Tag: Straits of Mackinac

State Must Stop Oil Flow, Hold Public Hearings on the “Line 5” Oil Pipelines in the Mackinac Straits

Published on August 25th, 2016 by - Reports & Media Releases

Photo: Bruce Trudgen Pipelaying Operation as the Pipe was Pulled across the Straits from St. Ignace

Photo: Bruce Trudgen, 1953.  Pipelaying Operation as Line 5 was pulled across the Straits from St. Ignace.

Under Michigan law, the state must stop Line 5’s oil flow and hold public hearings on the steel pipelines lying underwater in the Mackinac Straits as it considers Enbridge Energy’s application to remedy easement violations and shore up its aging underwater infrastructure, according to FLOW (For Love of Water), a Traverse City-based Great Lakes water law and policy center, in formal comments released today.

For the ninth time since 2001, Canadian energy transport giant Enbridge is seeking state permission to screw large pipeline anchors into Lake Michigan’s public bottomlands where the Straits’ powerful currents have eroded the lake bottom and left the dual Line 5 pipelines – installed in 1953 – unsupported for long stretches, in violation of the state easement agreement limiting unsupported spans to 75 feet. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) is receiving public comment through August 28, 2016, on Enbridge’s application, which also is being reviewed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

FLOW’s legal analysis concludes that Enbridge’s “maintenance” application to install up to 19 more anchors actually disguises Enbridge’s piecemeal actions that continue to significantly expand oil transport through and around the Great Lakes. In addition, the application fails to address Enbridge’s pattern of easement violations and perpetuates the imminent threat to the Great Lakes and the public’s protected uses thereof that include fishing, commerce, navigation, recreation, and drinking water. Line 5 transports nearly 23 million gallons of oil and natural gas liquids each day through the Mackinac Straits, 80 percent more volume than its past design capacity after several of its so-called “maintenance” upgrades.

“Between Line 5 and the new Line 6B, Enbridge has quietly built its own massive crude oil pipeline system here in Michigan and the Great Lakes without adequate public notice, hearings, and the legally required analysis and determinations of potential risks, impacts, and alternatives for a project of this magnitude,” said Jim Olson, FLOW’s founder and president and a renowned water rights attorney.

Given the scope and risk, the state must stop the Straits oil flow at least temporarily, hold public hearings, and examine Line 5’s full range of potential impacts to the Great Lakes ecosystem and alternatives that do not pose such harm, rather than continue to rubberstamp Enbridge’s misleading maintenance applications. The Michigan Pipeline Safety Advisory Board is conducting a parallel review of Line 5 in the Straits slated for completion in late 2017 or early 2018, but that process is neither under the rule of law nor complies with the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act (GLSLA) or other state and federal law.

“It is time for our state’s leaders, specifically DEQ Director Grether and Attorney General Schuette, to bring this matter under the rule of law – the GLSLA and public trust law – that protects our Great Lakes, towns, and citizens, and subject Enbridge to a comprehensive review,” Olson said. “Such a review must address the fact that Line 5 is an unacceptable risk and that there exists a new Line 6B from Illinois and across Michigan that Enbridge replaced and doubled in size after its Kalamazoo River oil that will meet current and future Midwest demand.”

“Based on the evidence, it appears that Enbridge has shoved its own version of the ‘Keystone XL’ through the Great Lakes and on the backs of citizens without any review of the risks, harms, and alternatives. This is the worst place on the planet for it. We don’t need a ‘Great Lakes XL’ for crude oil near our Great Lakes or in the Straits of Mackinac, especially where alternative to Line 5 exist,” Olson said.

Of particular concern is Enbridge’s continued failure to predict and prevent the cumulative impacts on Line 5 of lakebed erosion caused by Straits currents that frequently reverse and can exceed 10 times the flow over Niagara Falls.

“Enbridge’s piecemeal approach to managing washouts and installing adequate support under the Straits crossing of Line 5 has resulted in the line frequently being out of compliance with easement support requirements since the 1970’s,” said Ed Timm, PhD, an engineer advising FLOW. “Washouts are inherently unpredictable and it is likely that damage to the pipe has already occurred because of unsupported spans that were not detected and repaired by Enbridge’s two-year inspection and repair schedule.”

While the state’s 1953 easement agreement granting Enbridge conditional occupancy of state bottomlands allows Enbridge up to 90 days to cure any violations, the erosion problem appears to be unfixable and worsening with time.

