By Stanley Tromp, Globe and Mail, Apr. 28, 2015
_________________
Officials have been wary of
B.C.'s oil-response
capabilities for years, saying Ottawa's standards are ‘decades behind' their
own
Newly released U.S. documents show American
authorities are nervously eyeing Canadian proposals to triple the number of oil tanker voyages through the shared waters off
B.C.'s coast, saying among themselves that Canadian standards to clean up a major spill are decades behind those of
the U.S. and leave states
vulnerable to environmental
damage and costs.
After the MV Marathassa spilled sticky, toxic bunker fuel into
Vancouver's harbour this month, Washington State
officials noted in interviews with The Globe and Mail that the state's oil-spill response regime was far advanced from Canada's.
One former maritime lawyer said if the U.S. Coast Guard ranked an eight or nine out of 10 worldwide,
then Canada's Coast Guard would rank a one or two.
But the records obtained by The Globe
under U.S. access-to-information laws show that
American officials have been worried
about Canada's oil-response capabilities for
years, dating back to
Canada's National Energy Board hearings into the proposed Northern Gateway
pipeline and the proposed Kinder Morgan expansion project.
Some even urged the U.S. to sue the National Energy Board after the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency was initially barred from participating at the NEB hearings into Kinder
Morgan on the grounds that it had missed the deadline to apply for commentator status.
"A catastrophic oil spill would set the Puget Sound cleanup effort back
decades, and result in billions of dollars in harm to our economy and environment," the state's
Ecology Department officials wrote to
Washington Governor Jay Inslee in 2013.
"While other Pacific Rim
trading partners benefit, our state will incur many of the risks. In the Salish
Sea oil spill risks are being transferred
by Canadian industry to
Washington state, without sufficient controls."
They also contrasted spill response systems:
"B.C. lacks authority over marine waters, and their federal regime is
probably a couple of decades behind the system currently in place in Washington
State. ... When it is spilled, we are concerned that dilbit
oil may be considerably
more toxic and damaging, and far more difficult to clean up, than conventional crude from
Alaska."
In a briefing to Mr. Inslee before a March,
2013, meeting with U.S.
Coast Guard Rear Admiral Keith Taylor, commander of the Pacific Northwest
District, officials in the Ecology Department added: "Our industry and
port should not have to
incur higher cost than their counterparts in Canada because of their weaker
standards. We need to have
a level playing field with the Port of Vancouver."
The documents also show
lawyers working for the Environmental Protection Agency were unhappy about being denied full
participant status on the Trans Mountain pipeline hearings a year ago.
The National Energy Board has
been holding the hearings on whether to approve Kinder Morgan's proposed $5.4-billion expansion of the
pipeline, which would boost capacity between Edmonton and Burnaby to 890,000 barrels a day from
300,000 barrels. The Alberta heavy bitumen would then be shipped in tankers to Asia. The NEB expects to advise cabinet on the project
by January, 2016.
Although Trans Mountain would
not cross the border, the Environmental Protection Agency predicted in a
comment to the NEB last
spring that, "nearly tripling the capacity of the current pipeline will
have potential air quality impacts on the trans-boundary air shed, including
the U.S. portion."
In February, 2014, the
Environmental Protection Agency was initially denied a chance to make a submission on Trans
Mountain because it missed the deadline to apply. But two months later, the NEB gave the agency a lower
ranked "commenter" status. Unlike intervenor status, this allows the
EPA to send in its views by
letter to the NEB hearing,
but does not allow the agency to
provide sworn evidence and cross-examine other parties. Full-fledged intervenor
status was granted to the
Washington State Department of Ecology.
Officials with the
Environmental Protection Agency said in e-mails that's contrary to the NEB's obligations under
Canadian law.
Last Nov. 21, Courtney Weber
of the agency's Seattle office wrote to tell other agency lawyers that four Puget Sound native groups
had asked the agency to
file a motion forcing the NEB to
suspend its Kinder Morgan assessment hearings until the board consulted with
the agency.
