Tag: pipeline

Living Along Enbridge Line 5 in Michigan


If you live anywhere along the route of Enbridge’s Line 5 crude oil and natural gas liquids (NGLs) pipeline, which travels 547 miles across the Upper Peninsula, the Straits of Mackinac, and down through Lower Michigan, you should be asking state and local government officials and emergency responders a lot of questions. You should know whether your family’s safety is at risk. Public focus is on the environmental and economic impact of a pipeline failure and crude oil release at the Straits of Mackinac, and now, and an agreement for a possible oil pipeline tunnel in 10 years.[1]  This “tunnel vision” does not solve the human safety and property damage impacts along the other 539 miles of pipeline route, not only from a crude oil release, but also from the potential for a huge fireball resulting from an NGLs release.

The integrity of the Line 5 pipeline outside of the Straits is known to be questionable, as evidenced by at least 29 documented spills totaling 1.1 million gallons of oil, numerous repairs, and use of a lower standard of materials and construction for the single 30” pipeline compared to the twin 20” pipelines under the Straits.[2]

                  photo: Bill Latka

Line 5 also transports large quantities of NGLs, a mixture of propane and butane (and perhaps ethane), which is a liquid under the pressure of Line 5’s operation and a gas when released. The NGLs composition in Line 5 as reported by Dynamic Risk Assessment Systems, Inc., the consultant hired by the Michigan Pipeline Safety Advisory Board (MPSAB) is largely propane.[3]  Propane is commonly used for home and commercial heating and chemical production, and is purchased everywhere for home barbecues. If Line 5 fails when it is carrying NGLs (which is 20% to 30% of the time), the released NGLs could quickly flash into a gas, ignite, and create a large fire. If ignition is delayed several minutes, a vapor cloud explosion and huge fireball could occur. The public safety and property damage impacts of a Line 5 NGLs release anywhere along its 547-mile length in Michigan are not being questioned vigorously enoughWhat would be the impact of a NGLs release, fire, and/or vapor cloud explosion?

The Dynamic Risk study included several NGLs underwater release scenarios at the Straits to determine if the resultant fireball would impact the Mackinac Bridge and people in vehicles on the Bridge. Modeling showed that a full-bore 20” pipeline failure at the bottom of the Straits could create a flame envelope of just under one mile, but not touch the Bridge. But what if you are living or traveling near Line 5 upstream or downstream of a new Straits tunnel? Line 5, along its 547-mile length in Michigan:

  • Travels through several populated areas along its route: Ironwood, Manistique, Engadine, Naubinway, St. Ignace, Mackinac City, Indian River, West Branch, Linwood, Bay City, Vassar, and Marysville, Michigan.
  • Crosses nearly 400 streams, wetlands, or other water bodies in Michigan, runs near many inland lakes, endangering fishing, wildlife, private property, businesses, riparian owners, and the public. Studies conducted for the state designate 74 water-crossing locations as “prioritized,” indicating sensitive areas vulnerable to a spill and including endangered species habitat and sites near drinking-water intake pipes. Some of the waterways include the renowned AuSable, Sturgeon, Manistique, and Rapid rivers, and the Upper Peninsula’s Lake Gogebic.
  • Is 65 years old, primarily designed to carry crude oil, but also NGLs, which as a gas or vapor cloud are highly flammable and explosive.
  • Is 30” in diameter outside the Straits, thinner, longitudinally welded, and can fail like Enbridge Line 6B did in 2010 in the Kalamazoo River watershed, which resulted in the largest inland heavy crude oil spill in U.S. history.
  • Has leaked 29 times upstream and downstream of the Straits, and has been dug up, inspected, and repaired due to detected “anomalies.” In May 2018, Enbridge was fined $ 1.8 million for failing to meet mandated inspection requirements imposed by a consent decree from the Line 6B disaster.

The nearly one-mile flame envelope for an NGLs release at the Straits was determined using a proprietary computer model that is widely used by industry for safety and risk management studies. Could a much larger fireball occur for a pipeline failure outside of the Straits?  The answer clearly is: Yes. 

An NGL release could be much larger because it would not necessarily be in deep water experiencing hydrostatic pressure resistance. NGL pipeline pressure at other locations could also be higher as a leak at the Straits would be on the low-pressure side of the Mackinac City pumping station. The distance between shutoff valves outside the Straits is also greater, which would result in larger release quantities and fireballs.

