Tag: Pipeline Safety Advisory Board

Liz Kirkwood’s Comment to the PSAB

  • Over two years ago, the Governor of Michigan created this Advisory Board by Executive Order to “Review and make recommendations for statutory, regulatory, and contractual implementation of the Michigan Petroleum Pipeline Task Force Report.”  This meant the board was required to oversee an independent and comprehensive analysis of risks and alternatives. 

 

  • Instead we Michiganders have (1) no risk report, (2) a flawed alternative report that still ignores the most credible alternative – using existing and expanded pipeline infrastructure around the Great Lakes, and (3) the Governor’s Thanksgiving deal with Enbridge that locks in a tunnel alternative under 20 percent of the planet’s fresh surface water. 

 

  • What our leaders have now is Tunnel Vision. 

 

  • Tens of thousands of citizens of this state have taken the time to study these matters and express their views to you.  Members of this board have spent countless hours on your task.  All of that for naught because of a closed-door agreement between Enbridge and the governor.

 

  • The deal allows Enbridge’s decaying Line 5 oil pipelines to continue to occupy the publicly owned lakebed at the Straits of Mackinac indefinitely, despite the company’s record of deception, poor stewardship, and bungled emergency response.  It’s a reward for failure.

 

  • We know a fair alternative analysis can be done.  In fact, in December 2015, FLOW offered a thorough analysis for the decommissioning of Line 5 that established an alternative that reasonably met the basic purpose of transporting crude oil to the various refineries within and beyond the Great Lakes region.  Why hasn’t the state done the same?

 

  • The Governor’s deal has mapped a blueprint that narrows the alternatives to some form of tunnel replacement in the Straits, the Great Lakes, and St. Clair River.  Moreover, the deal will bind the state to a new replacement of the entire 645 miles of Line 5 through Michigan and potentially open the door to heavy tar sands.

 

  • In the interest of full transparency and public knowledge, this board can do the people of Michigan a service by asking for a full public accounting for this deal, and by demanding a credible adverse weather provision to shut down Line 5 and a comprehensive alternatives analysis as required by law. The future of Line 5 is about the future of the Great Lakes.  And fortunately, public trust law makes this the public’s decision, not a closed-door deal between the Governor and Enbridge.     

 

Thank you.

Liz Kirkwood, Executive Director


 

Flint and the Straits of Mackinac

What do the Flint drinking water catastrophe and the recent agreement regarding the Enbridge pipeline at the Straits of Mackinac have in common?  Both are the result of a gubernatorial administration with fundamental mistrust of the public it serves.

In Flint, the Snyder Administration appointed an emergency manager to short-circuit democratic processes and act paternally on behalf of a community it deemed incapable of self-government.  The result was appalling damage to the health and well-being of the community.

This week, the Snyder Administration appointed itself emergency manager of the imminent danger posed to the Great Lakes by Enbridge, apparently deciding the public, the Governor’s own Pipeline Safety Advisory Board, and the DEQ under the State’s Great Lakes protection laws were incapable of contributing to a rational decision.  Astonishingly, the public engagement process the Governor himself set in motion with an executive order more than two years ago was essentially discarded in favor of a pact secretly negotiated with Enbridge.  The thousands of people and hundreds of organizations and communities who took the time to comment on the future of the pipeline were ignored in favor of assurances from a company responsible for the worst inland oil spill in U.S. history.

Democracy and public participation are under attack at many levels, and the result is poor public policy. The Governor’s agreement with Enbridge puts the Great Lakes at risk.


Analysis of Alternatives to 64-Year-Old “Line 5” Pipelines Riddled with Bad Assumptions, Miscalculations





 

TRAVERSE CITY – A draft report for the State by Dynamic Risk Inc. of alternatives to Enbridge’s risky twin oil pipelines crossing the lakebed at the Straits of Mackinac is so deeply flawed, according to FLOW, a Traverse City-based Great Lakes water law and policy center, that the State cannot credibly rely on its findings to decide Line 5’s future.

“The report is unreliable and should not be used,” said Liz Kirkwood, Executive Director of FLOW. “Instead, the State should protect the Great Lakes from the potential of a catastrophic oil spill and exercise its legal authority to revoke Enbridge’s permission to use the waters and lakebed that belong to the people of Michigan.”

