Petition example 1: Direct

Environmental Petition

Contact Information

Name of Petitioner: #####

Address of Petitioner: #####

Telephone numbers: #####

Email address: #####

Name of Group: Manolis L Citizens Response Committee (MLCRC)

I hereby submit this petition to the Auditor General of Canada under section 22 of the Auditor General Act.

Signature of petitioner: #####

Date: February 8, 2015

Title of petition

Oil leaks from the Manolis L in Notre Dame Bay Newfoundland

Background Information:

On January 18th 1985 a Liberian cargo carrier the Manolis L. traveling out of Botwood NewfoundlandNL went off course and hit Blowhard Rock in Notre Dame Bay NL. The ship sank having approximately 462 tonnes of fuel oil and 60 tonnes of diesel oil on board.

The report from Fisheries and Oceans Canada at the time detailed the incident and identified the area as “an ecologically sensitive area in view of the local wildfowl.”

After an initial small scale cleanup immediately after the incident, the Manolis L. was left on the ocean floor with the bulk of its fuel contained in metal containers that have been slowly deteriorating in the salt water.

In March 2013 following an extreme storm in the area, there were numerous reports of oiled seabirds as well as oil on the surface of the water.

In April 2013 the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) sent down a remote operated vehicle (ROV) to examine the hull of the Manolis L. Apparently the ship had shifted in the storm and oil was discovered to be leaking from the hull. The CCG installed a neoprene seal over the leak.

A spokesperson for CCG, stated that “this will afford us the opportunity to investigate what the next best step will be. We are dealing with a very complex and dangerous situation. We have had some preliminary consultation with international salvagers. We are looking into every possibility that we can do in this situation.

There continued to be reports of oil on the ocean and a further ROV inspection revealed that oil was leaking from cracks further along the hull in an area too damaged to be able to be sealed with a neoprene seal.

On July 19, 2013 a coffer dam was placed over the newly discovered leak. A cofferdam is basically an inverted metal bowl placed over the leak which catches the oil after it leaks from a crack in the hull.

There continued to be reports of oil in August, September and October. On October 17th, 2013 the CCG did a further ROV survey and a communications person for Fisheries and Oceans stated that the seal and the cofferdam were working well. The ROV footage from that time which was obtained by the Manolis L Citizens Response Committee show a further leak which was beside the cofferdam and not captured.

In Early December 2013 there were reports of oil on the shoreline in the area. A CCG spokesperson was quoted as saying “We are looking at long term plans. Department of Fisheries and OceansDFO and the Coast Guard have 5 or 6 expressions of interest from salvage operators.”

On December 21st, 2013 there were reports of larger amounts of oil blackening the wharves with seals and sea birds dying from the oil as well. CCG investigated and reported that the oil was released from the shifting of the cofferdam in the storm. It was estimated that there was a maximum of 3,200 of the 600,000 liters that were released.

On January 18th, 2014 a new cofferdam was put into place which supposedly covered all of the leaks in that one area of the hull. On January 28th 2014, Minister Gail Shea is quoted as saying “the Coast Guard will continue to monitor the situation very closely and take the necessary steps to protect the environment.”

In the spring of 2014 the CCG emptied and replaced the cofferdam however there was leakage of oil during the process with further damage to the environment.

Due to weather conditions in the fall of 2014 emptying of the cofferdam couldn’t take place until December of 2014 and again there was a spill of oil from the operation. There were estimates that 1,300 liters of oil were captured in the cofferdam but that a third of this amount was spilled.

In January 2015 there were reports of an oil slick as well as a dying seal and sea birds in the Cape Freels area which would be in the direction of the currents from the area of the Manolis L.

In January 2015 the MLCRC met with a CCG spokesperson and he reported that there have been 5 leaks identified to date. Weighted neoprene seals were placed on 2 leaks in one section of the hull. A cofferdam has been placed over the leak with a neoprene seal over a leak beside the cofferdam. There is also a periodic leak from the other end of the hull which is covered by an additional seal.

The CCG spokesperson further confirmed that CCG are doing containment only. The CCG spokesperson gave the MLCRC a brief overview of the Emergency Response Plan that is in place to react to a larger spill. There are 4 mobile response units that can be deployed in the event of an incident however it was also confirmed that the oil can only be removed in suitable weather and that there are severe limitations regardingre ice conditions.

Petition questions and/or requests

1. We would like to ask the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Canadian Coast Guard, the Department of the Environment and any other responsible departments to provide copies of the reports of the operations that have occurred including remove operated vehicle surveys and the recommendations made with regard to permanent solutions needed.
2. We would like to see an outline of the Department of Fisheries and the Canadian Coast Guard and any other responsible departments plans for the permanent resolution to the Manolis L situation that ensures that all pollutants inside the vessel be removed to prevent an environmental disaster in Notre Dame Bay. Given the unpredictable nature of the weather and the short time period dictated by the weather we would ask for a timeline for this operation.
3. In the event that there is a full or partial breach of one of the tanks on the Manolis L., and oil leaks out into the bay in a larger amount, we would like to ask the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Canadian Coast Guard, the Department of the Environment and any other responsible departments, what emergency response measures have been put in place to mitigate the damage and clean up the pollutants.
4. We would further ask the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Canadian Coast Guard, the Department of the Environment and any other responsible department if the use of Corexit or other dispersants would be used in any cleanup.
5. We would further ask the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Canadian Coast Guard and any other responsible department what plans would be in effect if a larger leak occurs in ice season when access to the ship and to the ocean would be severely restricted.
6. We ask the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard for any information as to costs already incurred for the operations that have taken place to date, including remote operating vehicle surveys, aerial surveillance, patching of the hull, manufacture and installation of cofferdams and cleanup of oil spills occurring each time the cofferdams are emptied.
7. We have been told by our Canadian Coast Guard liaison that clean up costs and funds needed to remove the oil can not come from the Ship Source Oil Pollution Fund as there was a settlement made between the Canadian Coast Guard and the SOPF shortly after the sinking of the Manolis L. that covered only the initial cleanup. We would ask the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard to provide details of this settlement and reasons why this precludes a further claim for removal of the oil from the ship.
8. We request that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard do a full cost analysis of an operation to remove the oil from the Manolis L. as well as a cost analysis of the clean up of an oil spill of 500,000 liters of oil from Notre Dame Bay including projected environmental and economic cost given that this is an environmentally sensitive area and given that a spill of this magnitude would destroy the fisheries and the tourism in the region.