impacts on marine spill

EmergWest Consulting Trans Mountain Expansion Project

Containment 1 March, 2015

Summary

This report was undertaken, at the request of the Shxw'owhámel First Nation and Peters Band,

to consider the possible impacts of a crude oil spill from the proposed Trans Mountain Expansion

Project (TMEP) pipeline expansion project. Specifically, this report was to include a review of the

materials provided by TMEP in their application, with a specific view of the fate (how oil will age

and spread when spilled) and the oil spill prevention and response measures proposed by

TMEP.

The report is divided as follows:

1. Human/Health Affects

2. Evacuation of Residents

3. Affects to Groundwater

4. Incident Command System (ICS) Training for First Nations Personnel

5. Oil Spill Response Equipment

6. Spilled Oil Fates

7. Spilled Oil Trajectories

8. Submerged/Sinking Oil

9. References

Because of the significance of the potential for spilled crude to submerge or sink, a considerable

part of the report is dedicated to understanding how and why some oils sink, and the current

state of countermeasures if they do, including a case study of the Enbridge Line 6b incident in

Marshall, MI, USA.

Generally, the TMEP submission, while extensive, lacks key details in terms of many of the

various model inputs (and outputs), and relies on the Gainford Study, which, because it does

not consider fresh or sediment‐laden water spills, is largely irrelevant for predicting spilled oil

fates in the areas important to the Shxw'owhámel First Nation and Peters Band.

While this report focuses on the potential direct affects to the two First Nations (FN), additional

input is provided on the various submissions that, while not directly applying to the FN areas,

have broad response implications in all spill conditions and locations.

While generally spills from pipelines are infrequent, there remains a chance of a spill that could

affect the immediate health and safety of the Shxw'owhámel First Nation and Peters Band, as

well as long‐term affects to both their traditional territories and Reserves.



1 Human/HealthImpacts

CrudeOilVapourExposuretoResidents

Due to the proximity of the pipeline, and the projected paths (see Section 7) of any spilled

crude oil, it is possible that flammable and/or toxic vapour concentrations could form in air,

thus directly affecting the Peters or Shxw'owhámel First Nations (in the event of a nearby

release), or limiting their ability to safely leave the affected area.



1.1 PotentiallyFlammable/ExplosiveVapours

Crude oils emit vapours that, if they reach a sufficient concentration in air, can ignite, and if

those expanding vapours meet resistance, can explode. Pure chemicals have very well‐

understood ranges in which these vapours can form flammable mixtures in air. The minimum

amount of fuel in air that can form a flammable mixture is called the Lower Explosive Limit

(LEL). The upper limit, which if exceeded would be too rich, is called the Upper Explosive Limit

(UEL). The range of vapour mixtures (from LEL to UEL) that can ignite is called the flammable

range.

The lower explosive limit of most crude oils is around 1.5% in air. As an example, Cold Lake

Blend (CLB), based on the crudemonitor.com web site, includes numerous constituents (see

Figure 1.1) which include Benzene (LEL of 1.35%), Pentane (LEL of 1.4), Hexane (LEL of 1.1), and

Heptane (LEL of 1.0).

Figure 1.1



If a CLB spill were to occur, then the Lower Explosive Limit would be approximately 1.5% (fuel in

air). It should be noted that oil spill responders (when responding to crude oil spills) normally

calibrate their vapour monitors using pentane (LEL of 1.4) in order to mimic the anticipated

vapours, thus providing additional support to the following calculations:

The LEL of CLB (1.5 % fuel in air) expressed as a decimal = 0.015

The LEL expressed in parts per million (ppm) = 15,000 ppm

10% of the LEL = 1,500 ppm

A number of models were developed by the author (see Section 1.3.4) to try determine the

potential extent of a vapour plume from a crude oil spill. The model outputs depict the possible

vapour plumes (total hydrocarbons) one hour after a CLB crude oil release near each of the

Shxw'owhámel and Peters Reserves. The blue plume (see Figures 1.7 and 1.8), stretching

approximately 800 m, depicts a range of total hydrocarbons of from 10,000 – 100,000 ppm

(with the high end of the range occurring closer to the source). While these highly‐volatile

vapours are typically transient (they will deplete relatively quickly, usually within a few hours),

there is still potential for potentially‐flammable vapours to form in air, and for those vapours to

drift across HWY 1, the railroad tracks, and to disallow the safe egress out of the affected

Reserves (and the safe ingress for responders).

Further, emergency responders, equipped with vapour monitors are trained to leave the area

immediately if they encounter readings exceeding 10% of the Lower Explosive Limit (for

precautionary safety reasons).

The dark green plume (which stretches approximately 2.5 km) includes a concentration equal to

10% of the LEL, and would not only cross the highway and the rail tracks, but would extend well

beyond the only egress routes (of either affected First Nation), and would reach the homes of

the band members. Again, the potential vapour clouds could, at least for a time, prevent band

members from escaping the area, and could also prevent emergency responders from entering

the area to provide assistance to band members.



1.2 PotentiallyToxicVapours

Crude oils, due to their complex makeup, can emit a wide range of potentially poisonous (toxic)

vapours. These can include Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S), a vapour which is heavier that air, and is

known to, at higher concentrations, pose potentially‐serious (and life‐threatening) hazards.

Other vapours typically emitted from evaporating crude oils include Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl

Benzene, and Xylene (commonly called BTEXs). Of these, Benzene is considered the most

dangerous, as it is a known carcinogen (the others are suspected carcinogens).

While there are no set limits for exposure to benzene, the US Environmental Protection Agency

states:

Neurological symptoms of inhalation exposure to benzene include drowsiness, dizziness,

headaches, and unconsciousness in humans. Ingestion of large amounts of benzene may

result in vomiting, dizziness, and convulsions in humans. (1)

Exposure to liquid and vapor may irritate the skin, eyes, and upper respiratory tract in

humans. Redness and blisters may result from dermal exposure to benzene. (1,2)

Animal studies show neurologic, immunologic, and hematologic effects from inhalation

and oral exposure to benzene. (1)

Tests involving acute exposure of rats, mice, rabbits, and guinea pigs have demonstrated

benzene to have low acute toxicity from inhalation, moderate acute toxicity from

ingestion, and low or moderate acute toxicity from dermal exposure. (3)

The reference concentration for benzene is 0.03 mg/m3 based on hematological effects

in humans. The RfC is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of

magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including

sensitive groups) that is likely to be without appreciable risk deleterious non‐cancer

effects over a lifetime. (4)

The modelling conducted by TMEP shows potentially‐dangerous vapour plumes drifting as far

as 1‐2 km from the spilled crude (see below, from Volume 7 Part 12 – Oil Spill Study).



Figure 1.2

The contour shown in Figure 1.2 depicts a benzene concentration in air of up to 1,000 µg/m3

(approximately 0.3 ppm) reaching almost 1 km. Unfortunately, the model output above does

not include any details of:

The crude oil modelled

The volume of oil

The pooled oil thickness or area

The wind speed

Although these is no limit for exposure for benzene, the Time‐Weighted Average (TWA)

threshold for workers (the level at which responders would don respiratory protection) is 0.5

ppm.

Since the TMEP model did not include any details on the parameters that resulted in the output

in Figure 1.2, a number of models were run by the author using various Alberta‐sourced diluted

bitumen crudes (dilbits) and synthetic bitumen crudes (synbits), under a number of conditions

in order to try to characterize the range of potential impacts from evaporating vapours from a

potential crude oil spill in proximity to either the Shxw'owhámel First Nation or Peters Band.

These are included in Section 1.3.



1.3 AirMapVapourModelling

The vapour plume modelling conducted as part of this study used AirMap, and was developed

by RPS ASA (which has provided oil spill and related modelling and software since 1979, and is

widely‐recognized as an industry leader) AirMap is an atmospheric dispersion model designed

to predict the trajectory and fate of a wide variety of chemical substances and biological agents

in the atmosphere. The model uses physical and chemical properties, such as vapor pressure

and environmental degradation rates, to predict the fate of substances that have been released

into the atmosphere.

The mass is dispersed horizontally by turbulence, either using a user‐input constant rate

(horizontal dispersion coefficient) or following the algorithm from Gifford (1961), as described

in Csanady (1973). The model‐calculated horizontal dispersion coefficient is a function of wind

speed and air stability. Stability is defined as:

Moderately stable

Slightly stable

Neutral

Slightly unstable

Moderately unstable

The US EPA and NOAA (2002) offers the following guidance (based on Turner, 1970) in the

Aloha model regarding atmospheric stability:

“The atmosphere may be more or less turbulent at any given time, depending on the

amount of incoming solar radiation as well as other factors. Meteorologists have defined six

atmospheric stability classes, each representing a different degree of turbulence in the

atmosphere. When moderate to strong incoming solar radiation heats air near the ground,

causing it to rise and generating large eddies, the atmosphere is considered ‘unstable’, or

relatively turbulent. Unstable conditions are associated with atmospheric stability classes A

and B. When solar radiation is relatively weak, air near the surface has less of a tendency to

rise and less turbulence develops. In this case, the atmosphere is considered ‘stable’, or less

turbulent, the wind is weak, and the stability class would be E or F. Stability classes D and C

represent conditions of more neutral stability, or moderate turbulence. Neutral conditions

are associated with relatively strong wind speeds and moderate solar radiation.”