Prepared by Dynamic Risk Assessment Systems of Calgary – a firm with business ties to Enbridge – the study is rife with biased assumptions and technical errors that skew its findings, said FLOW representatives at a public meeting on the campus of Northwestern Michigan College.

“The process of developing these now-discredited reports has cost Michigan well over a year that should have been spent crafting a thoughtful decommissioning process that protects the Great Lakes, prioritizes citizens, businesses, and tribes, and ultimately addresses Michigan’s energy needs,” said Kirkwood, “Enbridge has been granted an extension through distraction.”

Among the draft report’s flaws:

• It completely ignores the most suitable alternative to Line 5, which is existing infrastructure. The state asked consultant Dynamic Risk to analyze it. Failure to do so taints the analysis.

• The draft report assumes that the state must guarantee that Enbridge deliver 23 million gallons of oil that is now being transported daily through Line 5, rather than protecting the energy needs of its citizens. This bias results in the tunnel option appearing as a favored report alternative.

• The draft report assumes the best-case scenario for a spill, not the worst. The consultant uses assumptions of risk that are woefully inadequate and are not credible. It estimates that an average 20 miles of shoreline would be impacted by a spill. This is just 3% of the 720-mile area the University of Michigan found vulnerable to a spill in its 2016 study.

• It significantly understates the likelihood of pipeline failure at an already-alarming 1 in 60 chance by ignoring 50 years of neglect, unsupported spans, powerful currents, and gravity. Applying DOT engineering standards and adding up the failure probability on a yearly basis gives the 2017 failure probability at 46.4% and the 2053 failure probability at 72.5%, or odds of about 3-1. These figures are far different from the Alternatives Analysis estimate of 1.6% by 2053.

• It relies on flawed economic impact modeling that unreasonably concludes that a spill in the open waters of the Great Lakes would only cost $100-200 million in damages.

• It estimates an impact to propane supply much greater than what FLOW’s independent experts have determined would be necessary to provide the Upper Peninsula’s Rapid River facility with an alternative supply. The flawed alternatives report finds that up to 35 railcars per week or 15 truckloads per day would be necessary to replace the Line 5 supply of natural gas liquids, while FLOW’s expert studies have found it would take only one railcar or 3-4 truckloads per day. Line 5 supplies only 35-50 percent of the Upper Peninsula’s propane.

“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.”
Last month, the state cancelled a contract for an analysis of the financial risks associated with the Mackinac pipeline when it was disclosed an employee of contractor Det Norske Veritas worked on another project for Enbridge, creating a conflict of interest.

“The risk is far too high for State leaders to use this flawed report as an excuse for more delay, especially when there are obvious alternatives for Enbridge, Michigan, and Canada without Line 5 in the Straits,” said Jim Olson, FLOW’s founder and president and a renowned water rights attorney. “Good leadership calls for interim measures now, based on the clear authority and duties imposed on the State to protect the Straits and Great Lakes. This means prohibiting the transport of crude through Line 5, pending further proceedings and final decisions.”

After the revelation last month that Enbridge for years routinely violated a legal agreement to properly anchor its dual pipelines against the swift currents in the Mackinac Straits, FLOW argued the state of Michigan now must apply the law, stop Line 5’s oil flow, and hold public hearings as it considers the Canadian company’s application to squeeze more life out of its decaying steel infrastructure built in 1953.

###

Action Alert: Enbridge Trying to Squeeze More Life Out of “Line 5” in the Mackinac Straits

Take Action Now!

Urgent Threat: Enbridge is courting an oil spill disaster again in Michigan, and this time the Great Lakes are at risk. The public has until June 29, 2017, to oppose the Canadian energy transport giant’s request for state permission to squeeze more life out of a cracked, dented, and deformed pair of pipelines that push 23 million gallons of oil a day across the bottom of the Mackinac Straits, where Lake Michigan and Lake Huron meet. The request to continue the piecemeal patch up of the 64-year-old “Line 5” pipelines threatens the drinking water source for more than 40 million people, the economic engine for the Great Lakes region, and a way of life for millions of North Americans.