By Rick Kane, FLOW Board Member and Advisor

Citizens along the entire route of Line 5 should not be lulled into thinking that the risk is only at the Straits and that it will be solved with “tunnel vision.” What is the risk to your family and neighborhood from NGLs and vapor cloud explosion? Do you know where Line 5 is? Do local authorities and emergency responders have disaster scenario information and response plans? This information should be available to you and not out of sight due to “tunnel vision.”

Importantly, there are alternatives to the continued operation of Line 5, which is not vital to Michigan or U.S. interests, as documented in FLOW’s December 2015 report. Line 5 enables the export of Canadian oil, with Michigan being the shortcut and taking all of the risks. Don’t be lulled by “tunnel vision.”


Rick is the former Director of Security, Environment, Transportation Safety and Emergency Services for Rhodia, North America.  He is certified in environmental, hazardous materials, and security management, and is a graduate of the University of Michigan and University of Dallas.


[1]  Detroit News Lansing Bureau, “Line 5 tunnel talks set to gain steam”, Published 11:55 p.m. ET, June 4, 2018 | Updated 12:00 a.m. ET June 5, 2018, http://www.detroitnews.com/staff/10046778/jonathan-oosting/

[2] FLOW (For Love of Water) Public Comments on the Joint Application of Enbridge Energy to Occupy Great Lakes Bottomlands for Anchoring Support Structures and Improvements for Line 5 Pipelines in the Straits of Mackinac and Lake Michigan [HNC- AR90-WAHM0], May 11, 2018,  http://flowforwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/FINAL-FLOW-public-comments-on-Anchor-Permit-05-11-18.pdf 

[3] Dynamic Risk Assessments Systems, Inc., Alternative Analysis for the Straits Pipeline Final Report, October 26, 2017, https://mipetroleumpipelines.com


Finally, An Honest Conversation About Line 5’s Real Risks to Our Waters and Our Way of Life

Over three years ago, on July 15, 2015, the State of Michigan’s Petroleum Pipeline Task Force released its recommendations for the state to conduct an independent risk analysis and independent alternatives analysis on the Line 5 pipelines located in the open waters of the Great Lakes. The Governor’s Advisory Board, created by executive order, promised the public these two separate reports by the summer of 2017.

But just before the risk report’s release in June 2017, the state scrapped the report due to a conflict of interest involving Enbridge and the independent contractor who has simultaneously worked on Enbridge’s Line 6B pipeline. Now, three years after the initial study recommendation, we finally have the risk report estimating Enbridge’s liability at $1.8 billion for a worst-case-scenario (WCS) oil pipeline spill in the heart of the Great Lakes.  

FLOW’s 2018 commissioned economic impact report (released in May 2018) — conducted by a nationally respected ecological economist and based on conservative assumptions — estimates $697.5 million in costs for natural resource damages and restoration and more than $5.6 billion in total economic impacts, including:

  • $4.8 billion in economic impacts to the tourism economy;
  • $61 million in economic impacts to commercial fishing;
  • $233 million in economic impacts to municipal water systems;
  • over $485 million in economic impacts to coastal property values.

Our FLOW team attended and testified at the state’s presentation this past Monday, on August 13, 2018, held at Boyne Highlands, and it was the first honest conversation between the state and citizens in a public forum about the real risk Line 5 poses to our waters and our way of life.

A team led by Dr. Guy Meadows of Michigan Technological University presented this independent risk analysis on its 58,000-barrel WCS disaster that would potentially affect 441 miles of Lakes Michigan and Huron shoreline in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ontario. The Risk Analysis examined impacts to public health, drinking water, cultural resources, tourism, property values, natural resources, and economy. The report’s final section analyzed perceived risk and the social license to operate based on public opinion. To do this, the report reviewed the 45,000 comments submitted in December 2017 on Dynamic Risk’s Alternative Report, and found an overwhelming 80 percent of commentators opposed to Line 5. The reasons articulated by the opposition were grounded in sound science and law, according to Dr. Meadow’s team.

Although the dollar figures are different due to methodologies and assumptions, what the FLOW-commissioned MSU economic impact report and the state’s report demonstrate is this: Line 5 poses an unacceptable risk to the Great Lakes and the State of Michigan. Period.

The risk and potential harm unfairly burdens the citizens, businesses, and tribes of Michigan, and the freshwaters of the Great Lakes. A spill from Enbridge’s Line 5 could contaminate nearby municipal drinking water intakes, devastate some of the commercial, recreational, and tribal fisheries of the Great Lakes, kill aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, impair critical ecosystem services, diminish coastal property values, and tarnish the image of the state of Michigan and perceptions of its high levels of ecological integrity. Even bigger impacts would damage Michigan’s critical tourism industry.

