Critics concerned as Prince Rupert fuel export terminal enters final comment stage

As Vopak Development Canada’s proposed fuel storage facility and export terminal near Prince Rupert enters its final public comment period,  environmental groups say the project fails to address risks associated  with marine and rail transport. 

If approved, the Vopak Pacific Canada facility would bring up to 240 rail cars carrying fuels like diesel,  propane, methanol and gasoline through northwest B.C. every day. The  fuels would be shipped on the CN rail network from sources in B.C. and  Alberta to Ridley Island, an industrial site near Prince Rupert. The  terminal would also bring up to 171 tankers to the Skeena River estuary  annually.

article continues below

“Vopak brings the risk of a spill of highly toxic diesel oil and gasoline from  train derailments, tanker accidents and spills at the offloading  facility,” Greg Knox, executive director of SkeenaWild Conservation  Trust, told The Narwhal. “Such spills are very difficult to clean up  once they enter the river or marine environment.”

Retired  biologist Dawn Remington with Friends of Morice-Bulkley said the project  poses a risk to communities along fuel transportation routes and not  enough information about how these communities will be protected has  been made available to the public. 

“We’re  going to be a corridor for hazardous petroleum products. And if this is  the case, I want it to be done safely,” Remington told The Narwhal,  adding her concerns aren’t about trying to stop the project. 

Remington said the Vopak project presents an opportunity to address the risks of rail transportation associated with several projects in the region, including another proposed fuel export facility and one that’s already under construction.

Vopak recently submitted its application for an environmental assessment certificate along with its report on the project’s potential environmental impacts to the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office. The public can now review and comment on those documents until Dec. 30. 

During the  initial public comment period in 2018, members of the public and  environmental groups asked that increased rail traffic associated with  the Vopak project be included in the facility’s review.

And during  the First Nations consultation process, each of the six nations  involved flagged increased rail traffic as an important issue that  should be addressed as part of the environmental assessment.

The B.C. Environmental Assessment Office said it would not include rail traffic in the assessment, deferring to Transport Canada, the federal agency responsible for regulating the rail network.

“Concerns  of potential spills from train derailments are not being assessed in the  environmental assessment and are being completely ignored by CN, Vopak  and the provincial and federal governments despite strong public  concern,” Knox said.

CN’s rail accidents have been steadily increasing, according to a 2019 Transportation Safety Board of Canada report.  Last year, there were 169 accidents involving dangerous goods, like the  ones that would be shipped to the Vopak facility. Eight of those  accidents resulted in spills, twice as many as the previous year.

In March, a train carrying coal and propane derailed near an elementary school east  of Prince George, B.C., spilling coal into a creek and causing an  emergency evacuation of the school. Other derailments in the region over  the past few years have resulted in coal and wood pellets spilling into  creeks and rivers.

Remington has been working with communities along the rail corridor in northwest  B.C. to formally request Transport Canada conduct a risk assessment of  rail traffic in the region. Even though the potential for a rail  accident resulting in an explosion or deadly spill is low, Remington  worries a single event could have catastrophic effects. 

Propane — also referred to as liquified petroleum gas — is a highly-combustible fossil fuel captured as a by-product of fracking for natural gas. More propane travelling through the region means more risk, she said. 

“Risk is  the probability of something happening times the severity of the  consequences if it happens,” she explained. “So even if the probability  is low, the consequences are enormous.”

She  stressed that without knowing the risks, the communities along the rail  corridor aren’t equipped to deal with an emergency should one arise.  “How do you evacuate this entire town if people have no idea?”

The concern is shared along the transportation corridor, even in towns hundreds of kilometres from the proposed Vopak facility.

In a recent public comment on the project, Jeanette Weir, from Hazelton, B.C., said the threat the  export terminal poses to communities along rail lines has effectively  been overlooked.

“This  project is completely ignoring the communities through which an enormous  increase of rail transport of explosive dangerous goods is proposed. It  should not be evaluated for the sole risks at the Prince Rupert storage  facility because it will affect all of us living along the rail line.”

In a document provided to First Nations outlining the potential effects of increased rail traffic, Vopak said  the project would contribute to an incremental increase in the risks  associated with rail transportation, including moose strikes, collisions  and derailments. It also stressed that all regulations related to rail  safety fall under the jurisdiction of Transport Canada.

Public  requests that the environmental impacts of marine traffic be included in  the projects assessment were also denied by the Environmental  Assessment Office, leading to lingering concerns the project will harm  marine ecosystems.

The  proposed facility would include a number of holding tanks for fuel and a  marine berth where tankers would be filled over 40-hour periods. Vopak  would only be responsible for products during storage, unloading and  loading.

For nearly  50 years, a now-shuttered pulp mill near Ridley Island discharged  contaminated materials into the marine environment, much of which is now  sequestered in a layer of sediment on the ocean floor — including where  Vopak would provide mooring for tankers.

Although  Vopak scrapped its initial plan to dredge up the contaminated sediment  to make way for a permanent jetty, many worry the current plan to leave  sediment — which contains highly toxic dioxins and furans as well as copper and arsenic — undisturbed is unrealistic.

According to Luanne Roth, north coast campaigner for the T Buck Suzuki  Environmental Foundation, the new plan was submitted after the initial  public comment period, so any public concerns about the redesign have  yet to be addressed.