Terrible Track Record: Recall that Enbridge in 2010 caused the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history when its southern Michigan pipeline ruptured and dumped more than one million gallons of heavy tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River watershed. That failure sickened 150 people, and permanently drove 150 families from their homes, taking four years and over $1.2 billion to clean up to the extent possible. Enbridge’s Line 5 has a similar dark history, with at least 29 spills totaling more than one million gallons of oil spread along its path in Michigan and Wisconsin since 1953.

Damage Done: Now Enbridge has applied to the State of Michigan for a permit to install more underwater anchor supports on its antiquated Line 5 pipelines in the Mackinac Straits, which the University of Michigan calls the “worst possible place” for a Great Lakes oil spill. The 22 anchor supports are another belated attempt to keep Line 5 from shifting, bending, and grinding on the bottom in the powerful underwater currents at the Straits, but the damage is already done. These supports are merely the latest in a series of stopgap measures that ignore decades of metal fatigue and stress on the pipeline, which is now well past its 50-year life expectancy and should be permanently shut down as soon as possible.

Follow the Facts

Public records reveal that…

  • From the 1970s through the 1990s, Enbridge installed grout bags to prop up Line 5, attempting to meet the state’s requirement under the 1953 easement to support the steel pipeline at least every 75 feet along the publicly owned bottom of the Great Lakes.
  • In 2001, Enbridge declared an emergency on Line 5 in the Straits to stabilize stretches or spans of the pipeline that had become dangerously unsupported for over 130 feet because of “washouts” of the lake bottom and grout bags caused by swift currents that, records show, were underestimated when the pipeline was designed. 
  • Recently it was revealed that Enbridge was out of compliance likely for decades with the legally required safety margin, allowing 16 spans of Line 5 to go unsupported for lengths greater than 140 feet, with the longest being 224 feet on the east pipeline and 286 feet on the west pipeline – nearly four times the legal limit.
  • With no reliable model to predict lakebed washouts due to the highly dynamic nature of currents in the Mackinac Straits, Enbridge cannot meet its legal duty under the state easement to prudently operate this pipeline.
  • Enbridge incorrectly categorizes its proposed patchwork response to Line 5’s major structural defects as “routine maintenance” when the company has, in fact, been systematically expanding the capacity of Line 5 and Line 6b in southern Michigan to carry Canadian oil heading mostly back to Canadian refineries and to overseas markets.

This strategy has previously enabled the company to avoid State of Michigan review of the safety and necessity of the pipeline itself, and dodge the legally required consideration of alternative routes and methods that do not threaten the Great Lakes.

Take Action Now

The public has until June 29, 2017, to submit comments to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality opposing Enbridge’s bid to keep Line 5 on life support and seeking to prevent a Great Lakes oil spill disaster.

  • Submit comments at http://www.oilandwaterdontmix.org/anchor_structure_public_comment
  • Draw upon information in this Action Alert, and from www.OilandWaterDontMix.org, to offer objections that are specific and factual.
  • Be sure to demand a public hearing and call for the Michigan DEQ’s full review of the environmental impact of the Enbridge request and feasible and prudent alternatives to Line 5, as required by law.
  • Written comments will be made part of the record and should reference application number 2RD-DFDK-Y35G.

 

Thank you! 

Jim Olson’s statement to Pipeline Safety Advisory Board

Public Meeting of the Michigan Pipeline Advisory Board

Petoskey, Michigan, June 12, 2017

Statement of James Olson

President and Legal Advisor, FLOW for Love Water

It’s time for our state government to stop treating our 1963 Constitution, statutes and common law as nice but meaningless environmental policy statements and start treating them as the duty the people through the Constitution and our courts have mandated.

FLOW has submitted a number of reports to the State on crude oil transport through Michigan, particularly the antiquated and dangerous twin pipelines operated by Enbridge Energy in the Straits of Mackinac. When FLOW appeared before the Pipeline Task Force created by Governor Snyder, it and other organizations urged the State to bring Enbridge Line 5 under the “rule of law.” Enbridge Line 5 raises serious concerns related to the violation of the constitution and laws of Michigan that mandate the protection of air, water, natural resources of the state, and the public trust in those resources.

