eneral Mayor Council G FILE t# {913Cf)g)y t::IdL

From: James Ronback [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 20122:11 PM To: Mayor & Council Cc: Betty Swedberg; Carol Day; Barbara Huisman; Olga T; Judy Williams; Otto Langer; Jl 8.01 Williams; James Ronback; Bill Pekonen; Scott Carswell; Don Pitcairn; Mike Brotherst! George Harvie Subject: VAPOR Delegation to Council in September TYPE: IK.ft.CS ,tv 6, ~ ( To Mayor and Council July 24th, 20 1 ~ EPT: C ltvks . cArLr Corporation of Delta, BC - -- , A. T. #: \\3 10 35 comments:' tJv ';t~/ >h 'L We are writing to request that our society, VAPOR, be added to the agenda ofthe City Council p:iliil~~~y~ J meeting in September. We need approximately 6 to 8 minutes to bring you up to date since our last delegation to Council one year ago. We will brief you on the results of our meeting with Port Metro , our critiques of the Tanker Traffic Study and the V AFFC business case, and explain the need to pick an option that minimizes the worst case regrets in providing toxic and flammable jet fuel to YVR.

VAPOR is a grass roots society that is working to stop the proposed the 80 million liter .ret fuel taDk farm and marine facility on the south arm of the Fraser River directly across from the Deas Island Park. Our directors includes a marine biologist, a safety expert and many others that can answer your questions and provide essential information on the V AFFC proposal and the OTHER options.

VAPOR supports the two attached options from the V AFFC proposal:

# 3 upgrade of the existing Kinder Morgan jet fuel pipeline from the Chevron refinery to YVR. # 8 a new pipeline to the Cherry Point refinery in Washington State.

Both of these options avoid the need for huge jet fuel Panamax tankers to travel on the Fraser River estuary and the unload onto a 80,000.000 liter jet fuel storage facility on the waters edge. Be aware that the combined stored energy in the tank farm and a Panamax tanker unloading flammable and toxic jet fuel at the marine terminal is more than the energy stored in 1,000,000 tons of TNT.

In the event of a catastrophic incident such as an explosion, fire and jet fuel spill at the marine terminal and tank farm, these alternate pipeline-only options will provide much more protection for the environment of the Fraser River estuary and the fishing industry and the safety of the residents and workers on both sides of the Fraser River, Delta and Richmond, as well as the patrons and workers of the Entertainment and Sports complex nearby,

A safer and more reliable pipeline-only solution will also reduce hazardous tanker traffic in the Salish Sea, Fraser River estuary and Burrard Inlet as well eliminate jet fuel tank truck traffic on the highway.

Vicki Huntington MLA and Kerry-Lynn Findlay MP have come out against the VAFFC Jet fuel proposal along with Richmond City council, MLA and others .

. We can provide council with a brief for easy reference and we will make a short presentation.

Thank you very much,

1 Jim Ronback, P. Eng. (Retired) Director of VAPOR

1530 Kirkwood Road Delta, Be V4L 101

604948 1589 www.vaporbc.com

604.240.1986 604.271.5535

OPTION # 3 Pipeline to Burnaby

2 UPGRADE OR REPLACE THE EXISTING PIPELINE DELIVERY SYSTEM The existing 40-kilometre pipeline system was built in the late 1960s, when four refineries were operating in the area. Only the Chevron Refinery remains and it provides only 40% of current fuel required at YVR. Another 40% arrives by tanker or barge at the Westridge Marine Terminal on Burrard Inlet. These two sources still do not meet YVR's needs, and have to be augmented by daily tanker truck deliveries from Washington State [remaining 20%). Option 3 contemplated an upgrade to the existing pipeline or a complete replacement to accommodate current and future fuel demand. PROS CONS

• Partially existing footprint Ii Kinder Morgan Canada owns the pipeline and rjght~ .. Meets peak & long~term demand of-way, so an upgrade or replacement IS not within $ Reduced reliance on road tanker trucks YAFFC's control G Uses existing Marine Terminal facilities .. An upgraded or replaced pipeUne would require additional facilities at Westridge Marine Terminal @ Modernizes the pipeline system for receiving marine shipments and storing fuel, e Potentially more socially acceptable and these facilities are not part of the pipeline system and are owned by a third party • The option of upgr~ding the existing pipeline with the addition of pumping stations would only provide a short~term soLution, and not meet the Long~term needs of YVR $ Replacement of or twinning the 40~kilometre pipeline would be very difficult and expensive due to ongoing operations and the compLex route through Burnaby and Richmond '&I Option does not provide increased access to offshore sources and therefore achieves a low evaluation score for security and flexibility of suppLy genda . ~hj" Mayor Council A FILE # 13l/b t) -&0- t,~ II/"\...- U'l ~ From: Carol Day [[email protected] N Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 20128:12 AM C1"I To: Linda Reid ; Rob Howard; ; Vicki Huntington MLA; Fin Donnelly; Mayor & Councilt;: Richmond - MayorandCounciliors; Alice Wong MP ; "The Honourable Kerry-Lynne Findlayil!ilp (Delta - Richmond East)"; MP Prime Minister2; Premier Clark; [email protected]; Peter Ke~ Cc: Barbara Huisman; Betty Swedberg; carol DAY; Jim Ronback; Judy Wiliams; Judy William ~ Otto Langer; Scott Carswell Subject: VAPOR letter to airlines Attachments: VAPOR Letter to Airlines Sept 20, 2012 FINALjrA1 .doc