The state’s risk analysis is yet another compelling reason for the state to take swift action to shut down Line 5.


Latest Enbridge Reports Underscore Line 5’s Vulnerability to 400 Michigan Waterways


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                           June 29, 2018
Contact:  Liz Kirkwood                                                                      Email: Liz@FLOWforWater.org
Executive Director                                                                                           Office: (231) 944-1568
FLOW (For Love of Water)                                                                               Cell: (570) 872-4956


Latest Enbridge Reports Underscore Line 5’s Vulnerability to 400 Michigan Waterways and Ongoing Unacceptable Risk to the Straits


TRAVERSE CITY, MI – Enbridge today released three reports required as part of the November 2017 agreement with the Governor concerning Line 5. The reports examine possible methodologies to mitigate potential leaks from Line 5 in the Straits of Mackinac and at nearly 400 water crossings throughout Michigan.

“These reports from Enbridge provide a stack of evidence supporting the public’s call for Gov. Snyder and Attorney General Schuette to shut down Line 5 right now before there is a catastrophic oil spill in the Mackinac Straits,” said For Love of Water (FLOW) Executive Director Liz Kirkwood, an environmental attorney and a co-leader of the Oil & Water Don’t Mix campaign. “Enbridge acknowledges that Line 5 lacks the latest safety technology, remains at risk of more anchor strikes, and threatens not only the Mackinac Straits but also many Great Lakes tributaries, wetlands, and other aquatic resources along its 554-mile-long route in Michigan.

“The governor and attorney general need to stop promoting their long-term dream of a Canadian oil pipeline tunnel under the Straits and across nearly 400 waterbodies in Michigan alone, and finally confront this danger to the Great Lakes, our drinking water, and our jobs tied to the Pure Michigan economy.”

Of particular concern, information in the three reports released Friday by Line 5-owner Enbridge reveals that:

  • Water Crossings Report: This report reveals that Line 5 crosses nearly 400 Michigan waterways, almost double the number of lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands Line 5 was thought to cross. This should shine a light on the fact that not only are the Straits of Mackinac at risk to a potential catastrophic oil spill, but so are 400 waterbodies in our state. According to NWF’s FOIA review, since 1968, Enbridge’s Line 5 has ruptured at least 29 times on land, rupturing over 1.1 million gallons of oil into Michigan’s environment.
  • Technology Reports: (1) Underwater Leak Detection Report: This report examined three external leak detection technologies and concluded that not one of them could provide continuous real-time monitoring that was practical, cost-effective, or operationally proven. With costs ranging between $4 and $40 million, the report used a net present cost assuming a 20-year operating and maintenance period. Both of the optical camera options would require 1,800 cameras on the dual pipelines. (2) Coating Technologies Report: As a part of the leak detection report, the coating technology report ignored the fact that Enbridge’s screw-anchor engineering efforts caused coating pipeline loss in over 80 locations, and does not address how Enbridge will attempt to remedy this major design defect as they work this summer to install another 22 anchors and then possibly 48 more. These anchor permits are currently being challenged at the administrative level by a citizens’ group (Straits of Mackinac Alliance) and the tribes (Grand Traverse Band of Chippewa and Odawa Indians).
  • Anchor Strike Mitigation Report: This report noted that the probability of a failure of an anchor strike to the existing dual pipeline is two to three times higher than the values provided in the November 2017 Dynamic Risk alternative analysis report. Enbridge’s report concludes that the most effective option to mitigate anchor strikes to the dual Line 5 pipelines in the Straits is to cover both lines with a protective barrier consisting of approximately 360,000 cubic yards of gravel and rock. However, this protective barrier would not allow for visual inspection of the pipeline and would impede any external maintenance to Line 5 within the Straits. The protective barrier option also poses environmental risks including disturbance to fish habitat, disturbance to lake vegetation, impacts to water clarity, and potential exposure to toxins during its estimated 2-3 year construction timeline. Notably, this report omitted any mention or analysis of the recent anchor strike that caused an estimated 600 gallons of dielectric fluid to enter the waters of Lake Michigan and dented Line 5 underwater pipelines in three locations.

Fundamentally, the question remains: Why didn’t the State of Michigan require a comprehensive engineering study evaluating the anchor hooking risks as well as the currents, gravitational and thermal stresses of the new elevated pipeline with its 128 screw anchors as compared to the original lakebed support design?

The three reports released today but dated June 30 can be found at: https://mipetroleumpipelines.com/document/enbridge-reports-november-2017-agreement

Public comments will be accepted before July 15 regarding the action the state should take to address the future of Line 5.