Michigan’s constitution and laws, and the binding decisions of our appellate courts, impose a duty on our state agencies to protect the paramount interests of citizens and communities in the protection of air, water, natural resources, public trust and public health. From the 1970s through the 1980s, Michigan developed one of the strongest, most highly respected legal frameworks for active citizen participation and strong regulatory protections of air, water, environment and public health in the United States. A centerpiece of these laws and court decisions is the duty to review of projects that required government approval through public participation and comprehensive assessment and determination of the potential effects on water, environment and health and alternatives that where avoided or minimized those effects consistent with the state’s paramount concern for its environment and public health.

Unfortunately, over the past several years, this protective, participatory framework has fallen into shambles. The State has ignored or breached this mandatory duty to consider and determine effects, alternatives, and protect our air, water, and health from pollution or impairment. Governmental review has been narrow, shallow, and with little or minimal public notice or participation.

Last fall, it took a seasoned journalist to uncover a major permit about to be issued to a bottled water company to withdraw massive quantities of water from a headwater creek system in mid-Michigan, with less than a week remaining for public comments or participation. The law required public notice and at least 45 days for public comment. This attitude of expediency over prudence and protection has reached a crisis level in state governance. This is not the fault of dedicated, competent employees and staffs of the Departments of Environmental Quality and Department of Natural Resources. The blame falls on legislators and political leaders who put expediency, politics, and slashed budgets over the rigorous review and protection of water, environment, and public health.

Case in point: Our state agencies involved in the approval of the siting, improving, and expanded volumes of the flow of crude oil through Enbridge Line 5 and Line 6b (which runs from the southwestern part of the state to Port Huron before crossing into Canada) have totally failed to comply with this mandatory duty to consider and determine likely effects and alternatives. Approvals by the MPSC and MDEQ regarding Enbridge’s Lines 5 and 6b have not complied with this mandatory duty.

The MPSC and MDEQ have nearly collapsed their consideration and determinations of effects and impacts and alternative routes or capacity by allowing Enbridge to divide its expansion project into many narrow segments, presumably calculated to limit the scope of consideration of impacts and alternatives to each segment. In effect, this was like looking at the effect of clipping each toe-nail rather than the effects and alternatives of the whole elephant— a near doubling of crude oil pipeline capacity in Michigan. While others debated the impacts and alternatives to the Keystone XL down through the western U.S., Enbridge launched a massive expansion through the Great Lakes and Michigan—in Michigan, we ended up with the Enbridge “Great Lakes XL.”

Inexplicably, this was done without any public notice, comment, and participation regarding this true project purpose in Michigan. Even though the MPSC and DEQ have independent authority and legal responsibility to consider the effects and alternatives of the location and siting of this massive expansion and substantial upgrade of the pipeline system in Michigan, Enbridge has not been required to comply with the legal requirements for a comprehensive impact statement and showing by Enbridge that there are no likely or potential ill effects or there exist no alternatives to this massive expansion and upgrade of the company’s pipelines through Michigan.

This is unconscionable, unlawful, and a flagrant violation of the duties imposed on the State by our state constitution and laws. In the past few years, Enbridge has implemented its plan to greatly expand crude oil pipeline transport to more than 800,000 bpd from Alberta through its Great Lakes-Michigan Lakehead System. Applications to the MPSC and MDEQ, along with news releases and reports, show a multi-billion dollar investment to nearly double the capacity of its entire Lakehead system. MPSC documents show that the original capacity of 120,000 bpd in Line 5 could be increased to 300,000 bpd by the addition of 4 pump stations. In the past few years, Enbridge has invested tens of millions to increase the capacity of Line 5 to 490,000 bpd, and most recently to 540,000 bpd by a major new arrangement for 12 pump stations and the addition of more than anti-friction injection facilities to increase capacity to meet the 600 psi limit for the line in the 1953 Easement. Nothing in the 1953 easement giving Enbridge permission to use the bottomlands of Lake Michigan where Line 5 crosses the Straits suggested, even remotely, a four-fold increase.