“The Achilles’ heel of the state easement agreement is that Enbridge has proven itself unable to remain in compliance and therefore frequently is operating illegally,” said Liz Kirkwood, FLOW’s Executive Director and an environmental attorney. “State law demands that the Great Lakes and their public uses must not be risked for Enbridge’s private benefit. It’s time for the state to defend the public’s rights and prevent a catastrophic oil spill into the drinking water supply for half of Michigan residents, and for a total 40 million people in the U.S. and Canada.”

Stopping Line 5’s oil flow in the Mackinac Straits to prevent a catastrophic oil spill would not disrupt Michigan’s or the Midwest’s crude oil and propane supply, contrary to assertions by Enbridge, according to a set of expert reports FLOW released in December 2015. Available capacity and flexibility to meet energy demand in the Great Lakes region already exists in the North American pipeline system run not only by Enbridge, but also by competitors supplying the same refineries in Detroit, Toledo, and Sarnia, Ontario.

“The fact is, Line 5 is not essential,” said Rick Kane, a Michigan-based hazardous materials risk management specialist advising FLOW. “The regional pipeline system can supply crude oil to Michigan and surrounding refineries while eliminating the risk that Line 5 poses to the Great Lakes,” Kane said. “Feasible and prudent alternatives exist to support domestic needs, as well as exports.  However, pipeline company owners will not move to implement any alternatives as long as Line 5 operates and the public continues to carry the risk.”

For more information, visit:

Enbridge’s application and public notice may be viewed at:

  • https://miwaters.deq.state.mi.us/. The public can view the application or submit comments by clicking on the Public Notice Search and entering “Enbridge” in the Applicant Name section.

End Enbridge Stonewalling

Published on May 17th, 2016 by - H2Olson

Observations by some that the State of Michigan has no regulatory authority over hazardous liquid pipelines is correct to the extent that it is understood in the context of  safety regulations — standards, inspection and enforcement; safety code enforcement is covered by the federal PHMSA law, regulation and agency.  However, it is not true that Michigan does not have authority to demand the information Enbridge keeps under its control, and it is not true that Michigan does not have enforcement authority.

As concluded by the Michigan Petroleum Pipeline Task Force Report, 2015, Michigan has authority under the 1953 Easement, including the continuing obligation of Enbridge to conduct itself with prudence at all times, and it has authority under:

(1) its sovereign ownership of bottomlands and waters of the Great Lakes since statehood in 1837 under “equal footings” doctrine. Michigan took title in trust to protect the basic rights of citizens as beneficiaries of a public trust imposed on the state.  This means the state has authority and duty to take actions to protect the public trust as a matter of its “property and public trust power,” whether or not it passes regulations on hazardous liquid pipelines or not.  Under public trust authority and principles, the state cannot transfer or shift control over waters and bottomlands held in trust to any private person or corporation; the retention of information by Enbridge that is required to protect the public trust or to determine whether the public trust is threatened with high unacceptable harm or risk violates this public trust principle, and the Attorney General can demand and take all action necessary to compel Enbridge to turn it over, indeed, even the easement recognizes and is subject to this public trust.

(2)  The Michigan Public Service Commission has authority over siting and locations of crude oil pipelines like Enbridge’s and others.  Anytime Enbridge or some other corporation applies for a change or improvement to the structure it regulates as to siting, including its consideration of risks to property and health or environment and alternatives, the MPSC has authority to demand all relevant information needed to  make a decision on the application for such change.  Unfortunately, the MPSC has not insisted on the full range of information it could demand, including alternative pipeline routes and capacity to Line 5 in the Straits of Mackinac when it doubled capacity for Enbridge’s new replacement for the failed Line 6B that ruptured into the Kalamazoo River in 2010.

(3) Finally, the Michigan Environmental Protection Act, Part 17,  NREPA, imposes a duty to prevent and minimize harm to air, water, and natural resources, and this includes the right to take action where necessary when a corporation’s actions are contrary to this duty to prevent and minimize harm; the MEPA, as it’s  often called, is derived from Art 4, Sec. 52 of the Michigan Constitution.

So while Michigan ponders the aging or new pipeline infrastructure for hazardous liquids and crude oil, the state, including the Attorney General, have the authority to take immediate action to prevent the high risk of Line 5 or other pipelines.  And, where that risk involves the devastating harm that undoubtedly may occur in the Straits, action should be taken immediately pending the coming one to two years of pondering.  In short, there is no legal excuse or justification for Governor Snyder, Attorney General Bill Schuette, or the Department of Environmental Quality to put up with Enbridge’s self-serving stonewalling on disclosure of all information related to its Line 5 hazardous crude oil pipeline.  And, there is no excuse or justification for our state leaders to delay action to eliminate the unacceptable harm from the Straits or other Michigan waters from Line 5.

