The Husky Energy oil spill in Newfoundland is a wake-up call for British Columbians as the National Energy Board conducts yet another review of the Trans Mountain expansion project.

The east coast spill brings into sharp focus significant questions regarding the limitations of oil spill cleanup and recovery. It’s also a reminder of the very real possibility that an oil spill in a marine environment off the coast would be treated with Corexit, a chemical dispersant that would make a real-time experiment of us all — humans and non-humans alike.

In June 2016 the federal government quietly approved the use of Corexit 9500, a substance which Trans Mountain indicated in their submission to the National Energy Board they would consider using in the event of a marine oil spill off the B.C. coast.

The intended purpose of dispersants like Corexit 9500 is to break up oil slicks on the water’s surface by increasing the rate at which oil droplets form and move into the water column.

Chemical dispersion does not reduce the amount of oil entering the marine environment; rather, it aims to change where the oil goes and how quickly it gets there.

The idea is to turn the oil into small droplets which are more easily degraded by naturally occurring microbes, but it turns out that this plan may backfire.

In research conducted following the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, Corexit was found not only to be toxic to naturally occurring microbes that can degrade oil, but to actually suppress their oil-degrading ability.

Efficacy of Corexit on diluted bitumen unproven

There are significant concerns about the use of Corexit on a spill of diluted bitumen (dilbit), a blend of bitumen and chemicals, which would be carried by the expanded Trans Mountain pipeline.

Corexit’s effectiveness in dispersing dilbit is unproven at best, and a growing body of research indicates that Corexit is toxic to fish, wildlife, and humans.

Past experience on the B.C. coast has taught us that the rough conditions commonly encountered can render traditional oil spill cleanup methods — booms and skimmers — not just ineffective, but unusable.

Further, in their application to the National Energy Board, Trans Mountain noted that diluted bitumen can submerge in the water column and sink, thereby “reducing the effectiveness of a conventional spill response.”

In general, chemical dispersion is much less effective on weathered oils than on fresh oils.

Because the lighter components of dilbit weather so rapidly (through processes such as evaporation), the window during which chemical dispersion may be effective is significantly smaller than it would be for conventional crude oils.

Both Trans Mountain and Environment Canada examined the efficacy of dispersants on dilbit.

Environment Canada found that in breaking wave conditions, dispersants were able to disperse less than half of the dilbit released into the water. In non-breaking waves, dilbit was not affected at all by dispersant application. The report concluded that the physical properties of dilbit “limit the effectiveness of currently-available spill treating agents.”

Trans Mountain found that Corexit 9500 was ‘marginally effective’ on 6-hour weathered dilbit and ‘not particularly effective’ on more weathered dilbit. This very short time frame during which Corexit may be ‘marginally effective’ could pose major challenges given that in some locations, a full spill response could take up to 36 hours to arrive.

The risk would be magnified in the event that weather conditions prevented the use of booms and skimmers and dispersant was the only feasible option.

Corexit and wildlife

As noted, Corexit can also be toxic to wildlife.

For some species, such as herring embryos, toxicity occurs because Corexit does what it was designed to do: increase the concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons in the water column.

However, there is also a growing body of research, much of it conducted in response to the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010, which suggests that there is something else going on.

During this catastrophic spill, BP applied almost 7 million litres of Corexit, essentially turning the Gulf of Mexico and its human and wildlife inhabitants into an experiment on the short- and long-term effects of dispersant mixed with oil.

Blue crabs exposed to Corexit as part of a laboratory study to better understand the toxicity of chemical dispersants conducted by Louisiana Sea Grant. Photo: Louisiana Sea Grant via Flickr

Even at that time, there were concerns about the toxicity of Corexit: U.S. EPA administrators instructed BP to switch to a less toxic dispersant, but the company indicated that the alternatives were unsuitable and continued to use Corexit.

Now, research is showing that not only is Corexit itself toxic, but that a combination of Corexit and oil can be far more toxic than either product alone.

In fact, in marine plankton, Corexit and oil together caused toxicity up to 52-fold higher than oil.

