@ CALL FOR INQUIRY &

Bob Bossin © David Suzuki ¢ Dr. Andrew Thompson

Response to

"A Risk Analysis of Tanker Movements
within the Port of Vancouver."

Summary.

The Port of Vancouver's risk study contains some valuable
recommendations. However, we believe that it seriously
underestimates the likelihood and. the environmental cost of a
major oil spill in BC waters.

_ *® Potential damage to the environment has been greatly
undervalued. Lack of knowledge of coastal habitats significantly
compromises the study's conclusions. Data was pulled together in
an ad hoc fashion; inconsistent, unsystematic study methods were
employed. "Cost" is narrowly and unrealistically defined: the
cost of a spill to bird-life is defined as "the actual
expenditures on bird processing and rehabilitation.". This is the
equivalent of judging the human cost of a disasterby counting
only the money spent on a field hos al.

*@ Estimates of the risk of a id are extremely
optimistic. ‘The method of r.3k ass ment employed by the Port
was unorthodox and excluded .aluable iata banks. The Port's
study fails to consider any risk (or cost) of a Spill west of the
Lion's Gate Bridge. A 1990 Environment Canada analysis,
employing traditional methods, predicted a major oil spill (i.e.,
a spill greater than 10,000 barrels) in the Georgia Strait/Juan
de Fuca/Puget Sound basin every 20 years, and in Burrard Inlet
every 200 years. The Port of Vancouver predicts the same spill

every 3000 years,

tt The Port's study fails to consider important safety

questions: What size of tanker can navigate safely through these
waters? What kind of tug escort is necessary to effectively

manoeuvre a disabled tanker?

#% The study makes virtus no attempt to forecast

.

potential increases in tanker ific.

ff The Port consistently calls for voluntary measures

rather than reforms mandated by legislation. This is in contrast
to all other reports. _

ITEM

£5 - 2137 west Firet Ave. @ Vancouver, BoC. V6K 1E7 @ Tel: (604) 247-7476 7
| FAX: (604) 247-7471 | ——

Cs
ey
Lihat