Stability class has a big effect on the modeled dispersion of a gas. Under unstable conditions,

for example, a dispersing gas will mix rapidly with the air around it and the pollutant will be

diluted more quickly below levels of concern then it would for more stable conditions.



1.4 AirMapModelInputs

The key model inputs used in the AirMap model were the simulation length, crude oil, volume

and spill duration, wind speed and direction, and the various model‐specific criteria.

1.4.1 ModelLocationandSimulationLength

Models were run based using a relatively short duration (2 hours), due to the proximity of the

pipeline to the two Reserves.

Figure 1.3

1.4.2 ModelOil,VolumeandSpillDuration

The crude oil simulated in the models was Cold Lake Blend, at a relatively conservative estimate

of 200 m3. The models were run for 2 hours (the output shown is after 1 hour).



Figure 1.4

1.4.3 ModelWinds

The winds chosen for the models represents a worst‐case scenario, i.e., light winds (4 knots)

from the SE. The light winds would cause the vapours to drift towards the Reserves, with little

dispersion (reduction in concentration).

Figure 1.5



1.4.4 AirMapModelParameters

The model parameters chosen were the defaults provided with the model. The shortest

possible time step (1 minute) was used, and the 3D dispersion was calculated by the model. An

open country ground roughness was chosen to best‐represent the area.

Figure 1.6



1.4.5 AirMapModelOutputs

The model outputs below depict the possible vapour plumes (total hydrocarbons) one hour

after a CLB crude oil release near the Shxw'owhámel and Peters Reserves.

Figure 1.7

Figure 1.8



1.4.6 PotentialImpactsfromVapours

Based on the example vapour plumes shown in 1.7 and 1.8, the potential down‐wind distance

that could be affected could extend to the First Nations’ egress routes, and in some cases, to

their homes.

If benzene represents as little as 0.1% of the total crude oil (this is typical of many Canadian

Synthetic crudes), then the blue plume contour (from Figures 1.7 and 1.8) represents a range of

10 to 100 ppm of benzene.

Further, if spilled crude oil spreads down‐current, as is predicted by the TMEP models (see

Section 7), there is a real likelihood that residents of either of the affected First Nations would

be well within the corridor of potentially‐toxic or flammable concentrations (or at least

concentrations which could limit the ability of responders to provide support to affected band

members).

Even in a best‐case scenario, it is highly‐unlikely that responders could stop, either the spread

of crude oil, or its evaporating vapours, before it would affect the Reserves. As such, it is

critically important to know what measures TMEP will take to ensure the safety of the Peters

and Shxw'owhámel First Nations in the event of a spill in the area.



2 Evacuation

There is only one road into/out of the Shxw'owhámel Reserve. Similarly, there is one primary

road, which splits into two exits (one for each direction of the highway), into and out of the

Peters Reserve. Depending on the wind direction, it is possible that the only egress route for

evacuating residents would be blocked by potentially dangerous vapour concentrations.

Based on the overland models (Section 7) and the vapour plume models (Section 1.3), it is

critically important that TMEP provide details of the Plan to provide evacuation options to the

members of the two Reserves, especially given the potential that responders may not be able

to enter the affected area. The Plan should answer the questions:

How will band members know if the egress routes are safe?

How will band members be notified (and by whom)

What vapour monitoring equipment and training will band members have?

Who will make the decision to shelter‐in‐place versus evacuation?

What about band members with disabilities, existing health problems?



3 GroundwaterImpacts

Residents of both First Nations rely on the groundwater for drinking water, irrigation, and the

cattle farming (Peters).

The proximity of the proposed pipeline makes it next‐to‐impossible for a response to stop

spreading crude oil before it reaches either the Shxw'owhámel or Peters Reserves, (based on

the overland model and the TMEP’s proposed response times). As a result, ground water

contamination is highly likely.

Although benzene is naturally occurring at low concentrations, its presence in the environment

is mostly related to human activities. Gasoline contains low concentrations of benzene (below

1%), and emissions from vehicles are the main source of benzene in the environment. Benzene

can be introduced into water by industrial effluents and atmospheric pollution.

Health Canada has reviewed and assessed all identified health risks associated with benzene in

drinking water, incorporating multiple routes of exposure to benzene from drinking water,

including ingestion and both inhalation and skin absorption from showering and bathing. Health

Canada, in assessing newly available studies and approaches, taking into consideration the

availability of appropriate treatment technology, has established a guideline for benzene in

drinking water at a maximum acceptable concentration (MAC) of 0.005 mg/L (5 μg/L).

The guideline for benzene is established based on cancer end‐points and is considered

protective for all health effects. Benzene is classified as a human carcinogen. Both animal and

human studies report similar toxic effects from exposure to benzene. The most sensitive effects

are found in the blood‐forming organs, including the bone marrow.

The MAC for benzene in drinking water is established based on the incidence of bone marrow

effects and malignant lymphoma in mice, through the calculation of a lifetime unit risk.

For most Canadians, the major source of exposure to benzene is air; this accounts for an

estimated 98–99% of total benzene intake for Canadian non‐smokers. Like food, drinking water

is considered to be only a minor source of exposure to benzene. Benzene can be found in both

surface water and groundwater sources, but it is not generally a concern in surface water,

because benzene tends to evaporate into the atmosphere.

In the event that a crude oil spill affects the groundwater of either First Nation, it is critically

important to know what steps TMEP will take to ensure the mitigation of ground water

impacts, the temporary replacement of safe, reliable water, and the restoration of affected

groundwater.



4 ICSTrainingforFirstNationsPersonnel

TMEP, in its submission, indicates that, in the event of an incident, TMEP would enter into a

Unified Command which would include affected First Nations.

Volume 7 Part 12 – Oil Spill Study ‐ TMEP was an early adopter of the ICS to manage

emergency response, with introduction of the system in the early 1990s. The ICS

structure outlines clear roles and responsibilities with respect to emergency response

and includes a unified command structure for co‐ordination with the multiple levels of

government; federal, provincial, municipal, and Aboriginal communities, along the

pipeline.

Currently neither the Shxw'owhámel or Peters First Nations personnel have any ICS training

and, as a result, would find it difficult to engage in a Unified Command under ICS. If TMEP

intends to engage First Nations representatives in a Unified Command, it is important to know

if TMEP plans to provide any ICS training to First Nations representatives, and if they will be

asked to attend, and become involved in exercises.



5 OilSpillResponseEquipment

5.1 LimitationsofOilSpillResponseEquipment

The oil spill response equipment described in the TMEP documents is well‐suited to a relatively

narrow range of real‐life conditions. The oil containment booms described by TMEP (either in

their own Oil Spill Containment and Recovery (OSCAR) trailers, or owned by Western Canada

Marine Response Corp (WCMRC)) work well when containing floating oil in relatively slow (less

than 1 knot) currents, and their ability to deflect floating oil away from sensitive areas

deteriorates quickly in currents exceeding 3 knots. The portable oil skimmers (those that would

be used on spills in rivers) described by TMEP (either in their own OSCAR trailers, or owned by

WCMRC) are designed to work in relatively calm conditions (not in short‐period waves or

turbulence) or in winds exceeding 20 knots. Also, these portable oil skimmers are specifically

designed to recover floating oil, or oil in the top 10‐20 cm of the water column.

During the Deepwater Horizon spill response, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) reports

(see Figure 5.1) that of the approximately 5,000,000 barrels released from the MC 252 well,

around 800,000 barrels (16%) were collected from the devices fitted over the well. If that oil is

taken out of consideration (it is unavailable for recovery), then recovery of oil in open water

using skimmers accounted for around 3% of the oil.

Figure 5.1 – MC252 Oil Deposition (USCG)

The containment and recovery of oil in rivers is often made even more complicated by currents,

limited access, debris, ice, snags safety concerns, and various other issues. Conditions in the

Fraser River would render the use of conventional oil response techniques essentially

impossible during much of the year.



5.2 Detection,ContainmentandRecoveryofSubmergingandSinkingofOil

Neither TMEP nor WCMRC currently have any spill response equipment suitable for locating,

containing and recovering oil that has submerged or has sunk in moving waters.

Review of Trans Mountain Expansion Project Future Oil Spill Response Approach Plan

Recommendations on Bases and Equipment November 2013 – Page 40 ‐ Oil recovery

devices (commonly referred to as skimmers) remove oil from the surface of the water

using different principles. Skimmers can be either part of a self‐propelled vessel or be a

portable unit assigned to a vessel of opportunity. The proposed skimmer equipment

packages will include a mix of units capable of performing across different operating

environments and in varying weathered oil conditions.

Additionally, neither TMEP nor WCMRC have personnel with experience in the recovery of

submerged/sunken oil in river environments. It is noted that WCMRC personnel were involved

in the Wabamun Lake Bunker C spill, however there are numerous important differences

between the Wabamun Lake spill and a potential spill into the Fraser River, i.e., the oil

properties, the mechanism on sinking/submergence, the currents in the Fraser, and the

techniques available to recover the oil.

The combination of high currents and limited visibility due to suspended sediments would make

the detection and tracking of submerged oil essentially impossible in the Fraser River.