After the original 30-inch diameter Line 6B that was constructed across Lower Michigan in 1969 ruptured in 2010, Enbridge applied to the MPSC for approval of a new 36-inch replacement Line 6b from Indiana to Sarnia (ironically, public records show that Line 5 was approved in 1953 to save Enbridge money rather than constructing a line across Lower Michigan). Enbridge applied for short segments of the new replacement line or the addition of pump stations. Like its applications for almost doubling the capacity of Line 5, Enbridge described its project purpose as line “maintenance” and “integrity.” By the time MPSC approved each small segment, Enbridge had a new replacement line that increased capacity from 400,000 bpd of old Line 6b to 800,000 bpd for the new 6b (now called Line 78).

For example, in 2012, MPSC approved Enbridge’s application to “replace a 50-mile segment” of existing Line 6b between Ingham and Oakland counties. It did not mention this was to double crude oil from Canadian “tar sands” through Lower Michigan. At about the same time, MPSC approved four new pumping stations to increase capacity to 800,000 bpd in this new 36-inch line. (A map showing eight segments, and several pump stations, is attached to this statement for your convenience) During this same time, the MPSC approved Enbridge applications for several new pumps stations and many anti-friction injection stations to increase the flow or volume rate of crude oil in Line 5. Once again, Enbridge represented these modifications as “maintenance” or “repairs.” Enbridge has done the same in applying to the MDEQ for anchor supports for Line 5 along the 4.5 mile stretch of the twin-pipelines in the Straits of Mackinac. Even in Enbridge’s recent May10, 2017 application for anchor supports in the Straits, the company beguilingly states that it “plans to conduct maintenance… by installing anchor support structures.”

To date, the MPSC and MDEQ have not considered or determined the full environmental impacts and the alternative routes, capacity, or modifications for doubling crude oil transport from 700,000 bpd to 1,340,000 bpd in the Straits and in Michigan. Citizens, communities, businesses, property owners and our air, water, and natural resources have been blatantly ignored and deprived of their right to notice, participation and involvement in a matter that strikes at the core of quality of life and as the slogan says, “pure Michigan.”

It is time to address this crisis in State governance. It is time to correct this violation of by the State and Enbridge of the constitutional and legal duty to protect citizens’ public health and our air, water, natural resources and public trust (in those resources). It is time to correct the failure of our agencies and Enbridge to correctly disclose and comprehensively consider potential effects and the existence of alternatives through proper public notice and comment, participation, and transparent comprehensive consideration and determinations under the rule of law.

You as members of the Pipeline Advisory Board are urged to exercise your authority granted by Governor Snyder’s Executive Order 2015-12, and recommend that the MDEQ, MPSC, and Attorney General take all necessary and prudent steps to require Enbridge prove before the MPSC and MDEQ that (1) there is no likely risk of catastrophic harm to the Straits, our waters, fish, drinking water, riparian and public trust uses, and ecosystem from the continued transport of crude oil in the Straits, and (2) there exist no alternative routes, capacity, or modifications to other pipelines to accomplish the overall purpose of the Enbridge’s Lakehead System.


 

Public Comment in Petoskey – Pipeline Safety Advisory Board Meeting

Now is the most important time to call for shutting down the Enbridge line 5 oil pipeline. June 12 is the final Pipeline Safety Advisory Board meeting and the state will be deciding what to do about Line 5 this summer. We need a large turnout to show the strong public support for protecting the Great Lakes and shutting down Line 5. Join us!

Public Comment period is from 9am to 12pm. Visit this link for information about requesting comment time:
http://www.oilandwaterdontmix.org/pipeline_safety_advisory_board_meeting_20170612

A bus is coming from Traverse City – Buy Tickets: http://www.oilandwaterdontmix.org/bus_tickets_traverse_city_petoskey

PR: State of Michigan Takes a “Holiday” from Preventing Line 5 Oil Spill Disaster in Great Lakes

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                         March 9, 2017

Contact:  Liz Kirkwood, Executive Director                                               Email: Liz@FLOWforWater.org

FLOW (For Love of Water)                                                     Office: (231) 944-1568, Cell: (570) 872-4956

 

