misled on yvr alternatives - supporting records from mla vicki huntington

8/13/2019 Misled on YVR Alternatives - Supporting Records from MLA Vicki Huntington

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/misled-on-yvr-alternatives-supporting-records-from-mla-vicki-huntington 1/6

Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporationc/o FSM Management Group Inc

Suite 103 -12300 Horseshoe.Way

Richmonl1 B.C. Canada V7A 4Z1

Phone: (604) 271-7113

Fax: {604) 271·8006

January 17, 2012

Carrie Brown, PGeo.

Manager, Environmental Programs

Port Metro Vancouver

100 The Pointe, 999 Canada Place

Vancouver, BC

V6C3T4

Dear Ms. Brown:

Re: PMV Comments, VAFD Project, Agency and First Nations Tracking Table (November 18, 2011

Version)- Proponent Responses



• Contaminant Risk Potential: We appreciate PMV s comments on the Screening Level Contaminated

Sites A s s e s s m e n ~ In particular the Identification of a site wlth known contamination. This

·information· is useful and will assist with th management ·of contaminated sites in the Construction

.Environmental Management Plan to be developed prior to the start ofconstruction. This plan will

be provided to PMV.and EAO for review.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or clarifications regarding our responses.

You can reach me at 604 271 7113.

Sincerely,

Vancouver Airport uel Facilities Corporation

Adrian Pollard P.Eng.

Project Director



Appendix A to the 1 January 2012 letter from VAFFC to Carrie Brown (PMV}

Comment Theme PMVComment Proponent Response

I'D#3g Project PMV reserves comm ent until we have had an Noted. VAFFC voluntarily engaged two consulting firms,

Alternatives opportunity to review the options analysis that Gold er Associates and Ausenco-Sandwell, both with

VAFFC has completed or at least until we have extensive marine and environm-ental engineering

received a compelling rationale for not selecting either experience, to jointly undertake a more detailed and

the single point mooring and deep water terminal independent comparative analysisof hese and other

alternatives . Please advise when the analysis report or Project delivery alternatives. Early in this Project review,

rationale wHJ be available. We anticipate that VAFFC both the EAO and CEA Agency clarified that the review of

will provide a copy i r ~ l y to PMV when submitting alternative projects was not within the scope of this

this to the EAO. Project review. We commissioned the study to respond to

the public interest in more informatio n on the selection of

the current project for review. The EAO has not

requested this further study, nor has t been filed as part

of he record for review of his Project. A copy of the

report has been forwarde d for your nformation.

3h Project Same comment as for #3g above. See the response provided to Comment #3g.

Alternatives

3m First Nations PMV will provide comment in respect of he draft First We understand that PMV are discussing this topic ·

Interests Nations Consultation Summary Report under separate internally with some areas requ iring clarifications. We

cover. look forward to receJving PMV's comments, but note that

this topic is best addressed between PMV and the EAO.

3p First Nations PMV wiiJ provide comment in respect of he draft First See the response provided to Comment #3m.

Consultation Nations Consultation Summary Report under separate

cover.

3q Consultation Given that the EA is a harmonized provincial and Pre-Application informa tion distrib ution and consultation

federa l process, the First Nations, municipal and public with government, First Nations and the public is detailed



TRACKING DATE OF AGENCY/ SUBJECT AREA COMMENTS/ ISSUES ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT S dAIR PROPONENT{VAFFC) RESPONSES

No. COMMENTS AUTHORITY / fiRST

NAnON PROVIDING

COMMENTS (COMMENTS ON THE dAIR REV .O, OCTOBER 20, 2009) (RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON TH dAIR REV.O

(COMMENTS ONTHEdAIR REV.1 , MARCH 17, 2010) (RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE dAIR REV .

{COMMENTS ON THEdAIR REV.2 , JULY 27 , 2010) (RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON TH dAIR REV .2

03/SEP/10 Voncouvcl'Fraser Pooe I. second bulle t -

Port Aulhorily

• .... key stakeholders and regulatory agendasand ou lhorlnes {recanmand oddlng • Acl<nowlooged. change s now reflectedIn 1he AIR

S001een Suszezwlez. -cod g ultlalties since VFPA Is not on agency) .