5.2.1 DetectionofSubmerged/SunkenOil

In order to attempt to contain and ultimately recover submerged/sunken oil, it must first be

located. When spilled oil sinks, or becomes submerged in the water column, it can often be

very difficult to detect. Many different detection techniques have been used and tested over

the years with varying degrees of success.

For spills on the water surface, visual observation is the most common technique used, and

observations can be recorded using photography or video. These visual techniques can

sometimes be used in shallow waters for submerged oils as well, although seaweed and kelp

(and other naturally‐occurring situations) can be easily mistaken for oil. Expert analysis is

essential for this technique (Rymell, 2009).

5.2.1.1Diver‐OperatedRemoteandDetectionSystems

In instances where the visibility on the bottom is a half meter or more, and conditions, i.e.,

currents allow, underwater video detection systems have proved very useful. They provide

documentation of the oil distribution within its limited field of view. However, like most spill

responders, WCMRC and TMEP have no experience with this technology. In these conditions,

helmet‐mounted cameras on divers would likely be required (Rymell, 2009). During the DBL‐

152 spill, a remotely‐operated underwater video recorder was used to successfully provide

quantitative estimates of size and frequency of oil accumulations. Frequent “down” days were

reported because of visibility, and the method could not always determine the exact position of

the spill oil (Counterspil, 2011).

5.2.1.2SorbentDrops

Sorbent drops are generally an ad hoc system consisting of a simple weight and sorbent

material (usually a form of plastic material to which oil will adhere, either through absorption or

adsorption). These are then bounced or dragged along the bottom for short distances, and

then visually inspected for oiling, in an attempt to map oil distribution. These systems are low‐

tech but consist of materials readily‐available on the spill site (Rymell, 2009).

More recently, sorbent cages (see Figure 5.2) have been used in lines to identify oil migration,

as well as being used to try and contain oil from sensitive areas (Rymell, 2009).



Figure 5.2 – (Photo credit: MPC)

During the response to the M/T Athos 1 incident (a heavy crude oil spill in the Delaware River in

2004), snare samplers consisting of an anchor and sorbent snares connected to a rope with a

float, were deployed downstream of the spill site. Approximately 100 samplers were deployed

in depressions and low‐flow areas where oil was thought to have accumulated. They were then

colour‐coded to indicate the degree of oiling. (Counterspil, 2011) Snare sampling proved to be

ineffective at detecting mobile oil and seemed to push oil away with its wake (Michel, 2008).

Figure 5.3 – Snare Samplers

5.2.1.3ChainDragsandV‐SORS

These systems were designed to be dragged through contaminated water to detect the

presence of submerged oils. Units can vary in size from a single chain with a few snares

attached, to the large Vessel‐Submerged Oil Recovery System (V‐SORS), comprising an 8‐foot

pipe with 28 chains with many snares. It is dragged along or near the bottom through the

water column (Rymell, 2009).



Figure 5.4 ‐ (Photo credit: US Coastguard and Coastal Response Research Center)

These systems have the advantage of detecting both pooled oil and mobile oil, as well as being

relatively efficient at surveying large areas. They can also be used in vessel traffic lanes (Michel,

2008).

It is difficult to determine the actual value of these systems however, as any oil detected has

been disturbed, and therefore it does not provide data on where oil is, but where it was before

it was disturbed (Rymell, 2009).

There are several limitations to the use of chain‐drags and V‐SORS. The operator cannot

determine the particle size, number of particles, or percent oil cover on the seafloor based on

the visual observations of oil on these systems. As well, the operator cannot determine if the

snares encountered one large patch along the distance of the drag or multiple small patches.

Information is also needed on the efficiency of oil pickup by the snares, as well as the rate of oil

wash‐off from the snares. These systems are also time‐ and labour‐intensive for deployment,

inspection and replacement. Other limitations include strong currents, rough water, vandalism,

and snagging underwater objects (Counterspil, 2011).

During the DBL‐152 spill, both light and heavy V‐SORS systems were used. A large vessel with a

crane was needed for the heavier systems while smaller boats could manually deploy the light

models. Both systems had difficulties in precisely locating the submerged oil (Counterspil,

2011).



5.2.2 ContainmentofSubmerged/SunkenOil

The Usher (2006) report for the Fresh Water Spills Symposium states “effective containment of

submerged oil is usually next to impossible when currents are present.” (Usher, 2006)

Over the years, many different booms, surface nets, and trawl systems have been used and

tested to contain submerged oil. Results have varied, but have proved useful in some

circumstances. When oil is submerged by thin over‐wash due to weathering, booms can assist

in resurfacing the oil, provided its depth of submergence does not exceed the boom curtain

(Rymell, 2009).

Silt curtains, pneumatic (bubble) barriers have also been suggested. Silt curtains require

contractors who have experience with their deployment and maintenance. In May, 2009, a silt

curtain boom was successfully deployed by Kinder‐Morgan Canada responders during a crude

spill into a retention pond, which stopped the spread of oil entrained in the water column due

to the use of submerged pumps. It must be noted however that the pond had essentially no

currents, unlike the streams and rivers in the Peters and Shxw'owhámel areas of interest.

Nets were ineffective at the Bouchard 155 incident (a bunker fuel spill in Tampa Bay in 1993),

but were effective in the response to the Erika Spill (a bunker spill off the coast of France in

1999), likely due to difference in oil characteristics. Trawl nets have been specially designed for

spill recovery in response to the increased carriage and risks of high viscosity oils (Rymell,

2009). There are commercially‐available net booms, although they only have a depth of 1 to 2

meters, and are restricted to locations with currents below 0.75 knots.₍₂₎ Fishing nets have not

been successful at the recovery of semi‐solid tar balls, and would be even less effective on

more‐liquid oil (Rymell, 2009).

Western Canada Spill Services held trials to evaluate the concepts of sunken oil containment.

They tested fine‐mesh nets as well as sub‐surface containment nets. They concluded in

general that they were not confident the nets were effective at containment or recovery

(Rymell, 2009).

The only documented times sunken oil has been contained, happened naturally when oil

accumulated in low‐flow zones, and existing depressions on the bottom. Trenches and berms

had been considered during the DBL‐152 spill, although it was agreed it would not provide

containment as oil would probably pass over the structure (Rymell, 2009).

Bottom booms, filter fences and trenches must be quickly deployed and their success is highly‐

dependent on bottom current conditions and type of oil (Counterspil, 2011). This would prove

to be next to impossible in the currents found in many parts of the Fraser River.


Draft Report 22 March 2015

5.2.2 RecoveryofSubmerged/SunkenOil

Most non‐floating oil recovery operations have been conducted without the use of

containment. In most cases, the oil has remained in‐situ or has been tracked as it moves.

Despite this, little information is available to verify the effectiveness of not using containment

(Rymell, 2009).

For neutrally‐buoyant oils which remain suspended in the water column, little can be done to

collect it (Michel, 2008).

Experience gained in the Marshall (see Section 8.5) spill is probably the most valuable in terms

of relevance to potential spills from the TMEP expansion project. Once it was determined that

some percentage of the spilled crude oil had made its way to the bottom, a number of

techniques were employed to recover the oil. Sediment poling, a relatively simple technique in

which a pole is pushed into the river sediments to disturb any submerged oil, was found to be

an effective way in locating submerged oil (see Figure 5.5). Work focused on areas of natural

deposition (areas where submerged oil deposits would naturally occur). Once poling identified

submerged oil, sediment coring was conducted to determine the extent of oiling and

penetration into the river bottom (ECRC, 2013).

Figure 5.5 – Sediment Poling (photo credit Enbridge)

Poling was conducted by crews in small boats (see Figure 5.6). This effort was very labour‐

intensive and time consuming, but was effective in refloating oil which collected in low‐current

areas (ECRC, 2013). While it is possible that this technique might be effective in some areas of

the Fraser River such as side channels, water depths and currents would likely reduce their

effectiveness.



Figure 5.6 – Sediment Poling (photo credit Enbridge)

Numerous platforms were used to agitate sediments including “Flush Boats” (see Figure 5.7)

and Marsh Buggies (ECRC, 2013).

Figure 5.7 – Flush Boat Agitation (photo credit Enbridge)

Another technique used was aeration which was used to agitate sediments, separating the oil

from the sediments and allowing it to refloat (see Figure 5.8), where it would be contained in

conventional booms and recovered with sorbents and skimmers (ECRC, 2013). However, it

should be noted that this technique would only work in low‐current (less than 1 knot) regimes,

which are rare in the Fraser River.



Figure 5.8 – Aeration (photo credit Enbridge)

A number of other technologies exist for recovery of heavy, sunken oil which has accumulated

on the bottom. Two companies have been developing specialized, sunken‐oil recovery

equipment, one expanding upon its knowledge in spill response, the other expanding upon its

dredging operations (Rymell, 2009).

The most common methods for recovering sunken oil include:

Diver‐Directed Pumping

ROV and Mini Submarine Pump Systems

Dredges

Recovery of sunken oil requires multiple systems for recovery, separation of oil/ water/

sediment, and treatment of these waste streams (Michel, 2008).