State of Michigan Takes a “Holiday” from Preventing Line 5 Oil Spill Disaster in Great Lakes

Snyder Administration Watches and Waits as the 64-year-old Dual Pipelines Missing Their Anti-Rust Coating and Structural Supports Continue to Use Mackinac Straits as a High-Risk Shortcut to Private Profits

TRAVERSE CITY, MI – The Snyder administration, in two letters (here and here) released Wednesday, indicated it will seek more information, but take no enforcement action, while continuing to accept Enbridge’s assurances that all is well with dual oil pipelines in the Mackinac Straits that the Canadian company itself has indicated are missing portions of an external, anti-rust coating and lacking 18 anchor supports to prevent the pipes from grinding and bending along the bottom and bursting.

The letters – signed by Attorney General Bill Schuette, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Director Keith Creagh, and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Director Heidi Grether – describe “inviting” Enbridge to explain the company’s September 2016 report that identifies 19 areas along the submerged steel pipes where the anti-corrosion coating is missing. Enbridge’s report euphemistically calls the missing portions “holidays,” industry jargon for areas where the coating has worn or fallen off. The report outlines a plan for assessing Line 5’s integrity where the coating is gone and acidic waste excreted by invasive mussels that blanket the pipes could be causing corrosion.

Enbridge claims that the report is merely “hypothetical,” even though the report flatly states that the external coating is missing and the words “hypothetical” and “theoretical” are not found in the document.

“The State of Michigan is moving in slow motion to question Enbridge’s claims that its own report doesn’t mean what is plainly says,” said Liz Kirkwood, an environmental attorney and executive director of FLOW, a Traverse City-based water law and policy center dedicated to upholding the public’s rights to use and benefit from the Great Lakes. “When the pipelines finally fail, will the state invite Enbridge to explain what the thick, black substance is pouring out of the 64-year-old pipes and into the drinking water source for nearby Mackinac Island, St. Ignace, and roughly 5 million Michiganders?”

The state issued its March 8 letter in response to February 17 correspondence from the Oil & Water Don’t Mix campaign, which FLOW co-leads with several other leading organizations, that raised grave and detailed concerns about the condition of Line 5 and called for its immediate shutdown.

An Enbridge representative is expected to explain its report at the March 13 quarterly meeting in Lansing of the governor-appointed Michigan Pipeline Safety Advisory Board, whose members include Attorney General Schuette. The advisory board is overseeing the completion of two nominally independent studies funded by Enbridge: one on the financial risk to communities and the Pure Michigan economy of a Line 5 oil spill in the Mackinac Straits and the other on alternatives to the aging pipeline that could avoid such a disaster. These two studies are expected by June 2017.

Enbridge is infamous for leaking more than one million gallons of heavy tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River watershed near Marshall, Michigan, in 2010, fouling nearly 40 miles of the river and shore, sickening numerous people, harming wildlife, and forcing more than 100 families to permanently abandon their homes and property.

The failure to adequately maintain the Line 5 pipelines, including a lack of supports to prevent bending of the pipeline – is a breach of Enbridge’s 1953 legal easement agreement with the State of Michigan that allows the company to occupy public waters and state bottomlands. The failures documented in the Enbridge report add to the mounting evidence of the unacceptable risk that this infrastructure poses to the Great Lakes.

A three-minute video of Line 5 pipelines in the Straits, researched and edited by FLOW’s engineering expert Dr. Ed Timm, reveals the physical deterioration of Line 5, with missing and dislodged coating, broken bands, detached wooden structural slats, unsupported segments, and possible rust and pitting.

In addition, a just-released technical note prepared by Dr. Timm regarding Line 5 reinforces the urgent need for the state to immediately shut down Line 5 while it evaluates the integrity of the aging infrastructure that pumps nearly 23 million gallons of oil a day through the Mackinac Straits before eventually reaching refineries in Sarnia, Ontario. Specifically, this technical note concludes the following:

  • Line 5 is not immune to corrosion and stress cracking despite its thick walls, contrary to Enbridge’s claims;
  • The asphalt enamel based coating system is compromised or missing on many areas of the pipe;
  • The extent of the coverage by invasive mussels on the pipelines makes it “impossible” to evaluate how much of the coating system is compromised;
  • The easement-required wooden slats that were designed to protect from point loads and abrasion are missing entirely on portions of the pipelines; and
  • The peak currents in the Mackinac Straits are nearly twice the maximum velocity considered when the pipeline was designed, adding significant stress;
  • A full study of the integrity of the coating system that includes a careful examination of the impact of the biofouling on the pipelines is critical to making a proper fitness-for-service evaluation.