Senlof PtonnC H

Pooo secQOd o g rogm ph 1roderVfPA

• tho proposed morioo terminal tJpgrodes ore nor on Poet property and would notbe • Acknowlcdgod. This change is oow eflected n 100 AJR

part of the Port's dovelopmenr opptov al process. .e. PMV would ootbe ssuing adevelOPment petmit foe marine temino1wales

Sl 22/JAN/10 vancouverFraser Evoluo tiooo f Pog 45 S.ctlon 3.2.1 of the Content Regulce.,...nts fot ttle AQQ:Iicotion Document: • Sec-tion 2 6: Alternative Meansof Undertaking the Propo

Port Authority Altemotlves Projectof the Application wOI describe the alternative

• PJtematlves evo luoted should nclude olt not ust the ones descrlbed in the options means of carrying out the project os described under h

Sharieen Suszezwiez. evauolloo memo os being most wodhy of consideration. Those "not worthy" con CEAA. Subsection 2.3.4: Fuel Delivery System Options of

SeniorP onnet po<slbly be reo<liydismissed but shou ld oeve<theies< be dentified. reviseddAI Rspecifies that the Application will indude obrief dlscvssionof oil po tential options consldeted leodn

UO IO thO O<OOOSed Proiecl



TRACKING DATE OF AGENCY / SUBJECT AREA COMMENTS / ISSUES ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT SdAIR PROPONENT VAFFC) RESPONSES

N o. COMMENTS AUTHORITY / fiRST

NAnON PROVIDING

COMMENTS (COMMENTS ON THE dAIR REV .O, OCTOBER 20, 2009) (RESPONSESTO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE dAIR REV.

(COMMENTSONTHEdAIR R£V.1, MARCH 17. 2010) (RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE dAIR REV .

(COMMENTS ON THEdAIR REV.2, JULY 27, 2010) (RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECElVED ON THE dAIR REV.

07/APR/10 voncouvef Ai port • The dAJR shouki out11ne plonned pubSc CC1n lilfotlon rather than waiting for the • See ptevlousresponseAuthotlly oppficotfoo. Attematlvely, VAFFC ond EAO should J)r epore o pu k coosultotioo

Simon R o ~ n s o n plan

Environmento1Speclollst

6 22/JAN/10 Vancouver Akport Project • Alternatives- The re-Aew of oltemotfvesdescribed the dAJR (Pages 45 46)does • Sec-Hon 2.6: AlternativeMeansof Undertoldng the Propo

Authority Altet notlves not soundany mote comprehensive than already ptovidedby VAfFC n pte- ProjKtof the revised dAIR specifies the scope of the

Simon R o ~ n s o n application nformodoo. This s a topic that ihouki be d isetJSSed with.other oltematlvemeansof carrying out the project as describ

Environmental ogendes a nd the TWG prior to inollling 1M AIR under he CEAA. The AppHco11onwMdescribeand asse

Speclollsl the ptoposed Project. not otlemotive projects, consistenwith the ptoclice under he 8CEAA and the CEAA



TRACKING DATE OF AGENCY/ SUBJECT AtEA COMMENTS/ISSUES ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT'S dAIR PROPONENT {VAFFC) RESPONSES

No. COMMENTS AUTHORITY fiRST

NAnON PROVIDING

COMMENTS (COMMENTS ON THE dAIR REV .O, OCTOBER 20, 2009) (RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE dAIR REV.

(COMMENTS ON THE dAIR R£v.1, MARCH 17, 2010) (RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE dAIR REY .

(COMMENTS ON TilE dAIR REY.2 , JUlY 27, 2010) (RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEI VED ON THE dAIR REV .

