The amendment will alter the approved loading infrastructure is altered to allow for a change in the method of shipping without increasing coal volumes handled at the terminal.

FSD applied to PMV in July to amend its existing Direct Transfer Coal Facility project permit (PP-2012-072) so the terminal infrastructure can be change to enable it to load coal directly to ocean-going vessels.

About 38 million tonnes of coal are currently transported through terminals in PMV’s jurisdiction annually. FSD has been permitted to handle 4MMt, following a “thorough” review process.

Though the initial project design considered the use of about 640 barges (round trip) at full capacity, the number of vessels navigating the river can be reduced to as few as 80 ocean-going vessels once the proposed amendment is implemented – if FSD were to use only ocean-going vessels and no barges.

The amendment will see a taller and longer marine vessel loader that would accommodate both vessels and barges; the transfer station will be relocated between the out feed conveyor and the marine vessel loader; and the marine vessel loader control room will be mounted above the out feed conveyor transfer point.

The rail receiving building and associated infrastructure will also be moved, as will the waste water settlement basins; while the rail services to the rail receiving building and related rail infrastructure modifications will be realigned; while Shed 4 – a one-storey steel building, 4600sq.m in size – will be removed.

Public consultation on the proposed changes included local governments, environmental organisations, health authorities, politicians and others, and over 2000 submissions were made from Canada and over 1300 from the United States.

Respondents were concerned not only about the impacts of mining, transferring and burning coal, and the declining coal industry itself, but commented that the approval process was not credible, and that the PMV itself is biased.

These concerned respondents believed that feedback should not be sent to the project proponent and that the amendment needed an independent third-party review.

They fear that the region was assuming all the risk with little economic benefit, that the proponent was only building the project for profit, burning fossil fuels would lead to global warming and believe that provincial and federal governments should invest in alternative technologies or renewable energy.

Despite the very public consultation that they were responding to, the respondents said there had been no public hearings or meaningful consideration of public input in permitting decisions.

Two small group meetings were held in July in Surrey which were open to all the public and were advertised locally.

Opponents also opposed the use of barges in the first place, and believed that there had not been an assessment done on the impacts along the proposed barge route to Texada Island.

They called for a full Health Impact Assessment and believe further studies are needed on the impacts from the facility.