“The evidence demands that the State of Michigan respond and fulfill its affirmative fiduciary duty,” wrote Jim Olson, an environmental attorney and FLOW’s president, in a March 9 follow-up letter to the State of Michigan. “It is not enough to stand by the sidelines and merely request additional information from Enbridge given the high risk of a catastrophic oil spill in the Great Lakes that would devastate our public drinking waters and our water-dependent economy. ‘Pure Michigan’ should not just be an advertising slogan.”

For more information, visit the FLOW website at www.FLOWforWater.org

# # #

FINAL FLOW-Line 5 Media Release-Pipeline Coating 3-9-2017

State Advisory Board Must Recognize Urgency, Consider Line 5 Oil Pipeline’s Impact to Inland Waterways and Climate Change

 

Great Lakes Group: State Advisory Board Must Recognize Urgency, Consider Line 5 Oil Pipeline’s Impact to Inland Waterways and Climate Change

 

TRAVERSE CITY – Great Lakes law and policy center FLOW submitted additional comments today to the Michigan Pipeline Safety Advisory Board in response to its requests for information and proposals to conduct alternatives and risk analyses for the Line 5 oil pipelines in the Mackinac Straits.  The group expressed deep concern about the Advisory Board’s lack of urgency addressing the potential for a catastrophic oil spill in the Straits, failure to consider Line 5’s climate change impacts, and the pipeline’s additional threat to inland waterways that feed the Great Lakes.  In response to criticism from concerned groups and citizens about the narrow 5-day comment period, the Advisory Board extended its public comment period to February 16, 2016.

One of the group’s key concerns is the unclear process by which the Advisory Board plans to integrate the two separate risk and alternatives analyses reports.  “This is a critically important step because the level of acceptable risk that is determined in the risk analysis will inform which alternative will ultimately be selected by the state,” said FLOW Executive Director Liz Kirkwood. “This correlation is essential to this process and must be understood by the contractors and the public.”  Another key issue is the lack of a sense of urgency by the Advisory Board and the entire process as a whole, as evidenced by the lack of any timeline for the review and reporting stage.  “At this time, it appears the current process will run into 2017 and there are no expectations for interim or conclusive measures in the meantime,”  Kirkwood said. A third recommendation is to create one central website accessible to the public that includes all of the Advisory Board’s findings, reports, and opinions as well as all public comments, testimony, and reports related to Line 5.  The group also is calling for more transparency and public comment opportunities on the risk and alternatives analyses reports.

The group’s most substantive remark is the need to recognize climate change and how it impacts our understanding of both the risk and alternatives analyses, given national and global commitments to keep average temperatures below 1.5 degrees Celsius.  Accordingly, FLOW contends that contractors must assess each alternative’s role in contributing to carbon emissions by examining its fossil fuel emissions, economic viability in a rapidly changing global energy market, and externalized social and environmental costs.  Line 5 is a part of a larger Enbridge network that makes up the world’s largest pipeline system carrying the planet’s dirtiest and most energy-intensive oil – light crude derived Canadian tar sands.  In addition, vulnerable inland sections of Line 5 must be examined as part of the overall analysis.

FLOW submitted separate comments to the Advisory Board last week, before the public comment period was extended. These recommendations included the call for a public peer review of both reports, the importance of defining a broad range system that identifies and reviews the economic impacts to the Great Lakes, and the inclusion of credible worst-case scenarios instead of the antiquated regulations defined by the Dept. of Transportation.  Additional recommendations were to include alternative release and worst-case scenarios in the risk analysis and to address public health impacts on drinking water and air emissions.

View Full Comments: 2/4/16 and 2/12/16 at flowforwater.org.

###