This increased toxicity is due in part to the fact that dispersants can increase the exposure of fish and wildlife to the toxic parts of oil, to the extent that toxicity to rainbow trout embryos increased up to 300 fold.

U.S. Air Force pilots fly low over the Gulf of Mexico, releasing chemical dispersants as part of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill cleanup efforts on May 6, 2010. Photo: Technical Sergeant Adrian Cadiz / U.S. Air Force

However, some of the toxicity of Corexit 9500 also appears to be due to the surfactants it contains. One of these, known as DOSS, was found to be more toxic to the cells of rainbow trout than Corexit as a whole, while others (e.g. Tween 80 and 85) were also toxic, interfering with the ability of cells to metabolize petroleum hydrocarbons.

The combination of spilled dilbit and dispersants has the potential to negatively impact B.C.’s marine mammals, including endangered killer whales.

Trans Mountain vs. killer whales: the tradeoff Canadians need to be talking about

Following the Deepwater Horizon disaster, 101 cetacean carcasses that washed up on the northern shores of the Gulf of Mexico were associated with spilled oil, although estimates of the actual number of mortalities ranged up to 50 times higher.

For cetaceans, which must surface to breathe, the inhalation of evaporating toxic components of dilbit combined with airborne Corexit 9500 poses a serious risk.

Human danger

Humans are at risk too.

Workers attempting to clean up the Deepwater Horizon spill experienced coughing, wheezing, eye, skin, and lung irritation, nausea, vomiting, and rashes, with some continuing to experience symptoms over a year later.

In Coast Guard personnel who assisted with clean up, dispersant exposure was linked to acute respiratory symptoms. In addition to its own toxicity, Corexit can also increase exposure to the toxic components of oil by creating oil particles so fine that they can become airborne and enter the lungs.

Crewmembers from the vessel Braxton Perry recover a deflection boom after three days of controlled burns in the Gulf of Mexico. Photo: Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Justin Stumberg / U.S. Navy

This airborne mixture of oil and dispersant can travel up to 80 kilometres.

In Sweden and the U.K., Corexit has been banned due to the risk it poses to workers.

What stands out from this growing body of research is how poorly we understand the toxicity of dispersant combined with any type of oil.

There are a vast number of potential toxicity scenarios, depending on the chemicals present, exposure routes, weather conditions, and species, among many other variables.

Almost three decades ago, researchers warned about these complexities, stating that “rigorous toxicological comparison of untreated and dispersant-treated oil is complicated by the fact that when oil, sea water, and dispersants are mixed, a complex multiphase system results. In this complex system, aquatic organisms can be exposed to many toxicants, in many forms, which can have several modes of action.”

Why is Corexit on the table?

Why, then, would the federal government even attempt to pursue the Corexit route?

The answer may be largely a question of optics.

Undispersed oil can eventually reach shorelines, coating birds and mammals while creating a public relations nightmare for the government of Canada, the new owner and operator of the Trans Mountain pipeline and oil tanker project.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

British Columbians must learn from mistakes made following the Exxon Valdez and BP Deepwater Horizon oil spills and prepare oil spill community response plans, renowned U.S. marine toxicologist Riki Ott is warning.

Transport Canada, along with the industry-funded Western Canada Marine Response Corporation and the Canadian Coast Guard are in charge of oil spill response on the west coast, but recent incidents like the bunker fuel leak in English Bay show a lack of communication and spotty response can leave local governments and communities on the sidelines.

Speaking at a community workshop in Victoria organized by Georgia Strait Alliance and Living Oceans Society, Ott said the risk of an oil spill off the B.C. coast increases as more tankers and other vessels ply the crowded waters. Communities must be ready to deal with a disaster, she said.

“Oil doesn’t spill on federal and provincial land. It spills in someone’s backyard,” Ott said, warning that people also need to be educated about health hazards that come from breathing oil-laden air, diseases suffered by clean-up crews absorbing toxic chemicals through their skin and the decades-long effects on marine species and wildlife, ranging from mutations to extirpation.

