Hearing Order MH-052-2018 Board File OF-Fac-Oil-T260-2013-03 59 National Energy Board Trans Mountain Expansion Project Reconsideration DIRECT EVIDENCE OF THE INTERVENOR GEORGIA STRAIT ALLIANCE Prepared by Alexandra Woodsworth, Andrew Radzik and Anna Barford, on behalf of Georgia Strait Alliance December 5, 2018 1. Executive Summary This report is the direct evidence of the Georgia Strait Alliance in the National Energy Board’s reconsideration proceeding regarding the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. The purpose of this report is to provide information on developments in the marine oil spill response regime since the May 2016 NEB report that are applicable to Project-related marine shipping; and to assess whether these developments constitute a world-class marine spill response regime that provides capacity that is sufficient and effective for the environmental conditions in the Project marine area and the type of product (diluted bitumen) being shipped. Methodology To conduct this assessment, we: ● Assessed progress made under the Oceans Protection Plan, together with response capacity enhancements funded by Trans Mountain, against 38 features of a world-class spill response system identified in the 2013 report West Coast Spill Response Study, ​ Volume 3: World-Class Spill Prevention, Preparedness, Response & Recovery System, ​ prepared by Nuka Research. ● Compared operational limits of containment boom to observed wind and wave conditions and current predictions in the Project marine area. ● Reviewed the federal government’s 2018 Status Report on the Knowledge of the Fate ​ and Behaviour of Diluted Bitumen in the Aquatic Ecosystems and assessed the report’s ​ claim that “no new response countermeasures are specifically required to address diluted bitumen.” Findings Our review of commitments made under the Oceans Protection Plan, together with response capacity enhancements funded by Trans Mountain, identifies many significant remaining deficiencies relative to the world-class standards identified in the 2013 Nuka report. The most significant deficiencies include: ● The planned 20,000 tonnes of enhanced WCMRC response capacity is not sufficient to respond effectively to a true worst-case spill. ● Lack of assessment or prescription of the amount or type of response capacity (equipment, personnel) required for an effective response. ● Lack of assessment of response limitations due to environmental conditions. ● No plans to ensure that contingency plans of all levels and held by all agencies are made available in the public domain; or to clarify how government audits industry plans. ● No mechanism to formally involve a range of communities, stakeholders and members of the public in spill planning and preparedness. 2 ● Reliance on public rather than industry funding to fully implement planning, response and recovery. These deficiencies lead us to conclude that proposed WMCRC enhancements (vessels, personnel, equipment) do not provide sufficient capacity to respond to a true worst-case spill, and that the spill response regime applicable to the Project marine area does not meet world-class standards. We compared containment boom failure limits derived from oil spill response literature against wind and wave observations and surface current predictions along the Project tanker route. We found that routine coastal conditions frequently exceed the operating limits of the equipment currently in WCMRC’s inventory. For example: ● In 2017 at Neah Bay, at the mouth of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, there were 337 days where wind speed and wave height combined would cause response to be impaired for at least two hours of the day. Response would have been impossible on 198 days. ● Currents at full ebb and flood tide at Race Passage (near Victoria) routinely breach the maximum operating limits of WCMRC’s booms. Kepner boom is breached 70% of the time. Even the most robust booms fail frequently: Current Buster 4 fails 19% of the time, and Ro-Boom 2000 39%. Our results led us to conclude that containment boom, as the most fundamental equipment unit of mechanical oil recovery, does not allow for an effective response for the environmental conditions that occur regularly at points along the Project tanker route. The federal government’s justification for approving TMX depends significantly on its claims that bitumen is likely to float for up to three to four weeks when spilled in the ocean, and that existing spill response techniques are sufficient to effectively clean up a dilbit spill. However, the research summarized in the 2018 status report relies almost exclusively on laboratory experiments that cannot adequately reflect real world conditions in the Salish Sea. The status report itself glosses over findings that suggest that dilbit may sink in the ocean under certain conditions, and that spill countermeasures may not work in the same way for dilbit as for conventional crude. Conclusion Changes proposed under the OPP, together with Trans Mountain funded enhancements to WCMRC’s capacity, represent welcome progress from the current state of marine spill response planning, preparedness and response on the West Coast. However, they do not constitute a world-class system, they are not sufficient to respond to a worst-case spill, and they rely on equipment that fails in environmental conditions that frequently occur along the Project tanker route. The federal government’s own science identifies too many remaining questions about the 3 fate and behaviour of diluted bitumen to conclude that existing spill countermeasures can be relied upon to successfully recover spilled dilbit. As a result, we conclude that changes to the marine spill prevention, preparedness and response regime since the 2016 NEB cannot be relied upon by the Board to determine that the adverse impacts of the Project are justified in the circumstances. 