This is a copy of our letter to the Airlines in the V AFFC asking them to look at better options for JET FUEL delivery to the Vancouver International Airport

Please see the attached letter

Thanks very much.

Carol Day CHAIR VAPOR on behalf of the board of directors

604.240.1986 -YPE _ ~'S -to ~ . \ F 604.271.5535 DEPT C A -\ G.- [email protected] www.catsigns.ca ~ . T # \4V~le ·omments: \ ,i) c/e~ (W/I l.\ ( ' . rJovU'f\ be,. S( ( l..- Iz <2 j v, Ia, ('{j cef;" :J

1 V.A.P.O.R

An Open Letter to Air Canada and WestJet and the other airlines that own the Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation (V AFFC).

September 20, 2012

Dear Airline Presidents: Why are some Pipelines Acceptable and Why Others Must be Rejected: (Why some pipelines eliminate tanker traffic and other pipelines increase tanker traffic.) In our discussions with many people and reading Vancouver area newspapers it is ohvious that the public is confused by the VAFFC (for servicing Vancouver International Airport - YVR) jet fuel and other crude oil pipeline proposals. Many Vancouver area environmentalists and common sense people are supporting a pipeline only optiori to transport jet fuel to YVR. Whereas, in Northern BC similar environmentally " concerned citizens are opposing a dual pipeline to ship Alherta diluted tar sands oil (bitumen) from Fort McMurray to Kitimat. Why is there this difference in the positions taken by like minded people on very similar issues? Are not all pipelines similar? In 1989 the federal government rejected a proposal by the VAFFC (owned by Air Canada, WestJet and about 24 other airlines) to ship toxic and flammable jet fuel into the Fraser River by barges. Despite that, in 2010 VAFFC came back with a proposal to ship jet fuel into the Fraser River by means of very large Panamax tankers. In this latest proposal the risk to fish, wildlife, property, human safety and recreation is much greater. It is urged that the airlines get their heads together and uphold their stated environmental policies and he proactive and precautionary in their thinking so we would not have this major conflict. It is obvious to anyone that the Fraser River and its estuary and fish and wildlife resources are of great value and human and property safety is essential to the public interest. Therefore your airlines must buy into the concept of protecting the estuary and its inhabitants and not locate a hazardous jet fuel transportation and storage facility in the middle of this world class estuary. You should maintain your existing jet fuel supply from Burnaby (the pipeline from the Chevron Refinery has been in place and used for over 40 years with no spills) and in addition you must pursue the option to build a pipeline to the BP (ARCO) refinery at Cherry Point to supplement and ensure your long term stable and safe jet fuel supply. This would get your hazardous jet fuel tank trucks off our roads, bridges and jet fuel tankers off the Salish Sea, out of Burrard Inlet and keep them out of the fragile Fraser River Estuary. The BP refinery at Ferndale now supplies 60 percent ofYVR fuel but by environmentally unfriendly methods, i.e., barges and fuel trucks. This same BP refinery incidentally supplies jet fuel by pipeline to the more distant Seattle and Portland airports­ distances that are at least 3 and 7 times further away than YVR from that refinery. V AFFC argues that YVR must have access to cheaper offshore jet fuel, e.g., SE Asia. If the airlines insist on the need for cheaper offshore jet fuel, they could deliver it into the Cherry Point terminal which is especially designed deep water tanker facility that has been receiving Alaska crude oil for over 40 years. Also the BP refinery and the Chevron Burnaby refineries are both hooked up to a crude oil pipeline from Alberta to assure domestic supply of oil and that is not susceptible to the transportation risks of ocean storms and potential international conflicts in Asia or the Middle East. V.A.P.O.R