“Before,  with the big dredge, all of that contaminated sediment would have been  gone from the area,” she said. Now the issue is what happens to the  sediment when tankers are mooring. 

“When the  boats are docked, they’re docked by really powerful tugs, so there’s  going to be really powerful propeller wash,” she said. 

The  effects of propeller wash, the movement of water by ships’ engines, on  the sediment have not been studied for the Vopak project, but they were  when the Pacific Northwest LNG terminal was on the books for neighbouring Lelu Island. Roth said those  studies estimated five centimetres of sediment would be resuspended  every day.

All of  that toxic sediment would then be distributed by tides and currents  within the surrounding marine ecosystem. Opposite Lelu Island, and  within sight of the proposed Vopak project, is Flora Bank, which has  been noted as a critical juvenile salmon habitat. Given the dramatic declines in Skeena salmon populations, the effects could be felt throughout the entire Skeena watershed.

Roth said there may be solutions to the problem, but the absence of any mention of  the effects of propeller wash in Vopak’s environmental effects  evaluation is troubling, especially because the chemicals are known to  have negative effects on human health, including increased risk of autism, cancer and diabetes. 

“There’s a tremendous amount of food gathering in the Skeena estuary, so it’s a really big concern,” she said.

In an  emailed statement, Vopak communications director, Stefany Cortes, told  the Narwhal “the tugboat propulsion is focused higher in the water  column and, therefore, is not expected to resuspend sediment during  mooring.”

Roth also raised concerns about the increased marine traffic and the potential for a catastrophic spill. As The Narwhal previously reported,  many of Prince Rupert’s designated anchorages are situated in water  that lies atop a thin layer of mud and sediment on smooth rock. In high  winds — very common during fall and winter — a ship can drag its anchor  and potentially end up smashing against coastal rocks. 

Even just  one ship spilling its fuel, not to mention its cargo of fuel, would have  catastrophic effects on the marine ecosystem. 

According to a T Buck Suzuki study, between 2004 and 2017, the Prince Rupert port had three times as many  anchor-dragging incidents as the Port of Vancouver despite having 86 per  cent less vessels. This works out to 2,360 per cent more incidents per  visit.

Roth said there were 29 incidents in Prince Rupert last winter.

Earlier  this year, T Buck Suzuki commissioned an independent report to assess  the safety risks associated with anchoring in the Prince Rupert area.  Prepared by Ivan Todorov, a master mariner and former senior officer on  oil tankers, the report noted a need to ensure that “loading be delayed  when storm/hurricane warnings have been issued in order to limit the  need for anchoring laden tankers in poor holding ground.”

Todorov added that the Vopak project should be subject to a formal risk assessment of grounding and collision incidents.

The Prince  Rupert Port Authority, which is responsible for federal lands and  waters in the area and is the coordinator of the environmental  assessment for the proposed project, recently commissioned an  independent navigational risk assessment. But when The Narwhal asked to  review the document, the port said it would not make the report  available to the public.

Port  communications director Monika Cȏté told The Narwhal in an emailed  statement that the port authority has strict policies and procedures in  place for the movement and anchorage of ships coming and going from the  Ridley Island Propane Export Terminal, of which Vopak is part owner, and  similar policies and procedures would be implemented for the proposed  facility. Those procedures include port-assigned pilots and tugboat  assistance. 

“Procedures  vary depending on vessel, cargo and terminal they are going to, and  what is required to mitigate navigational risk,” she wrote.  “Vopak-specific procedures will be determined through a multi-agency  effort that includes vessel simulation trials.”

She said it is uncommon for ships to remain at anchorage once they’re loaded. “In  the very rare circumstance that a loaded vessel would move to  anchorage, the tug would remain in attendance with the vessel while it  is at anchor,” she wrote.

Roth said  if the port is not able to prevent fully loaded ships from anchoring  during storm events, Vopak could contractually refuse to fill a tanker  if extreme weather was in the forecast. “That’s something we’d really  like them to address,” she said.

In the new  year, Vopak Development Canada will compile all of the comments  received during the public comment period and submit them to the B.C.  Environmental Assessment Office. The office will then consult with the  province, the port authority, local First Nations, Fisheries and Oceans  Canada, Transport Canada and other stakeholders to resolve any  outstanding issues. 

If no red  flags are identified, the stakeholders will sign off on the project and a  final decision will be made by provincial ministers. 

Vopak projects it will start construction in late 2021. 

Read Related Topics


NOTE: To post a comment you must have an account with at least one of the following services: Disqus, Facebook, Twitter, Google+ You may then login using your account credentials for that service. If you do not already have an account you may register a new profile with Disqus by first clicking the "Post as" button and then the link: "Don't have one? Register a new profile".

The Prince George Citizen welcomes your opinions and comments. We do not allow personal attacks, offensive language or unsubstantiated allegations. We reserve the right to edit comments for length, style, legality and taste and reproduce them in print, electronic or otherwise. Comments that contain external links will not be permitted. For further information, please contact the editor or publisher, or see our Terms and Conditions.

comments powered by Disqus

Should the mayor resign? POLL

Should Mayor Lyn Hall resign due to the $22 million cost overrun to build the George Street parkade?

or  view results

Popular Citizen

Lowest Gas Prices in Prince George
Prince George Gas Prices provided by