###

Enough is Enough: It’s Time to Decommission Line 5


Every year, a million visitors reach the shores of Mackinac Island, also known as Turtle Island to the Anishinaabe peoples who first settled here in the Great Lakes.  Unlike most visitors, every May I make an annual pilgrimage to the island to argue the case to decommission Line 5 to our top state and federal leaders at the Policy Conference.  Against the spectacular backdrop of the Straits of Mackinac, thousands of attendees gather on this tiny island to discuss the state’s most pressing economic issues.  But every year without fail, Line 5 is not even mentioned on the agenda.  And the irony could not be greater.

Let’s talk economics for a moment: Michigan will suffer an estimated $6.3 billion blow from damage to tourism, natural resources, coastal property values, commercial fishing, and municipal water systems, according to a new study by a Michigan State University economist commissioned by FLOW.  Mackinac Island and St. Ignace will immediately lose their Great Lakes drinking water supply, and the oil spill could threaten shoreline communities and their water source from Traverse City to Alpena and beyond.

Legislators often ask about the U.P. propane issue, which continues to be a red herring and barrier to clear decisive state action.  Research by engineers working with FLOW reveals that just 1-2 rail cars or a few tanker trucks a day from Superior, Wisconsin, could replace Line 5’s U.P. propane supply.  A state-sponsored study in October found that installing a 4-inch-diameter propane pipeline from Superior to Rapid River would meet demand.  State leaders should urgently pursue these options.

And where does all the Line 5 oil go?  It turns out that 90-95 percent of Line 5’s oil comes and goes back to Canada.  What this means is that the 5-10 percent of the crude oil in Line 5 headed to the Detroit and Toledo refineries could be replaced by oil from the Capline and Mid-Valley pipelines from the south that serve the same refineries, along with crude from Northern Michigan oil fields.  Alternative pipelines exist that do not threaten our globally unique Great Lakes that contain 20 percent of the world’s fresh surface water.  

The catastrophic nature of a potential spill became clear last month when a tugboat anchor slammed into Line 5 in the Mackinac Straits and dented and gouged the Line 5 pipelines, while also severing two submerged electric cables and spilling their toxic dielectric fluid into the water.  It was at least the second significant strike of Line 5 in the Straits, according to Enbridge’s inspection data.  

So here we are, another year later with little progress towards decommissioning Line 5.  Rather, Governor Snyder had high hopes of wrapping things up with his November 2017 back-room deal with Enbridge to authorize a tunnel under both the Straits and the St. Clair River.  Significant legal questions and challenges loom, not to mention engineering trials and staggering public work costs that make this a hazardous path to walk.  Bottom line, a tunnel (even if feasible) could take 7-10 years to build and utterly fails to address the ongoing and growing imminent threat as the pipelines continue to bend and age every day.

Liz Kirkwood, Executive Director

According to the Detroit Free Press, Line 5 is one of the “thorniest issues being grappled with by state leaders, including Gov. Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette.”  This, however, should not be the case.  Our state leaders, in fact, have the legal power now to decommission Line 5 by revoking the easement it granted Enbridge in 1953 to build Line 5 and occupy our waters of the Great Lakes under public trust law.  Heightened state scrutiny and enforcement are warranted given that Enbridge continues to violate its legal easement agreement with the state and the express engineering requirements designed to prevent catastrophic rupture.  For example, in 2017, it was revealed that Enbridge for three years hid the fact that Line 5 had lost its anti-rust outer pipeline coating in more than 60 places in the Straits of Mackinac. 

Enough is enough.  It’s time to decommission Line 5.  


FLOW Demands State Reject Latest Enbridge Ploy


In comments submitted to state officials Friday, FLOW is urging state regulators to deny a bid by Enbridge Energy to install 48 new anchor supports on dangerous Line 5 at the Straits of Mackinac while evading scrutiny of alternatives that would protect the environment.

Enbridge’s latest request, if approved, would bring the number of anchor brackets to 198 that the governments have allowed the company to install since the early 2000s — completely changing the pipelines’ design. 

Structurally, this means that approximately 3 miles of pipeline are elevated in public trust waters above the bottomlands. But the design approved by the state in the 1950s had the pipeline resting in a trench on the lake bottom. 

“The fact that the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continue to approve Enbridge’s anchor supports on the lakebed of the Lake Michigan as ‘repair’ and ‘maintenance’ is simply untenable,” FLOW says in its comments. “The highly increased risks of and alternatives to a completely modified design under both state and federal permitting laws requires a new agreement of occupancy and permits” under several laws.