Ms. Weber wrote that the
groups were arguing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act requires the NEB to "consult and
co-operate" with the EPA.
"I read through the
[CEAA] and it appears to me
that Earthjustice/Tribes have a good point," Ms. Weber wrote.
"It does appear that NEB
should have consulted with the U.S.
(and, in turn, EPA and other such agencies) given the scope of the project
which will increase tanker traffic in the [Puget] Sound. ... NEB never actually
sent out an offer to
consult as contemplated by Section 18 of the CEAA."
On Nov. 24, Environmental
Protection Agency official Tricia Jefferson in Washington, D.C., wrote of the
agency's Pacific Northwest office to
say that "the region is contemplating taking action with the NEB beyond
filing a comment," and that they would discuss their legal options that
day.
But David Allnutt,
an EPA spokesman in Washington told The Globe in an interview last week the
agency is not considering any further motions to the NEB at this time, although that could change.
He said the EPA plans to
file its comments with the NEB by the July 23, 2015, deadline.
____________________
By Gary Mason, Globe and Mail columnist, 28 Apr. 2015
The mayor of Vancouver isn't
the only one concerned about Canada's ability to respond to a major oil spill.
Turns out, authorities in Washington State have also been raising alarms about
the ruinous impact a significant leak could have on the waters of Puget Sound
and beyond.
Documents obtained by The
Globe and Mail are extraordinary in the level of blunt disapproval aimed at
Canadian bodies responsible for responding to spills. And the much-criticized
reaction of the Canadian Coast Guard to the bunker fuel discharged in English
Bay recently by the vessel MV Marathassa likely only
confirmed U.S. officials' worst fears about our spillresponse
capabilities.
There is much to marvel at in
the correspondence released under a Freedom of Information request. However,
one observation made in a briefing note to the state's governor stands out for
its jaw-dropping assessment at how our standards stack up against those used by
our neighbours to the south: "B.C. lacks
authority over marine waters and their federal regime is probably a couple of
decades behind the system currently in place in Washington State ..."
A couple of decades? This is
not American braggadocio at play here. This is the opinion of officials working
in the state's ecology department writing, with great concern, to Governor Jay Inslee in 2013. It goes on.
The briefing note to the
governor was direct and urgent, noting that Canadian industry was transferring
risk to Washington State because of "weaker standards" in Canada,
with the potential result costing "billions of dollars in harm."
"We need to have a level
playing field with the Port of Vancouver," the note said.
The Marathassa
spill, and now this international criticism, couldn't come at a worse time for
Kinder Morgan, which wants to triple the capacity in its pipeline between Edmonton
and Burnaby. The National Energy Board is currently holding hearings into
Kinder Morgan's proposal, which would see a tripling of the number of tankers
currently entering Vancouver's harbour, a thought
that horrifies Mayor Gregor Robertson.
Premier Christy Clark,
meantime, has made developing a world-class marine oil spill response regime
one of her five conditions for allowing pipeline development in the province.
If the efforts to clean up
the Marathassa leak are any indication, however,
Canada is still a long way from fulfilling the Premier's demand in this area.
I don't think we have heard
the end of U.S. concern about the threat expanded oil pipelines in B.C. pose to
the sanctity of shared Canada/U.S. coastal waters. American authorities know
that our oil-spill problem would quickly become their oilspill
problem, too. Consequently, they have a huge stake in what is happening here
around the development of a comprehensive oil-spill response strategy.
If the Americans have
legitimate worries about our ability to react swiftly to any type of marine
accident involving oil, we should want to hear about them. I would hope that
the B.C. and federal governments would want to know what Washington state
officials and others are so concerned about.
Why do they hold our Coast
Guard in such low regard?
The Vancouver mayor has been
criticized in many quarters for his stand against the Kinder Morgan project.
His critics have often scoffed at his suggestions that an oil spill in the harbour would be a disaster for which we are not properly
prepared to respond.
As it turns out, he is not
the only person who holds that view. Others with knowledge and expertise in
this area also believe Canada isn't remotely ready to handle a major oil spill.
And that should concern us all.
_____________________