http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/federal-plan-for-bc-oil-spill-relies-on-using-banned-chemicals/article19064765/
[I expect we will see these known toxic/carcinogenic (when mixed with
oil - their intended use) dispersants 'legalized' shortly in conjunction
with the announcement from the federal government approving the Northern
Gateway pipeline, despite the fact the sponsor has not yet supplied a
spill response plan - a requirement for said approval. From other
sources, I understand the same or very similar dispersant is now
stockpiled on the shores of the Bay of Fundy (Canadian Atlantic coast)
for rapid deployment in the event of an oil spill there, despite the
same legal issue.]
Federal plan for B.C. oil spill relies on using banned chemicals
Justine Hunter
VICTORIA — The Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, Jun. 08 2014, 9:08 PM EDT
Last updated Sunday, Jun. 08 2014, 9:08 PM EDT
The federal government’s backup plan in the event of a catastrophic oil
spill in British Columbia’s waters relies on using chemical dispersants
that are currently banned from marine use by the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans.
B.C. Environment Minister Mary Polak says her province is not prepared
to sign off on the federal oil-tanker safety plan rolled out last month
as part of an effort to address concerns about marine environmental
safety in advance of Ottawa’s Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline decision.
The federal Conservative government is expected to announce this week
whether the pipeline can go ahead, a decision anxiously anticipated by
environmental and aboriginal groups who maintain a spill from tankers
carrying the oil delivered by the pipeline will cause long-lasting
cultural and environmental devastation.
Far from addressing the province’s demands for better spill response,
the federal proposal could push the B.C. government further away from
endorsing new oil pipelines.
In an interview, Ms. Polak says her officials are seeking details from
Ottawa about what the new guidelines would look like. If B.C. isn’t
convinced that the proposed solution meets its demands for
“world-leading” oil-spill safety, she said the province is prepared to
deny pipeline permits.
“If there are significant adverse environmental effects, then we don’t
approve those permits.”
Currently, the use of spill-treating agents such as Corexit, which was
widely used in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico
four years ago, are effectively prohibited in Canada.
Corexit is not banned by name but using it or other spill-treating
agents could violate a number of laws including the Fisheries Act, which
outlaws the deposit of deleterious substances in waters frequented by fish.
Ottawa would also have to amend the Shipping Act and the Environmental
Protection Act to allow the use of alternative response measures,
including chemical dispersants and burning spilled oil, for a marine spill.
The measures would only be approved if they were determined to have a
net environmental benefit, Environment Canada officials said. In
British Columbia, the Environmental Management Act threatens penalties
for introducing chemical dispersants into the environment. Ms. Polak
said there are no plans to change that law.
“If it was going to happen, it would have to be under guidelines that
our experts can accept as being appropriate,” Ms. Polak said in an
interview.
On Monday, First Nations leaders, oil company executives and politicians
will meet in Vancouver to discuss marine safety and oil tankers. Greg
Rickford, federal Minister of Natural Resources, will be there to
explain why Ottawa’s tanker safety plan should soothe British
Columbians’ fears about increasing oil tanker traffic.
Art Sterritt, executive director of the Coastal First Nations, will be
there to tell Mr. Rickford that his community will block the use of
chemical dispersants.
Mr. Sterritt travelled to the Gulf of Mexico during the cleanup of the
Deepwater Horizon spill in the spring of 2010. On a sandy white beach in
Pensacola, Fla., cleanup crews would spray his shoes with Corexit to
remove the sticky tar balls. “They were cleaning up what showed up on
the beaches but they weren’t able to clean up in the water,” he said. In
addition to the oil, the chemical residue from the dispersant continues
to affect marine life in the Gulf of Mexico.
“That gave us serious pause about decisions that Coastal First Nations
would make with respect to Northern Gateway,” he said. “The reality is,
it is even more damaging than the product they are trying to cover up.
It’s pretty scary.”
_______________________________________________
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel