on the increase of coal train traffic through the two communities.
Richmond has not taken any position on that issue to date, said city spokesman Ted Townsend.
We do have concerns about the proposed expansion at Roberts Bank in regards to the additional truck traffic that would generate through the tunnel and Richmond, Townsend said.
Council passed a formal motion in February and staff have been monitoring the public consultation process.
No date has been set for granting approval for the project.
Were still working on details with the proponent and still in review and havent set a specific timeline, Crandles said.