68 26/JAN/10 Clly of Richmond fire Suppression . Richmond Fife Rescue does not hove capacity nor appropriate equiptnent to • Choptet18 : Fire hev•ntlon, Prepcwedrwtss ond Emet genJohn Irving, And safely conduct shipboard tlreftghting and there isno waterside ire fighting Responseof the ce'vised dAIR spedf.es thot the Applicat

Director, Engineering Are Rgh l lng capability on the South Aim . Rlchmooo Rre Rescue emergency response lime to will nclude detailed nfoonotion and definition of the

Copobi ly the proposed tonk orm site is ovet nine minutes. which k not conducive to specific fire suppr-ession systems r SQfutioos that wll be Icontrollinga fire In thisOrigin.Considering that the City or any other agency cannot place to address the tire hazard potentioJ ptesented by

ptovide adequate ~ t f l g h t i n g covetoge to the proposed tetmiOO o.nd tonk c:rm proposed Project nfrosttuc turesites. VAFFC must provide detailed nformation ond defirirfon of specific tire

suppcession systems t solutioos that will be n ploc& to oddt'ess fire hazcwd

69 26/JAN/10 Cily of Richmond O p ~ o o s Analysis • Provide on onotysls that evaluateseach optionwith consistentcriterlo (e.g. • Section 2.6: Altemoflve Meansof Undertaking the Propo

John Irving. tooestrlol ond oquotlc habitat mpacts, risk analysis. CO tS etc .) The assess.men1 Project of the revised dAIR specifies OO scope of the

Oiteclor, tnglneenng curreotty ocks transparency of av olvolion from ons option to another. Mooy oltetnatlvemoonsof carrying out the project as describ

options ore sited to have seismiccholeoges yet there Is no modelling f consistent undef CEAA. The Application will descr1be cod assess th

opplicofioo of sdeoce Or engineering/technical r1g0Uf' to determine the true proposed Project. oot oJternotfve pcojects, consistent wi

nature of the sel.stnic ssue the ptoctlce under BCEAAand CEAA.

• M ocknowledged by the EAO In the December2009TW

meeting, VAFFC voluntarily provided lnformolion to the

IWG on he dentificotlon and evoluo lionof the venous

delivety system options. Andyslsof alternative project

moons has been o m ~ e t e d : modelling s not arequkement of egutototy outhorilies. Subsec-tion 2.3.-4:DeliverySystem Options of the revised dAIR spedflos th

the Applicationwil .oclude o brief discussion poteoptions coosidered leading up to the pcoposed Projec t

12/APR/10 Clly of Richmond . The pcoponent has ooi adequa tely demonstrated to the City that there ore no . AS noted o·bOve. the Applic-ation wnt describe and asses

John Irving, othet viable options to the-South Arm tertrinol option presented for evaluation . the ptopos&d Project, not o1temottve p(ojects, consistenOitector, Engineenng with the pcoctice under he 8CEAA and the CEAA

02/SEP/10 City of Richmond . Nol soti.sfoctorily resolved. TOO City of Richmond's Council rosotution is reiterated . VAfFC Is ow we of tOO City of R'ich.mond'sCouncil rosolu

John iVing, here os folows: with respect to the ptoposed Ptojoct VAfFC will contin

Ditec1or. Engineering Apl'fl26. 2010 Council Agendo Item u m b e ~ 9 · VANCOUVER AJRPOR FU L OEUVERY to wort:: ond consult with the City thtough the

PROJECT envb'onmonta1 assessment review pr-ocoss in occotdonc

Resolution Number RtOn-s with the BCEAA ond the CEAA e q u i r e m eResolution tt wos moved and seconded:

That theOiy of Richmond odvise the 8C Environmental ASSessment Office and the

v >J'FC o f the follow'ong:

(I) fhotln o nv new J•t uel supplysystems to the Voocouvet nternotioool Airport

Richmond Counci l is strongly oppos-ed to:

(al on off.J.ooding fo lity on the south Om l of the Froser Rivet:(b} o new •t fuel loo through Richmond farmland o.nd urban oreos of Richmond:

ond

(c) any nc roose In the numberof rl.Jcks canyiog tuel on City s1reers.

misled on yvr alternatives - supporting records from mla vicki huntington

Documents