5.2.2.1DiversandDiver‐DirectedEquipment

Divers have been used at a number of incidents, both directly for solid oils and in conjunction

with pumps or dredges as they have a number of advantages over other systems in terms of

detecting and recovering oil. With divers, sediment and water collected with the oil is lower,

reducing post‐recovery treatment. They are also able to detect small scattered pieces of oil,

and place them directly into storage containers. Water depth and dive duration limit these

operations as well as the need to regularly decontaminate divers and their equipment (Rymell,

2009).

In a number of incidents including the Bouchard 155, Volgoneft 248, Morris J Berman, Erika and

the spill during the Lebanon war of 2006, divers were employed to use manual recovery

techniques (Rymell, 2009).

Divers are more commonly used to direct vacuum, air lift or negative pressure equipment

(Rymell, 2009). Divers weigh themselves down and crawl along the bottom to vacuum up the

oil. Since size and length of hose can becoming a limiting factor, systems that would allow a

diver to direct larger systems underwater such as power sleds, would greatly increase recovery

rates. Pump and vacuum systems have historically been a successful strategy for sunken oil.

Divers are often used to direct a modified suction head, with which they can manually open and

close the valve (Rymell, 2009).

An important part of this recovery process is the storage and decanting of the oil/water mixture

being recovered. During the DBL‐152 spill, a system including storage tanks, absorbent‐based

recovery components and a filtrations package was mounted on a recovery barge. It is noted

that the water decantation proved difficult due to wave action keeping the oil in a state of

agitation, slowing separation (Usher, 2006).

Divers can also direct equipment used for refloating sunken oil. Some sunken oils may refloat if

it can be separated from the sediment and given impetus to move. Airlifting uses a pipe to

release a steam of air close to the seabed. This air rises and moves towards the surface,

creating a suction pressure that acts as a vacuum to lift sediment and oil. Refloated oil is then

contained and recovered using conventional means. However, there may be limited time to

recover re‐floated oil as incorporated air may be a factor in its renewed buoyancy (Rymell,

2009).



5.2.2.2ROVandMiniSubmarinePumpingsystems

With the dangers of diver‐operated devices, especially at greater depths, the use of remotely

operated vehicles (ROV’s) has been expanded for many different applications (Counterspil,

2011). These systems allow for sustained operations and operate for periods much longer then

a diver. Remotely‐operated lightering systems are an existing, proven technology for

recovering liquid products from sunken vessel tanks, and shows promise to be built upon

(Rymell, 2009).

Sea Horse (Seagoing Adaptable Heavy Oil Recovery System) is a conceptual design using ROV’s

currently being tested and developed by Alion (Hansen, 2012). The recovery system includes a

ROV power sled, a pump, the nozzle, and the hoses. Initial testing has shown the system to be

slightly underpowered and could only handle currents less than 1.5 knots (Hansen, 2012).

.

Figure 5.9 ‐ Alion Sea Horse (photo credit Hansen et al 2012)

Marine Pollution Control Inc. (MPC) has experience with sunken oil using both divers and diver‐

directed devices. They believe that mounting recovery equipment on a mini submarine would

be effective, and have designed and developed a program to test this concept (Rymell, 2009).

Initially this system only had visual detection capabilities but has since been equipped with an

oil‐discriminating sonar and fluorescence polarization (FP) sensor (Hansen, 2012).



Figure 5.10 ‐ MPC and SEAmagine Hydrospace Corporation sub sea oil recovery system. Photo

from, RP595 Sunken and Submerged Oils, 2009.

MPC reports that their submersible recovery unit is able to locate, track and recover submerged

oil at depths up to 1600 feet. The 2‐person submarine is equipped with a suction nozzle that is

connected to a hydraulic submersible pump. While this might be useful in quiet areas where oil

has pooled, it is unlikely that this type of device would be practical in the currents of the Fraser

River.

5.2.2.3Dredging

With dredging operations being an established business among coastlines and port harbors,

they have been proposed for a number of incidents involving sunken oil (Rymell, 2009).

When oil is solidified, environmental clamshell dredgers have been used successfully (Rymell,

2009).

Modifications to a large duckbill dredge head have been made to try and reduce the amount of

waste water and sediment recovered (Rymell, 2009).

Dredgers were used during the Marshall spill (see Figure 5.11) in areas of highest oil

concentration, i.e., Ceresco Dam, Mill Ponds and Morrow Lake. Dredging was found to require

extensive treatment infrastructure and had the greatest impact on sediments (ECRC, 2013).



Figure 5.11 ‐ Amphibex Dredging (photo credit Enbridge)

Dredgers are generally designed to remove large quantities of material rapidly, and they do not

have to be as accurate or careful of disturbance as other techniques. If not carefully controlled,

large amounts of sediment could be removed, resulting in the need for storage and treatment,

as it would be contaminated by the sunken oil. It is also difficult to remove less than 20‐25 cm

of seabed without newer or modified equipment (Rymell, 2009).

Most dredging systems are typically limited to a maximum water depth of 50 meters, although

some specialist systems exist for excavations at greater depths. The offshore oil industry has

also developed systems for excavating pipeline routes, as well as remove drill cuttings (Rymell,

2009).

Figure 5.12 – (photo credit HELCOM/ Hand et al 1978)



Not all dredges are surface‐based. The Tornado Motion Technologies LLC (TMT) submerged oil

recovery system which is based off of the already‐existing, tracked dredge system. This consists

of a tracked unit on the seabed, with a mounted eddy pump and a moveable controllable

suction head. It is controlled from the surface via remote control, and guided by mounted

cameras on the tracked unit. The seabed unit is also equipped with a GPS tracker. It is

reported to create less turbulence then conventional systems and has a maximum working

depth in excess of 60 meters (Rymell, 2009).

Figure 5.13 – TMT Dredger (photo credit TMT)



5.3 UnrealisticWindowofOn‐WaterRecovery

The TMEP submission includes numerous references to a 10‐day requirement to complete on‐

water recovery.

WCMRC (Review of Trans Mountain Expansion Project Future Oil Spill Response

Approach Plan Recommendations on Bases and Equipment November 2013) – Page 10 ‐

The results of these tests support the federal standard of continued use of a ten day

period for on water recovery operations. On‐water recovery operations for oil spills in

sheltered waters and unsheltered waters are to be completed within 10 operational days

after the day on which the equipment is first deployed in the affected operating

environments.

The Response Organization (RO) standards are planning standards, not performance standards.

By comparison, the Oil Handling Facilities (OHF) Standards are performance standards.

The RO Standards require the RO (in this case, WCMRC) to plan to deliver an equipment

capability (equipment standards) to recover a predetermined amount of oil based on a number

of tiers (150T, 1000T, 2500T, 10,000T) in a given geographic area in a set period of time (time

standards). In the case of oil on water, the RO must plan to recover free oil on water in 10 days.

The 10 days start once the RO has deployed the required equipment on scene.

The RO standards apply to the RO when responding on request from a ship or OHF (when a ship

is alongside and transferring) members. The RO Standards do not legally apply to spills from

any other member of the RO (such as TMEP). Specifically then, the 10‐day standard does not

apply to potential spills originating from the TMEP, unless those spills occur at the dock in

Burnaby, or from a visiting/transiting oil tanker.

The following is the final paragraph from the introduction to the RO Standards, a paragraph

that is often forgotten and/or misrepresented.

“The standards are intended to be used in the planning process in preparation for a

response to an oil spill incident. Each response plan will be unique, taking into account

the geographic features specific to that region. Since the response to an incident will be

influenced by environmental and other factors, the standards should not be used as a

yardstick against which to measure the appropriateness of the response. Rather, they

seek to ensure that a suitable response infrastructure is in place and ready to be

deployed in the event of any spill, regardless of size and conditions.”



Although it is not explicitly stated, it is possible that this was the method chosen at which to

conclude the Gainford Study (see Section 8.5).

Unfortunately, when a spill occurs, especially in difficult response conditions, i.e., bad weather,

fast currents, open water, or in areas where a quick response is limited for any reason, the

spilled oil does not adhere to this 10‐day rule. Instead, history has shown that oil, when spilled

on water will quickly spread to a very thin layer, covering a very large area. As a result, the oil

typically can remain on the water for extended periods, or at least strand on a shoreline,

covering many hundreds of kms of shoreline, where it has a potential to remobilize on a rising

tide and refloat, or possibly submerge due to interaction with shoreline sediments.



5.4 24‐HourOn‐WaterRecoveryOperations

The submission appears to rely on the recovery of oil on water on a 24‐hour basis.



The on‐water recovery plan is based on a 24‐hour per day operational period.

Responders will be trained and equipped to operate safely in night time conditions.

While it is possible that some, near‐shore recovery (of already‐contained oil) activities might be

possible, it is highly‐unlikely that any significant amount of free‐floating oil would be recovered.

In WCMRC’s extensive history, no significant recovery of free‐floating oil at night has ever been

realized.



5.5 DifficultiesRespondinginBadWeather

The submission does recognize the limitations of spill response in bad weather conditions.



Although WCMRC equipment is capable of operating in sea states greater than 2, the

effectiveness of those countermeasures is reduced. For example, at Sea State 3 (Beaufort

Scale 4) wave heights exceed 1 m and the wind velocities range from 11 to 16 knots. At

this magnitude, containment booming and skimming is difficult to execute and become

less effective. Additionally, wave agitation may emulsify water and oil into a thick

mousse making oil recovery from the water surface more difficult. Emulsification may

also increase the volume of the spill since hydrocarbon‐water emulsions can incorporate

between 60% and 80% water by volume within two to three hours. It should be noted

that regulations only require response organizations and oil handling facilities to plan

response operations up to and including Beaufort Scale 4.