 

 

U-M computer model shows Straits pipeline break would devastate Great Lakes

Published on July 10th, 2014 by - News

Click here to read the article on Detroitfreepress.com

By Keith Matheny – Detroit Free Press Staff Writer

July 10, 2014

A rupture of 61-year-old, underwater oil pipelines running through the Straits of Mackinac would be “the worst possible place” for a spill on the Great Lakes, with catastrophic results, according to a University of Michigan researcher studying potential impacts of a spill.

David Schwab, a research scientist at the U-M Water Center, retired from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, where he studied Great Lakes water flows and dynamics for more than 30 years. He’s the author of a new study done in collaboration with the National Wildlife Federation looking at different scenarios for potential oil spills in the Straits from Canadian oil transport giant Enbridge’s Line 5.

“I can’t think — in my experience — of another place on the Great Lakes where an oil spill would have as wide an area of impact, in as short of time, as at the Straits of Mackinac,” Schwab said.

Line 5 is a set of two oil pipelines that runs from Superior, Wis., through the Upper Peninsula, underwater through the Straits and then down through the Lower Peninsula before connecting to a hub in Sarnia, Ontario. The lines transport about 23 million gallons of oil and other petroleum products, such as natural gas liquids, through the Straits daily.

A July 2010 spill near Marshall caused by a ruptured Enbridge pipeline, and concerns about the underwater pipeline through the Straits, already has prompted state and federal scrutiny. Michigan U.S. Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow have sought information on Line 5, as have several members of Congress. And state Attorney General Bill Schuette and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Director Dan Wyant late last month announced they will cochair a multiagency government task force to look at petroleum pipelines and the health, safety and environmental issues they potentially pose in Michigan.

Part 1: Three years after oil spill, a slow recovery haunts Kalamazoo River

Part 2: Enbridge’s expanded oil pipeline draws ire of homeowners in its path

Schwab looked at six different scenarios — and all spelled a catastrophe for the lakes. That’s due in large part to the Straits of Mackinac being “really, a strange place on the Great Lakes,” he said. The strength of water flowing through the Straits is 20 times the amount necessary to keep Lakes Michigan and Huron at the same water level, he said. And the flows go in both directions — sometimes from Michigan to Huron, sometimes from Huron to Michigan — and change directions every few days.

Schwab created six animation models looking at what would happen if Line 5 ruptured at the northern, middle and southern end of the Straits — both at times when the water is flowing into Lake Michigan and when it’s flowing into Lake Huron. His projection was for a 1 million gallon oil spill lasting 12 hours.

“One million gallons is conservatively the amount of oil that resides in the pipelines in the Straits at any time,” he said.

The spill scenarios show that, depending on current directions, a spill could be transported eastward into Lake Huron, westward into Lake Michigan and move back and forth through the Straits several times. Shoreline areas most impacted would be Mackinac Island, Bois Blanc Island and the Lake Huron shoreline east of Mackinaw City. Contamination could spread as far west as Beaver Island in Lake Michigan to Rogers City in Lake Huron, the study found.

“What this report shows is (that) a significant oil spill in the Straits would be an ecological disaster for the Great Lakes,” said Andy Buchsbaum, regional executive director for the National Wildlife Federation. “It would severely impact shipping and tourism.”

Such a spill would severely damage “the Great Lakes brand,” Buchsbaum said. “The Straits of Mackinac are iconic. They are what many people think of when they think of the Great Lakes. It would be a death blow for the Great Lakes ecology and economy.”

Line 5 is older than an Enbridge oil pipeline that ruptured near Marshall in July 2010, causing the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history and necessitating a $1-billion cleanup of the Kalamazoo River and Talmadge Creek that is still not complete.

Enbridge spokesman Jason Manshum said the company shares the National Wildlife Federation’s “views on the critical nature of the Great Lakes ecosystem in general, and the Straits in particular.” This new report will advance “continued and meaningful discussion on pipeline safety in the Straits,” he added.

Manshum noted that Line 5 “has been incident-free since it was constructed in 1953, and through even greater oversight, the use of new technology and ensuring all risks are monitored — and, where necessary, mitigated — Enbridge is committed to maintaining this incident-free record into the future.”

Contact Keith Matheny: 313-222-5021, kmatheny@freepress.com or on Twitter @keithmatheny