4 Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary 2 2. Introduction 7 2.1 Purpose and approach 7 2.2 About Georgia Strait Alliance 8 2.2.2 GSA’s intervention in the Board’s review of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project8 3. Background on the marine oil spill regime applicable to Project-related marine shipping 10 4. Assessing developments in marine spill preparedness and response since the May 2016 NEB Report 12 4.1 Overview of the Oceans Protection Plan 12 4.2 Approach to assessment 12 4.3 World-class prevention elements 14 4.3.1 “Vessel operations surpass international safety and spill prevention standards” 14 4.3.2 “Vessel traffic is monitored and, in higher risk areas, actively managed to prevent accidents” 14 4.3.3 “Rescue and salvage resources can be on-scene quickly enough to be effective after an incident or spill” 16 4.4 World-class preparedness and response elements 16 4.4.1 “Geographic areas are prioritized for protection from oil spills” 16 4.4.2 “Contingency planning is comprehensive, integrated, and understood by all relevant parties” 17 4.4.2.1 World-class feature: Planning is integrated across jurisdictions and sectors 18 4.4.2.2 World-class features: Contingency plans address all major spill response functions; Operational tactics are defined 18 4.4.2.3 World-class feature: Response planning standards ensure sufficient response capacity to respond to a worst-case spill 19 4.4.2.4 World-class feature: Response operating limitations are identified and mitigation measures established 20 4.4.3 “Sufficient equipment can be deployed quickly to respond to a worst-case spill” 21 4.4.4 “Sufficient personnel are available to respond to a worst-case spill” 23 4.4.5 “A process is in place to restore damaged resources and to promote ecosystem recovery after a spill” 24 4.5 World-class system elements 25 4.5.1 “Government ensures compliance and transparency” 25 4.5.2 “All parties actively pursue continuous improvement through research and development and the testing of planning” 28 5 4.5.3 ”Financial mechanisms and resources meet needs from initiating the response through recovery” 28 4.6 Conclusion: Changes under the OPP are inadequate 30 5. Limits to effectiveness of containment booms 31 5.1 Overview 31 5.2 Background: the impact of weather conditions on containment boom 32 5.3 Methodology 33 5.4 Results of analysis 35 5.4.1 Boom impairment and failure rates for wind and waves 35 5.4.2 Boom failures for currents 37 5.5 Alternative response measures 39 5.6 Conclusion 40 6. Diluted bitumen 41 6.1 Lab experiments vs. real world conditions in the Salish Sea 42 6.2 Adequacy of conventional crude spill countermeasures 43 6.3 A different approach: United States science and Washington State standards 44 7. Conclusions and recommendations 45 7.1 Conclusions 45 7.2 Recommendations 47 6 2. Introduction 2.1 Purpose and approach The purpose of this report is to provide information on developments in the marine oil spill response regime since the May 2016 NEB report that are applicable to Project-related marine shipping between Westridge Marine Terminal and the 12 Nautical Mile territorial sea limit; and to assess whether these developments constitute a world-class marine spill response regime that provides adequate capacity to effectively respond to a spill of diluted bitumen. The research was guided by the following questions: 1. Do commitments made under the Oceans Protection Plan, together with response capacity enhancements funded by Trans Mountain, constitute a world-class marine spill response regime? 2. Is spill response equipment effective for the environmental conditions in the Project marine area and the type of product being shipped? To answer these questions, we provide a short background on the marine oil spill regime applicable to Project-related shipping in Section 3. In Section 4, we assess the progress made under the Oceans Protection Plan, together with response capacity enhancements funded by Trans Mountain, against 38 features of a world-class spill response system identified in the 2013 report West Coast Spill Response ​ Study, Volume 3: World-Class Spill Prevention, Preparedness, Response & Recovery System, prepared by Nuka Research.1 In Section 5, we compare the operational limits of containment boom to observed wind and wave conditions and current predictions in the Project marine area.