As noted, there exists (under the existing RO regime) a requirement for Response Organizations

to work in wind speeds of 16 knots or less. However, while the WCMRC report appears to

recognize this fact, the calculations throughout the remainder of the document, as well as the

various models tend to paint a much more‐positive outlook on a potential spill response.

Instead, the WCMRC submission suggests that its on‐water recovery strategy will be dictated by

increased equipment bases and purpose‐designed barges.



Two critical components will be: 1) base locations that improve response times; and 2)

purpose‐designed barges that enable efficient use of personnel and materials in support

of on‐water recovery.



6 SpilledOilFates

The EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. Study (Modelling the Fate and Behaviour of Marine Oil

Spills for the TMEP Summary Report) is limited in that a number of assumptions are made that

greatly reduce the impacts of potential spills and increases the expectations on on‐water

containment and recovery. Also, wind speeds were used that limited the likelihood that oil

would naturally disperse, thus potentially leading to sinking.

Figure 6.1 (Figure 6.17 of the EBA Study) (shown below) only depicts the spread of a slick after

48 hours (no slick spreading is shown after 48 hours).

Figure 6.1



However, Figure 6.19 (of the EBA Study) indicates that oil would remain on the surface after 14

days.

Figure 6.2

In the WCMRC (Review of Trans Mountain Expansion Project Future Oil Spill Response

Approach Plan Recommendations on Bases and Equipment November 2013), the review

recognizes that there is a potential for some component of spilled dilbit to sink when spilled

into water:

Page 10 ‐ While the petroleum transported on the Trans Mountain pipeline is limited by

tariff to a maximum specific gravity of 0.94 and viscosity of 350 cSt7 and will float if

released into water, a portion of spilled petroleum could submerge or sink if left to

weather for an extended period.

Unfortunately, the Gainford Study (co‐undertaken by WCMRC) did not determine under which

conditions the sinking of oil was possible/likely.



It is also noted that a study undertaken in 2012 by SL Ross (Meso‐scale Weathering of Cold Lake

Bitumen/Condensate Blend) is referenced by both the EBA Engineering “Methods for

Estimating Shoreline Oil Retention” prepared by Harper, and the EBA Study “Modelling The Fate

And Behaviour Of Marine Oil Spills For The Trans Mountain Expansion Project Summary

Report”, both contained in TMEP submission, “Vol 8C Part 12 ‐ Oil Spill Study”. In that study,

even though very low wind speeds (less than 5 knots) were used, a small part of the oil slick

(<1% to <5% by observation) was seen to submerge (see Figure 6.3) and hang in the water

column as either neutrally buoyant droplets or blobs while the water circulated in the flume (SL

Ross, 2012).

Figure 6.3 ‐ Droplets of Oil Observed Floating in the Water Column during Tests



6.1 AdiosIIFatesModels

Since limited work was submitted by TMEP to try to predict the fate (and the potential for

submergence/sinking) of spilled crude oil, a series of fates models were produced and included

in this report. Specifically, hundreds of models were run in order to determine the key

combinations of factors which are discussed in Section 7.1.

The model chosen was the industry‐standard Adios II model developed by NOAA. The crude oils

modelled were:

Alberta Mixed Sweet

Cold Lake Blend

Transmountain Blend

Bow River Blend

For the most part, the key factors that will dictate the tendency of the modelled crude oils to

disperse and/or reach a density close to that of water were wind speed, sedimentation and

water temperature (densities increase as the water temperature decreases).



6.1.1 ColdLakeBlend

Adios predicts that the key parameters for Alberta Mixed Sweet Crude are wind speeds of 20 mph and a

water temperature of 15°C. Under these conditions, it is predicted that within 36 hours, the oil would

reach a density (0.99) close to that of fresh water, and around 8% of the oil would disperse, and

potentially adhere to river sediments (and sink).

Figure 6.4 – Alberta Mixed Sweet Crude Model Inputs

Figure 6.5 ‐ Alberta Mixed Sweet ‐ Density



Figure 6.6 ‐ Alberta Mixed Sweet Crude – Percent Oil Dispersed



6.1.2 ColdLakeBlend

Adios predicts that the water temperature has little effect on the tendency of Cold Lake Blend to

disperse. Also, CLB showed almost no dispersion, even at wind speeds of 40 mph. However, under

these conditions, it is predicted that within 2 days, the oil would reach a density (0.99) close to that of

fresh water, thus making it a candidate for submergence.

Figure 6.7 – Cold Lake Blend Model Inputs

Figure 6.8 – Cold Lake Blend ‐ Density



Figure 6.9 – Cold Lake Blend ‐ Percent Oil Dispersed



6.1.3 TransmountainBlend

Adios predicts that the key parameters for Transmountain Blend are wind speeds of 18 mph and a water

temperature of 10°C. Under these conditions, it is predicted that within 2.5 days, the oil would reach a

density (0.99) close to that of fresh water, and around 9% of the oil would disperse, and potentially

adhere to river sediments (and sink).

Figure 6.10 – Transmountain Blend Model Inputs

Figure 6.11 ‐ Transmountain Blend ‐ Density



Figure 6.12 ‐ Transmountain Blend – Percent Oil Dispersed



6.1.4 BowRiverBlend

Adios predicts that the key parameters for Bow River Blend are wind speeds of 20 mph and a water

temperature of 10°C. Under these conditions, it is predicted that within 2 days, the oil would reach a

density (0.994) very close to that of fresh water, and around 9% of the oil would disperse, and

potentially adhere to river sediments (and sink).

Figure 6.13 – Bow River Blend Model Inputs

Figure 6.14 – Bow River Blend ‐ Density



Figure 6.15 – Bow River Blend – Percent Oil Dispersed



7 SpilledOilTrajectories

The overland and river spill trajectory models developed by RPS‐ASA using OilMap Land, and

included in “Simulations of Hypothetical Oil Spills from the Trans Mountain Expansion Project

Pipeline – P1 V6 Route” (see Figure 7.1) provide little detail of:

The time required for the spilled oil to reach populated areas or the Fraser River

The Slick thicknesses in key areas (necessary to accurately predict vapour

concentrations)

The spread of the spilled oil when it reaches open water (the Fraser River)

Instead, the purple polyline appears to paint a general path of center of the oil slick, which,

once it reaches the Fraser River, stays nicely in the centre of the channel, avoiding the

shorelines. Of course in reality, this would not represent the actual spread of the oil, its

potential areal coverage, and the likely shoreline impacts.

Figure 7.1 ‐ Example Output from OilMap Land

Since it would be useful to have some idea as to the length of time required for spilled oil to

reach key sensitivities in the two First Nations IRs, a series of overland models were developed

by the author to provide some insight into these questions (see Section 7.1).



7.1 OverlandSpillTrajectoryModels

A series of overland trajectory models were developed by the author, as part of this report in

order to determine how long it might take for spilled crude oil to reach key receptors/locations

in the two Reserves.

7.2 ModelUsed

The model used to determine the projected paths (and timings) of spills was the US EPA’s

Planning Distance model from (40 CFR Ch. I, Pt. 112, App. C). The model is described below:

d = v × t × c

where

d: the distance downstream from a facility within which fish and wildlife and sensitive

environments could be injured or a public drinking water intake would be shut down in

the event of an oil discharge (in miles)

v: the velocity of the river/navigable water of concern (in ft/sec) as determined by Chezy‐

Manning’s equation (see below and Tables 1 and 2)

t: the time interval specified in Table 3 based upon the type of water body and location

(in hours)

c: constant conversion factor 0.68 sec mile/ hr ft (3600 sec/hr ÷ 5280 ft/mile)

Chezy‐Manning’s equation is used to determine velocity: v=1.5/n×r2⁄3×s1⁄2; where v =

the velocity of the river of concern (in ft/sec); n = Manning’s Roughness Coefficient from

Table 1 (see below)

r = the hydraulic radius; the hydraulic radius can be approximated for parabolic channels

by multiplying the average mid‐channel depth of the river (in feet) by 0.667

s = the average slope of the river (unit‐less)



Stream Description Roughness Coefficient (n)

Minor Streams (Top Width <100 ft.)

Clean

Straight 0.03

Winding 0.04

Sluggish (Weedy, deep pools)

No Trees or Brush 0.06

Trees and/or Brush 0.10

Major Streams (Top Width >100 ft.)

Regular section: (No boulders/brush) 0.035

Irregular section: (Brush) 0.05

Table 7.1 ‐ Manning’s Roughness Coefficient for Natural Streams (Note: Coefficients are

presented for high flow rates at or near flood stage.)

7.2.1 ModelInputs

Model inputs included:

Spill volume (1,000 gallons)

Start elevations*

End elevations*

Segment lengths*

Stream type (from Table 1)

Water depth*

* Input data came from actual GPS readings, measured water depths, and Topo maps (for

verification).

Also, it should be noted there are numerous differences between the spill trajectories depicted

in the RPS‐ASA models and those presented in Section 7.3. The models that follow are based

on observed/actual drainage paths (at the time of the field visits conducted in February and

March, 2015).



7.3.1 ModelResults–PetersReserve–ScenarioP‐1

The following model output depicts the times required for spilled crude oil to reach key

receptors and/or locations from a spill originating at location 1 (near east‐most creek east of

pond).

Figure 7.2 – Scenario P‐1 Results



Figure 7.3 ‐ Time to Reach the Pond

Figure 7.4 – Time to Exit Pond

Planning Distance Calculation Worksheet

Segment # 3

Segment type Open Channel

Open Channel n values

Roughness

Coefficient

Elevation (start) 99 ft 0 m Stream desctiption n

Elevation (end) 67 ft 0 m Minor Streams (top width <100 ft)

Segment Distance 692 ft 0.131061 miles Clean Straight 0.03

Slope (s ) 0.046243 ft/ft Winding 0.04

Stream Type (n) 0.1 Sluggish No trees or brush 0.06

Water depth (if open channel) 0.5 ft Trees and/or brush 0.1

Wetted radius (r ) 0.3335 ft Major Streams (top width >100 ft)

Regular Section (no boulders/brush) 0.035

Vx=1.49/n * r2/3 * s

1/2 = 1.540328 ft/sec Irregular Section (Brush) 0.05

d=v*t*c

c=0.68

Finding for Distance (d) Finding for Time(t)

Time (t) hours stance (d) 0.131061 miles

d= 0 miles t= 0.125127 hours


Segment # 4

Segment type Still Water

Volume (V) 1,000.00 gallons

A=105*V

3/4*C= 2,921,713.07 ft

2

C=0.1643

A=(pi)*r2

r=(A/3.14)1/2= 964.61 ft

0.18 miles

Wind speed (v) 5.00 mph

Hours (t) 0.40 hours

Distance= D=r+(v*0.03*t)= 0.24 miles



Figure 7.5 – Time from the Pond to the Fraser River

Figure 7.6 – Time to Reach Mission Bridge


Segment # 3



Roughness

Coefficient



Segment Distance 2428.8 ft 0.46 miles Clean Straight 0.03






Vx=1.49/n * r2/3 * s


d=v*t*c

c=0.68


Time (t) hours Distance (d) 0.46 miles



Segment # 2



Roughness

Coefficient

Elevation (start) 66 ft m Stream desctiption n

Elevation (end) 33 ft m Minor Streams (top width <100 ft)







Vx=1.49/n * r2/3 * s


d=v*t*c

c=0.68








receptors and/or locations from a spill originating at location 2 (creek immediately south of the

pond).




Figure 7.8 – Time to Reach the Pond

Figure 7.9 – Time to Exit the Pond


Segment # 3



Roughness

Coefficient









Vx=1.49/n * r2/3 * s


d=v*t*c

c=0.68


Time (t) hours stance (d) 0.04 miles



Segment # 4

Segment type Still Water

Volume (V) 1,000.00 gallons

A=105*V

3/4*C= 2,921,713.07 ft

2

C=0.1643

A=(pi)*r2

r=(A/3.14)1/2= 964.61 ft

0.18 miles

Wind speed (v) 5.00 mph

Hours (t) 0.40 hours

Distance= D=r+(v*0.03*t)= 0.24 miles



Figure 7.10 – Time from the Pond to the Fraser

Figure 7.11 – Time to the Mission Bridge


Segment # 3



Roughness

Coefficient









Vx=1.49/n * r2/3 * s


d=v*t*c

c=0.68





Segment # 2



Roughness

Coefficient









Vx=1.49/n * r2/3 * s


d=v*t*c

c=0.68








receptors and/or locations from a spill originating at location 3 (un‐named creek above the

Hwy).




Figure 7.13 – Time to the Fraser River



Segment # 3



Roughness

Coefficient

Elevation (start) 141 ft 42.9768 m Stream desctiption n

Elevation (end) 66 ft 20.11 m Minor Streams (top width <100 ft)







Vx=1.49/n * r2/3 * s


d=v*t*c

c=0.68





Segment # 2



Roughness

Coefficient









Vx=1.49/n * r2/3 * s


d=v*t*c

c=0.68


Time (t) 24 hours Distance (d) 37.304 miles

d= 63.8889 miles t= 14.013326 hours





receptors and/or locations from a spill originating at location 4 (un‐named creek above the

Hwy).







Segment # 3



Roughness

Coefficient









Vx=1.49/n * r2/3 * s


d=v*t*c

c=0.68





Segment # 2



Roughness

Coefficient









Vx=1.49/n * r2/3 * s


d=v*t*c

c=0.68



d= 63.8889 miles t= 14.013326 hours





receptors and/or locations from a spill originating at location 5 (un‐named creek at the west

end of the IR).







Segment # 3



Roughness

Coefficient

Elevation (start) 109.9456 ft 33.52 m Stream desctiption n








Vx=1.49/n * r2/3 * s


d=v*t*c

c=0.68





Segment # 2



Roughness

Coefficient









Vx=1.49/n * r2/3 * s


d=v*t*c

c=0.68



d= 63.8889 miles t= 14.013326 hours



7.3.6 ModelResults–Shxw'owhámelReserve–ScenarioS‐1


receptors and/or locations from a spill originating at location 5 (un‐named ditch at the

northeast end of the IR).

Figure 7.20 – Scenario S‐1 Results



Figure 7.21 – Time to Fraser River

Figure 7.22 – Fraser River Segment 1


Segment # 2



Roughness

Coefficient



Segment Distance 27076 ft miles Clean Straight 0.03






Vx=1.49/n * r2/3 * s


d=v*t*c

c=0.68








Segment # 3



Roughness

Coefficient









Vx=1.49/n * r2/3 * s


d=v*t*c

c=0.68






7.3.7 ModelResults–Shxw'owhámelReserve–ScenarioS‐2


receptors and/or locations from a spill originating at location 5 (un‐named ditch at the east end

of the IR).

Figure 7.24 – Scenario S‐2 Results



Figure 7.25 – Time to Fraser River



Segment # 2



Roughness

Coefficient









Vx=1.49/n * r2/3 * s


d=v*t*c

c=0.68








Segment # 3



Roughness

Coefficient









Vx=1.49/n * r2/3 * s


d=v*t*c

c=0.68






8 Submerged/SinkingOils

The TMEP materials include a discussion of the fate (sometimes called weathering) of spilled

crude oil. However, there is a limited discussion on the mechanisms of sinking and/or

submergence.

The following discussion includes:

Predicting the Submerging and Sinking of Oil

Oil Submergence or “Over‐Washing”

Oil Density

A case study of the Line 6b (Enbridge spill) in Marshall, MI

Finally, since there are numerous references throughout the TMEP submission(s) to the

“Gainford Study”, conducted in 2013 In Gainford, Alberta, there is a discussion of the Study and

its applicability to this project.



8.1 PredictingtheSubmergingandSinkingofOil

As is the case for all oil spills, every incident of submerged oil is a unique set of conditions based

on the type of oil, the environment in which it’s spilled, and other physical processes (Michel,

2008). Sunken oil is spilled oil which has negative buoyancy and will sink to the sea/riverbed.

Submerged oil is spilled oil that has near‐neutral buoyancy and has been submerged below the

surface (Rymell, 2009). Several main processes have been identified which could cause oil to

sink or become submerged.

Where the oil has an inherent density greater than the water in which it’s spilled, the oil will

sink to the sea/riverbed. Should the oil then move to an area with higher water densities, it

may rise again (Rymell, 2009).

Where the oil has a density close to the water in which its spilled, wave action and currents can

cause it to become submerged for periods and even trapped in the water column. This

emulsification and weathering can also cause lighter oils to increase in density and become

closer to that of the water. SL Ross conducted tank tests to develop a model for when oil may

submerge. It was determined that the oil must be viscous enough to break into fragments

small enough to become over washed. There must also be sufficient wave energy to push these

fragments below the water’s surface (Rymell, 2009).

Where floating oil is spilled or enters into an area with high concentrations of suspended

sediment, it can mix with the sediment increasing its density causing it to sink or become

submerged. Experiments in 1987 for the Integration of Suspended Particulate Matter and Oil

Transportation Study by Payne et al provide a “rule of thumb” regarding suspended sediment

concentrations leading to sinking oil (Rymell, 2009).

When stranded oil on a beach remobilizes, it can pick up sediment causing it to sink close to the

shore. This process requires that the oil have a suitably‐high viscosity and a shoreline substrate

consisting of sand or other coarse material. A short time period is also necessary for the oil to

incorporate the sediment. A rule of thumb is proposed that if the oil has a viscosity greater

than 20,000 cP and on a sand or shingle beach, it will have a high probability of sinking upon

remobilization (Rymell, 2009).



Figure 8.1 ‐ General approach to modeling oil sinking or submerging. Photo from, RP595 Sunken and Submerged

Oils, 2009.

In the riverine waters near the Shxw'owhámel and Peters Reserves, the density and subsequent

movement of viscous oils will be affected by multiple factors, including emulsification,

sedimentation, tidal and other currents, waves generated by wind, low temperatures and

salinity anomalies. It is therefore likely that some percentage (10‐20%) of the bitumen‐blends

could sink within 10 days, or could be over washed easily by wave action in the turbulent

waters (Counterspil, 2011).



8.2 OilSubmergenceor“Over‐Washing”

Large masses of oil that have a density close to that of water may be submerged for periods

from surface turbulence. This phenomenon is called over‐washing. Investigation has

discovered that oil will become over‐washed with densities as low as 0.90 g/ml, and over

washing time increases with oil density and wave size (Rymell, 2009).

Lab testing has shown that high‐viscosity, high‐density oils do not spread as a coherent slick but

rather formed “rafts” or “blobs” under the effect of waves. These blobs can be pushed rather

deep into the water and take a long time to resurface. Studies also revealed that in moderate

sea states, emulsified oil could be almost permanently covered in a layer of water (Rymell,

2009).

In a more recent analysis, it was found that the buoyancy behaviour of dilbits in marine

conditions depends most‐strongly on the presence of medium‐to‐fine sediment in the water

column. Evaporative weathering alone and evaporative and photo‐oxidation weathering in

combination all resulted in products that were buoyant in marine conditions. Mixing with

water generally increased the density of the products, but all oils tested remained buoyant in

seawater even when saturated with water. When mixed with fine‐ and moderate‐sized

sediments however, the fresh‐ to moderately‐weathered dilbits sank in saltwater…..this work

demonstrates that, in waters where fine‐ to moderate‐sized sediment is present, these oils are

at risk to sink, when there is a high degree of mixing energy available (Environment Canada,

2014).

During many parts of the year, the Fraser River delta has been found to have sediment

concentrations approaching 1 g/L during the highest annual flows (Kostaschuk et al., 1993),

thus creating an environment in which, when combined with sufficient mixing energy

(turbulence), could certainly sink.



8.3 OilDensity

If the density of oil is greater than the water in which it’s spilled, it will sink. The American

petroleum institute’s “API gravity” is the standard measure of “heaviness” or density of oils

when compared to water.

When coupled with viscosity, it creates four categories for crude oil (Rymell, 2009).

1. Light Oil: is also known as “conventional oil”, with an API gravity of at least 22° and a

viscosity less than 100 cP.

2. Heavy Oil: described as above, the upper API gravity limit being set at 22° and a viscosity

of less than 100 cP.

3. Extra‐Heavy Oil: like Heavy Oil but with an API gravity of less than 10°.

4. Natural Bitumen: also known as “oil sands”, is like Heavy Oil but even more dense and

viscous with a viscosity greater than say 10,000 cP.

Freshwater has a density of 1.000 g/ml, and seawater typically has a density of 1.025 g/ml. The

salinity and density of water are proportional (Rymell, 2009).

*Density vs. Sinking behavior of oil, from RP595 Sunken and Submerged Oils, 2009.



Few oils have densities greater than full‐salinity seawater. These are highly‐cracked oils are

also known as slurry oils or black carbon. Depending on the speed of current, the sinking oil

may be sheared into small droplets and spread over a vast area, or pool in depressions in the

seabed (Rymell, 2009).

If the density of the oil is close to but less than the water into which it’s spilled, it will initially

float, but sit very low in the water. Low‐viscosity oils will be naturally dispersed by wave action,

but if the viscosity is high, the oil will be broken into blobs of spilled oil (Rymell, 2009).



8.4 CaseStudy–EnbridgeLine6bRelease,Marshall,MI

On July 26, 2010, 20,084 US Barrels (bbls) of crude oil released near Marshall, Michigan from

Enbridge’s Line 6b near Marshall, MI. The crude (reported by Enbridge) released was a

combination of (77.5%) Cold Lake a heavy dilbit, and (22.5%) MacKay River Heavy, a heavy

synbit (USEPA, May, 2013).

Of the 20,080 bbls (843,360 gallons) of crude released from the pipeline, it is estimated that

only 8,333 bbls (350,000 US gallons) reached Talmadge Creek, and eventually the Kalamazoo

River. The river was in a flood condition at time of release (USEPA, May, 2013).

It is unclear at which point it was realized that some percentage of the oil had submerged/sunk,

however it would soon become clear that a considerable amount of oil was on the bottom, in

the sediments of the creek and river.

It would eventually be determined by EPA officials that primary mechanisms of submergence

were (USEPA, May, 2013):

– volatilization of light ends

– Emulsification, and

– interactions and agglomeration onto sediment (dominant)

The EPA (USEPA, May, 2013) would later estimate that, as of July/August 2012 (2 years after the

spill, and much of the cleanup) that:

The total submerged Line 6B oil volume for the discharge site is estimated to have been 180,000 gallons ± 100,000 gallons when summed over all sampling strata.

In summary, the calculated estimate of submerged Line 6B oil quantified in sediment supports other assessment and monitoring results. These multiple lines of evidence indicate that submerged Line 6B oil is present and has migrated into depositional areas along the entire 38-mile-long reach of the Kalamazoo River affected by the July 2010 Line 6B oil discharge.

Since the spill occurred in July, in relatively warm temperatures, it can be conservatively

estimated that 10% (35,000 gallons) of the crude entering the creek would have evaporated,

thus only around 315,000 gallons remained, at least for a while, on the water surface.

Based on the EPA’s numbers, the range of percentages of the oil that entered the creek that

would ultimately sink or submerge would be from 25% (at the low end of the EPA’s estimate) to

89% (at the high end). Based on the EPA’s best estimate, some 57% of the oil that entered

Talmadge Creek would ultimately find its way to the sediments on the bottom.



8.5 GainfordStudy

8.5.1 General

In June 2012, Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (TMPL) asked O’Brien’s Response Management to

organize a study on diluted bitumen (dilbit) products to support their application for the TMEP.

The stated purpose of the study was to further the knowledge of dilbit in general and, more

specifically, to investigate the behavior of dilbit when spilled into a marine environment.

Unfortunately, the Gainford Study was extremely limited in scope, in that only two crude oils

were tested, and an environment was chosen in which it was highly unlikely that any of the oil

would sink. The tests were conducted only using a salt water environment. Also, oil

thicknesses and wind apparatus were used that were unlikely to create small oil droplet

formation. Also, no suspended sediments, clays, or plant matter were present, which would

have increased the likelihood of the oil sinking. Finally, the study was limited in time to stop at

a point in time when the oils might have sunk.

The Study was also not designed to test current capability of recovering sunken/submerged oil:

Page vii “Is the performance of the equipment currently stockpiled by North American oil

spill recovery organizations adequate to mechanically remove diluted bitumens off the

surface of the water?”

Unfortunately, as a result of these limitations, the results of the study cannot be reasonably

used to represent many of the conditions in which crude oil could be spilled. It is even more

unfortunate that the study designers, knowing that a considerable percentage of the crude oil

spilled in the Enbridge (Marshall) incident did sink, did not design the study to determine at

which point the key variables, i.e., water density, sediment load, and turbulence, would cause

these crude oils to sink.



8.5.2 StudyAppropriatenessasaPredictorforRiverineSpills

The Gainford Study was not designed to test fate of oil spilled into fresh (river) water, where it

is more likely to sink/submerge (due to the less‐dense fresh water, and the presence of

suspended sediments, clays, or plant matter):

Page vii “This team was tasked with designing and executing a controlled test to

evaluate the fate and behavior of dilbit discharged into a simulated marine environment

similar to that of Burrard Inlet (Vancouver, BC, Canada) where the Westridge Terminal is

located”

Although the Gainford Study refers to the freshwater lens (the layer of lighter fresh water that

floats above the salt water layer) from rivers and in high‐rain periods often found in the Burrard

Inlet, the Study did not allow for the potential effects that the lens might have on the buoyancy

of spilled oil:

Page 5 “Most of Burrard Inlet is characterized by an upper surface layer of brackish

water subject to runoff and river inputs, predominantly the Fraser River for the outer

harbor and the Indian, Seymour, and Capilano rivers for the inner harbor. The surface

water layer temperatures are dependent on local weather conditions and precipitation,

generally ranging from a mean near 7 ˚Celsius (˚C) in February to approximately 17 ˚C in

July. On average, salinities decrease from approximately 20‐25 ppt (parts per thousand)

at First Narrows to approximately 15 ppt near the south end of Indian Arm.”

Instead the study assumed a homogenous salt‐water mixture, with an average salinity:

Page 5 “On average, salinities decrease from approximately 20‐25 ppt (parts per

thousand) at First Narrows to approximately 15 ppt near the south end of Indian Arm.”



8.5.3 StudyLength

Unfortunately, the tests were stopped at the point where submerging/sinking was possible:

Page 6 “The objectives of the applied research were multifaceted. One objective was to

better understand and characterize the changes in physical and chemical properties of

dilbit in an estuarine simulated condition over a 10‐day period.“

Hopefully, no one is suggesting that all of the oil from a large, uncontained spill would be

recovered within 10 days.

Also, while it is unknown when oil began to sink during the Enbridge (Marshall) spill, it took

approximately 2 weeks before it was determined that oil had sunk. It is unfortunate that the

tests, which were carried out after the Marshall spill (the Marshall spill was referenced in the

literature review) did not include a time‐frame taking advantage of the lessons learned from

Marshall.