“When it happens, it’s really too late. You have to put all your energy into prevention and it’s really important to have a plan,” she said.

Pipeline company Kinder Morgan has refused to release its full oil spill response plans for the Trans Mountain pipeline in Canada — even though those same plans are publicly available in the U.S. — meaning local communities and emergency responders have little to no information on how to clean up in the event of another oil spill.

An oil spill will disrupt communities and the environment long after the official cleanup is finished, said Ott, pointing to continuing problems in Prince William Sound, where the Exxon Valdez spill occurred in 1989.

“Oil on the beaches just doesn’t go away, it just goes under and every time the tide comes in, it lifts it up so the poison is rippling through the ecosystem,” she said.

Ott, a scientist, author and activist who witnessed the ecological destruction and social chaos after the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska and then worked in the Gulf of Mexico following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill, shone a spotlight on the resulting chemical illnesses.

Those go far beyond the flu-like symptoms, colloquially known as the “Valdez crud,” and include central nervous system damage, reproductive problems, cancer and liver failure, said Ott, who spent years researching health implications of exposure to heavy crude oil.

In the Gulf of Mexico the situation was made worse by the use of nearly two million gallons of toxic dispersants — used as solvents to break up oil slicks — which make it easier for toxins to be absorbed through the skin, Ott discovered.

“Oil and solvent is worse than oil alone and so much was sprayed it amounted to the sixth largest petro-chemical spill in the U.S,” she said, describing the area around the Gulf of Mexico as a toxic chemical gumbo where it became common to see dead dolphins, fish or shrimp born with no eyes or crabs with dissolving shells.

The lack of human health studies was startling and authorities seemed unaware that the toxic mix was airborne, said Ott, who wants Canadians to arm themselves with information because in February the federal government passed Bill C-22, which allows for the use of the same dispersant — Corexit — in Canada.

It is an alarming decision, especially as efforts are now underway to have the dispersant banned in the U.S., Ott said.

In 2011, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency issued a directive requiring BP to identify a less toxic alternative to dispersants, acknowledging that the chemicals can be carcinogenic and mutagenic.

Incidents such as the ruptured Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline that spewed crude oil over a Burnaby neighbourhood and into the Burrard Inlet in 2007 and this year’s spill of 2,700 litres of bunker fuel into English Bay underline the lack of local planning and minimal information about health risks, Ott said.

Response to the English Bay spill was frustrated by the federal government’s decision to shutter the Kitsilano Coast Guard base, something B.C. Premier Christy Clark, Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson and the newly elected federal Liberal government have vowed to reverse.

Prime Minister-designate Justin Trudeau promised to reopen the base as well as reinvest in marine safety and oil spill response capacity in B.C. during the election campaign.

People need to know what products would be used after a spill, who gets to make that decision, where the waste will go, who will be responsible for cleaning oiled wildlife and who will be responsible for collecting carcasses, Ott said.

Canadian plans are based on the “polluter pays” principle, but that can cause problems, she added.

“Do you want the spiller in charge? … You don’t want industry making these calls, you want local government making these calls.”

A recent Georgia Strait Alliance report, “A Voice for Coastal Communities in Marine Oil Spill Preparedness,” echoes those concerns and is calling for the federal government to clarify roles and responsibilities, with an emphasis on ensuring local governments take part in risk assessment, planning and training.

The report also recommends formation of a citizens’ advisory council and additional federal funding to support local governments in preparing oil spill response plans.

“Boaters, beachgoers or local emergency services are often among the first to discover a spill and it is communities that are left with the consequences long after the response teams have gone home,” says the report.

“Yet, when it comes to marine oil spill planning and response in Canada, those who are most directly affected and have the most to lose — coastal residents and the local governments representing them — have ended up on the sidelines.”

The province is preparing plans to create a quicker, more coordinated response to land-based spills, which should be in place by early 2017, and it will also have a marine component, which should address many concerns raised at the workshop, said Graham Knox, director of B.C.’s Environmental Emergency Program.

Image: bunker fuel found on Second Beach by marine scientists Peter Ross of the Vancouver Aquarium

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.