The above pipeline solution would therefore eliminate all jet fuel tanker and barge traffic in the Fraser River estuary and Burrard Inlet. That is a win - win solution for all. If you want to buy off-shore jet fuel, you can bring it into the Cherry Point tanker dock and store in a local tank farm and then transport it via a new pipeline to YVR. That would keep the hazardous jet fuel tankers out of the Fraser River and Salish Sea. Polling by three Vancouver area newspapers show that over 90% of people are opposed to any jet fuel tanker traffic in the Fraser River estuary. Do the airlines not care about what the public wants? Jet fuel tanker traffic has never been allowed in the Fraser River - why would we allow it now? In addition, the Cities of Richmond and Vancouver are totally opposed to having jet fuel and crude oil tankers in Burrard Inlet and the Fraser River. The Enbridge Northern Gateway case is very different. Here, there is no pipeline in place and a new pipeline would have to cross hundreds of streams, mountains and major salmon rivers. Once that dual pipeline is in place it must be served by a large fleet of enormous tankers through the sensitive and pristine BC coastal waterways. What makes that worse is that condensate (light refined fuel) will be shipped from Kitimat to Alberta to dilute the tar sands oil to make it flow in a pipeline. This diluent is highly flammahle and very toxic (like jet fuel) and is used to dilute the tar sands oil as diluted bitumen - also called' dilbit'. The resulting dilbit product is then shipped to Kitimat and moreJarge. tankers will then take it to Asia and other refinery sites. Thus many rivers are actually exposed to two hazardous pipelines and the coast to countless large super tankers - a disaster waiting to happen. This is irresponsible and unacceptable for any company to do this, let alone a company with a questionable record like that of Enbridge. There is no such thing as a good pipeline unless you need the fuel and you are profiting by owning it and it does not leak or spill its contents! However some pipelines in certain circumstances are better than others. Here, the jet fuel pipeline from YVR to the Cherry Point Refinery and marine terminal would be a good application of such an option in that it would have to only cross four significant streams and in that it would elimintlte till jetfuel ttlnker trtlffie in the Fraser River estutlry tlnd Burrard inlet - that's a great gain for marine life, property and human safety. The Enbridge pipeline creates the opposite, i.e., a high risk problem. A double pipeline whose potential spills are toxic and hard to clean-up crosses hundreds of wild streams, across many mountains and valleys and above all it also creates a great deal of hazardous tanker traffic in sensitive and dangerous waters. The Cherry Point to YVR jet fuel pipeline is a good compromise that will eliminate tankers, giant storage tanks on the Fraser River South Arm and greatly reduce environmental, property and human safety risks. The Enbridge dual dibit and diluent pipelines do the very opposite and hence one jet fuel pipeline is much more acceptable than the other. Why can WestJet and Air Canada and the other V AFFC airlines not see that and do the right thing? Canadians and our fish and wildlife populations (life forms that cannot speak for them selves) require greater corporate responsibility. It is respectfully requested that the airlines that have a privilege to land at YVR, show a greater respect for the protection of an estuary of global significance. You have to realize that you are unfortunately sited in the middle of the estuary and have to bear a much greater responsibility in protecting that key environment. The Fraser River and estuary's fish and wildlife popUlations are under great development stress and simply do not need the hazardous jet fuel tanker traffic, marine terminal and an 80,000,000 litre tank farm in the middle of the estuary within 400 meters of a residential, sports and entertainment complex! The combined stored energy in that jet fuel tank farm and a berthed Panamax tanker exceeds more the one million tons of TNT. Any explosion, fire and spill would be deadly and horrific. It's time for the airlines take on leadership and responsibility. Constantly ignoring and opposing what the vast majority of the public want, what the City of Richmond and Vancouver want (no jet fuel in the estuary) is a needless waste of our time and causes great anxiety and resentment against V AFFC and their airline owners. Do the airlines not believe in good and responsible corporate relations and want to demonstrate an ethical concern for our environment and future generations? V.A.P.O.R

To date the airlines and your V AFFC just kept repeating claims that they must have Panamax tankers of cheaper jet fuel entering and being stored in the Fraser River because it is "safe"; it is being "reviewed in a rigorous manner"; there is "no seismic problem"; the ships are "double hulled"; and YVR airlines need a stable and safe supply of competitively priced jet fuel. You have simply refused to address the various issues raised that challenges this thinking that have been stuck in a denial rut for too long. Common sense has to prevail. To put these issues into perspective V AFFC and the airlines must answer the following questions: • How is depending on international oil from Asia or the Middle East or Venezuela a safe and stable long tenn option, considering the international instabilities and the hazards associated with waters around those countries?

• How can the airlines continue to pretend that shipping crude oil to far away places like Singapore or China to he refined and then getting it back as j et fuel in a fleet of ocean going tankers is safe and a stable and responsible example of establishing a lower carbon footprint?

• Is it not a more stable, reliable and safer supply of oil when the oil originates in Alberta or Alaska and is refined locally and sent directly to the airport in a short pipeline(s) without using a single hazardous jet fuel tanker in local highly sensitive waters or jet fuel tank trucks on our highways?-- -"

• Is a pipeline not safer, more dependable and cheaper to run over the 60 year duration of the project than a daily parade of tankers across the Pacific Ocean? In that they could take 15 to 18 days to get to our coast, a fleet of tankers would have to be committed to YVR fuel needs. Do those ships go back to China, etc., empty or do they dump their jet fuel in Richmond and then go into Burrard Inlet to fill up on diluted bitumen from the Kinder Morgan line thereby creating a greater hazard to local waters and our coast? Do those ships fly international flags of convenience and are they accountable to Canadian law?

• Would a pipeline not take a fraction of the workers to operate and not tie up a fleet of ships? What is that cost savings to the airlines over 60 years?

• Do you and the V AFFC have full legal accountability for what you are promoting including future incidents such as explosions, fires, spills, spill cleanups and compensation for fishery and public losses that may amount to millions of dollars?

The airlines continue to live in denial that there is little likelihood of a major incident or spill from their proposed tanker traffic, Richmond tenninal and tank farm. Your own consultants have predicted the probability of up to a 50 barrel spill once every 6 years and up to 1000 barrel each 30 years. Each ofthose spills would he a major impact to the Fraser River and its life and could jeopardize an entire recreational, commercial and Aboriginal fishery in the estuary. If a significant spill occurs during a large sockeye run the loss to the fishery would be in the range of 20 to over 100 million dollars as well as losses suffered by the next generations of salmon and other species of fish and wildlife that may not spawn or reproduce successfully! The 2010 sockeye run alone was worth at least 400 million dollars and that does not include recreational nor Aboriginal fisheries values. Finally the airlines have to switch on their radar and see that the BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) process is not the rigorous process they blindly claim it to be. It has largely left out puhlic overview and input. The public were only given a two minute window to speak on the VAFFC proposal issues in 2011. The BC Auditor General and the University or Victoria Law Centre and many other groups have been very critical of the inadequacies of the BC environmental review process. I would assume they have studied it more than the airlines have. Further it is a junior government process and it cannot hold the federal agencies and their activities accountable. In the Fraser River Estuary we are dealing with a federal airport, federally regulated airlines, federal V.A.P.O.R

airport, a federal port authority, federally protected fish and wildlife, federally protected habitat and federal shipping and pilotage laws apply. How is BC or the BC EAO going to do a proper and binding review on any of these federal responsibilities and mandates? In light of omnibus Bill 38 that gutted the environmental law and regulations in Canada, how is Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) going provide due diligence in protecting the environment in this jurisdiction? Is it your intention, unlike in 1988, to take advantage of a weak federal will and gutted environmental protection laws to promote what is an environmentally reckless proposal to supply toxic and flammable jet fuel to YVR? Further to the above, the harmonized PMV - BC EAO process is much less than that. No project specific agreement exists. Also PMV has advised VAPOR that the BC EAO process is not binding on them and they alone will be responsible for shipping safety in the river. Are the airlines happy that they promoted use of a voluntary dis-harmonized process that may amount to little less than green washing? It is respectfully requested that the airlines, especially WestJet and Air Canada, take the lead to review this reckless proposal that you are now supporting and realize that a much smaller jet fuel delivery proposal to barge jet fuel to YVR (some 23 years ago) was soundly rejected by a properly constituted public federal environmental review panel process Your prompt attention to this matter and the issues we have raised win!:>" appreciated. Responsibility for environmental and social ethics is the central issue in this less than well thought out proposal. This is also compounded by your belief in an unsatisfactory PMV - BC EAO review process. As requested in the past we are very willing and again request a meeting with your senior staff to discuss this issue in a more productive manner. Our past attempts to contact your V AFFC office have been ignored. That alone is a problem in what should be an open and transparent process. Sincerely yours, Otto E. Langer, Fisheries Biologist and Aquatic Ecologist

Carol Day, Chair of VAPOR and Community Activist

Jim Ronback, P. Eng., (Retired) Systems Safety Engineer.

Copies: Premier Clark; MOE Lake; FLRM Thomson; Off. Opp. Dix; Fleming, Pynn Sun; M. Hume G&M; Calgary Herald; Edmonton Journal; the National; CBC, CTV, Pablo Carlito; Richmond Review, Richmond News; VAPOR Society; Cities of Delta, Richmond and Vancouver, Nagel Surrey Leader; Delta Optimist; BC ENGOs.; Rafe Mare; Common Sense Canadian; Green MP May; MP Findlay; MLA Huntington; MLA Gentner; MP Donnelly; MP Nowlan, MP Wong; MLA Yap; DFO Ashfield; EC Kent; PM Harper; DFO; EC; BC EAO.