Page 5 “Two documented spills of dilbit into an aquatic setting are the 2010 Marshall

Spill (Kalamazoo, MI) from the Enbridge Pipeline (NTSB 2012; see also Enbridge Line 6B

Response)”



8.5.4 SalinityofTestWater

The tests used a single water salinity of 20 ppt, even though it is recognized that salinity in

many parts of the Burrard Inlet are lower:

Page 8 “The scientific study tanks were filled with water at a prepared salinity, using

SolarSalt, of 20 ppt.”

Page 6 “On average, salinities decrease from approximately 20‐25 ppt (parts per

thousand) at First Narrows to approximately 15 ppt near the south end of Indian Arm.”

Again, it is unfortunate that the tests did not include a range of salinities to determine at which

salinity/densities the oils did submerge/sink.



8.5.5 CrudeOilsTested

Only two crude oils were tested, thus representing only a small fraction of the range of crude

oils that would likely be transported. This is especially important given the fact that many

crude oils, when weathered, are likely to reach specific gravities close to, or over 1.0 (see

Section 6.1).

Page 6 “A Cold Lake Winter Blend (CLWB) dilbit was selected to provide a “standard”

dilbit, with the winter blend representing more diluent initially. The slightly higher

diluent is expected to result in higher hydrocarbon flux to atmosphere and to the water

column (dissolution of acutely toxic low molecular weight hydrocarbons). The summer

blend has fewer lighter end hydrocarbons and hence a slightly higher initial density than

CLWB. More research has been completed with CLB dilbit than other blends; thus, it was

expected that results from these tests would provide a basis for comparison with a

broader range of prior research.

Winter specification Access Western Blend (AWB) was the second oil tested for physical

and chemical properties under similar weathering scenarios as the tests on CLWB. AWB

is a dilbit from the Athabasca region south of Fort McMurray, Alberta.”



8.5.6 StudyConditions

Unfortunately, the Gainford Study used conditions that did not adequately mimic real life

situations/conditions.

Page 8 ‐ The night of May 17 (after approximately 48 hours of weathering without

cover), these tanks were covered with a tent (Figure 3‐3) in preparation for forecasted

windy and rainy weather.

As it often rains and is windy in BC, it would have been useful to see if these, real‐life conditions

might have some impact on the tendency of oil to sink. At least one test did include the effects

of wind and rain (see Section 8.5.7), which resulted in the oil becoming neutrally buoyant much

more quickly.

Also, the oil thicknesses employed in the tests (over 1 cm) greatly reduced the potential for oil

to sink.

Page 13 ‐ Containment by the tank configuration limited what would be the natural

spreading of oil in an unconfined condition.

In open water conditions, oil will spread to a very thin layer (often microns thick). A thicker oil

layer (as was the case in the tests) will tend to greatly reduce the effects of wind in the creation

of wind‐induced waves. The areas with the thickest oil layer will attenuate (flatten) the waves

(see Figure 8.2), thus greatly reducing the creation of wave‐induced droplets (see Figure 8.3).

Figure 8.2 – Wave Attenuation (photo credit OSRL)



Figure 8.3 – Wave‐Induced Droplets (photo credit Boston Globe)

The study used what were described as “static”, “Mild” and “Moderate” wave conditions (see

Figure 8.4). These agitation levels, combined with the unrealistically‐high oil thickness

contributed to the conditions in which oil sinking was unlikely.

Figure 8.4 – Agitation Levels Used on Gainford Study



The apparatus used to create wind (and turbulence) appears to be from a single, relatively

discrete source (see Figure 8.5). While it is possible that the wind created by the device shown

would have created local waves in the immediate area in which the blown air sheared over the

oil, it also appears that much of the tank would have unaffected by the moving air.

Figure 8.5 – Wind Apparatus



8.5.7 GainfordStudyFindings

The study findings showed that, in spite of the relatively favourable design parameters, that the

crude oils tested became essentially neutrally buoyant with 4‐5 days (see Figures 8.6 – 8.8).

Test S1 results showed AWB becoming essentially neutrally buoyant (under static condition,

i.e., no induced waves) within 144 hours, thus becoming a candidate for sinking or at least

submergence (and thus interaction with suspended sediments), especially under more‐realistic

conditions.

Figure 8.6 ‐ AWB in Tank S1 Weathered Under Static Conditions

Test S2 showed AWB becoming essentially neutrally buoyant (under mild agitation) within 96

hours, thus becoming a candidate for sinking or at least submergence (and thus interaction

with suspended sediments), especially under more‐realistic conditions.

Figure 8.7 ‐ AWB in Tank S2 Weathered Under “Mild” Conditions



Test S4 showed CLB becoming essentially neutrally buoyant (under “moderate” agitation)

within 96 hours, thus becoming a candidate for sinking or at least submergence (and thus

interaction with suspended sediments), especially under more‐realistic conditions.

Figure 8.8 ‐ CLWB in Tank S9A Weathered Under “Moderate” Agitation Conditions

Test S4 showed CLWB becoming essentially neutrally buoyant (under “moderate” agitation)

within 72 hours, thus becoming a candidate for sinking or at least submergence (and thus

interaction with suspended sediments), especially under more‐realistic conditions.

Figure 8.9 ‐ CLWB in tank S4 (oil reservoir tank) – weathered under mild agitation conditions,

sun light, and local weather conditions (wind and rain)

The Study concludes that:

Page 63 ‐ Fresh dilbit oil is much like most medium to heavy crude oils and can be

recovered using a variety of skimmer systems, ranging from weirs to oleophilic units. As

dilbit weathers, the oil viscosity increases significantly but skimmers designed for more

viscous oils, including brush, belt, and mechanical systems, can continue to effectively

recover weathered oil (demonstrated in up to 10 days of weathering in tank tests).



However, it must be remembered that the primary problem in recovering spilled oil is not

removing oil from the water’s surface, but instead the challenge in encountering the oil. In

real‐world spill conditions, spilled oil will spread very quickly, covering potentially enormous

areas very quickly, greatly exceeding any existing technologies’ ability to apprehend it. The

Gainford study proved that existing oil skimmers can recover oil spilled into a tank with areas

ranging from 1 to 19 m2.

One useful outcome of the Gainford Study found that the alternative countermeasures tested

all had extremely short effectiveness windows, essentially making all of them useless on a large,

wide‐scale release (i.e., in open water), where it would be next‐to‐impossible to execute within

the necessary window.

Page 2 “Three non‐mechanical countermeasures were investigated for their ability to

mitigate spilled CLB dilbit under specific conditions. In‐situ burning was found to be

effective on oil that had only weathered for 24 hours or less. Chemical dispersants were

marginally effective for up to a 6 hour weathering window.”



10 Conclusions

Based on the previous discussions and model findings, there are a number of issues which

should remain of concern to both the Shxw'owhámel First Nation and Peters Band.

Due to the close proximity of the proposed pipeline to their Reserves, there is a risk that a spill

from the pipeline could directly affect the immediate health and safety of the Shxw'owhámel

First Nation and Peters Band. There could also be long‐term affects to both their traditional

territories and Reserves.

There remain a number of unanswered questions about how the communities would be

protected from potentially toxic or flammable vapours, and, how they would even know if the

vapours were present.

The question of the safe and timely evacuation of residents, and the problems associated with

emergency responders entering the affected areas also remain unanswered.

If there is a spill, there is essentially no chance that the spread of oil would be stopped before it

reached the Reserves. And, because crude oils can sink and/or submerge, there is a significant

likelihood that some percentage of the oil would make its way to the river bottom sediments.

If this occurs, history has shown that the techniques available to spill responders are extremely

limited, time‐consuming, and in many cases ineffective.



10 References

Clark, B. J. Parsons, C. Yen, B. Ahier, J. Alexander, D. Mackay, 1987. A STUDY OF FACTORS

INFLUENCING OIL SUBMERGENCE, Report EE‐90 prepared for Conservation and Protection,

Environment Canada.

Counterspil Research Inc., November 2011, A Review of Countermeasures Technologies for

Viscous Oils that Submerge.

Eastern Canada Response Corporation (ECRC), May 2013. Subsurface Oil Spill Conference.

Entrix, 2010. Tank Barge DBL 152 Incident Response, Environmental Unit Report.

Environment Canada, 2014. Properties, Composition and Marine Spill Behaviour, Fate and

Transport of Two Diluted Bitumen Products from the Canadian Oil Sands.

Hansen, K.A., Guidroz, L., Hazel, B., and G.W.Johnsen, TESTING SUBMERGED OIL RECOVERY

SYSTEMS, Interspill 2012

Kostaschuk et al., 1993. Suspended sediment concentration in a buoyant plume.

Michel, 2008. Spills of Nonfloating Oil: Evaluation of Response Technologies.

Rymell, M., BMT Cordah Limited, RP595 Sunken and Submerged Oils – Behaviour and Response,

prepared for Maritime and Coastguard Agency (UK), 27 February 2009.

SL Ross, October, 2012. Meso‐scale Weathering of Cold Lake Bitumen/Condensate Blend.

USEPA, May, 2013. U.S. EPA Volume Estimate for Submerged Line 6B Oil in the Kalamazoo

River.

Usher, D., Marine Pollution Control, Responding to Submerged Oils in Freshwater

Environments, slide presentation, Freshwater Spills Symposium, 2006.

impacts on marine spill

Documents