“And given the recent anchor dents in the twin lines and rupture of the electrical line and release of toxic fluids, the risks to the Great Lakes are totally unacceptable,” FLOW said.

FLOW called on the state and federal governments to require that Enbridge:

  1. file a full and comprehensive application including a study of potential effects and feasible and prudent alternatives to Line 5 in the Straits in its entirety;
  2. suspend the flow of oil in Line 5 unless and until Enbridge files such application and evidence and obtains proper occupancy agreements, permits, or other approvals for this new or completely modified pipeline design; and
  3. consolidate into one application and examine the risks, impacts, and alternative analyses of the entire 645 miles of Line 5.

Read the full comments here.


Statement to Pipeline Safety Advisory Board

Line 5 Pipeline

 

The state pipeline safety advisory board met Monday to discuss next steps on Line 5 at the Straits of Mackinac, in the wake of new revelations about shoddy Line 5 maintenance by Enbridge. FLOW's statement at the meeting said enough is known about the pipeline's condition and poor maintenance for the state to immediately revoke the pipeline's easement to traverse the Straits.


 

Standing Rock win echoes across the Great Lakes

“Sunday marked a hard-earned victory for the Standing Rock Sioux tribe with the announced construction halt of the Dakota Access oil pipeline.

The protest’s main message has resonated here in Michigan and around the globe because of its core truth: oil pipelines – new and old – threaten lands and waters that are vital, not just to tribal members but to all Americans.”

FLOW’s Executive Director, Liz Kirkwood, brings the Standing Rock victory home to Michigan in this opinion piece from the Record Eagle. The time has come to defend our water.

Standing Rock decision sends strong message regarding Line 5

“This is a message to federal and state agencies to prioritize water over oil transport in vulnerable areas like the Great Lakes.” ~Liz Kirkwood (Detroit News, Dec. 4, 2016)

“This is a message to federal and state agencies to prioritize water over oil transport in vulnerable areas like the Great Lakes.” ~Liz Kirkwood (Detroit News, Dec. 4, 2016)

On Sunday, after seven months of legal battles and protests, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced that they will not grant the final easement across the Missouri River necessary to build the 1,172-mile Dakota Access Pipeline to transport Bakken oil to Illinois and the Gulf.  The basis of this decision was the need to conduct a full environmental review that explores alternative pipeline routes that do not jeopardize the Missouri River or impact sovereign tribal lands and cultural resources.

The message of Standing Rock—Water is Life—resonates with the people of the Great Lakes who are working to shut down the 64-year-old Enbridge Line 5 oil pipeline that runs directly through Lake Michigan.  FLOW’s own Liz Kirkwood was quoted in this article from The Detroit News, saying: “This is a message to federal and state agencies to prioritize water over oil transport in vulnerable areas like the Great Lakes.”

We must take action and protect our water. It is our responsibility.

donate

State Has Ignored Enbridge’s Line 5 Straits Pipeline Violations

Enbridge's Line 5 pipeline during construction and installation, 1953.

Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline during construction and installation, 1953.

 

Although Attorney General Bill Schuette and top state environmental agency directors yesterday notified Enbridge of violations of its agreement to operate oil pipelines in the Straits of Mackinac, officials only did so several months after being told by experts that powerful currents had washed away critical pipeline support infrastructure.

Schuette, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, and Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wednesday told Enbridge it was in violation of pipeline requirements in its easement agreement with the state. But researchers documented last April cracks, dents, corrosion and structural defects in the twin Line 5 oil pipelines in the Straits.

Those concerns were raised by FLOW and other organizations in letters and meetings with state officials.  The groups say Enbridge’s easement violations are part of a pattern and practice where the Canadian transport giant avoids accountability because of infrequent pipeline inspections.

“These are known problems that fundamentally threaten our public waters and should have been addressed much sooner than this week,” said Liz Kirkwood, Executive Director of FLOW.  “Now we see some progress from the state in enforcing its agreement.

“But what we need is for the attorney general and governor to act with much more urgency and prioritize protecting the Great Lakes.  That means ending the state’s agreement that allows Enbridge to continue sending oil through the Straits.”

“Unless the attorney general and other state officials follow through, this week’s violation notice will just be window-dressing,” said Kirkwood. “The concerns are too many and too risky for the state to continue to allow oil to flow through the Straits.”

The easement agreement that is at the center of this week’s action by the state is meant to enforce safety and other conditions for operating the risky Straits oil pipelines.  Under the 1953 easement, the state must give Canadian-based Enbridge 90 days to resolve any known easement violations.

Since at least April, said Kirkwood, the state has had substantial legal and factual cause to terminate the agreement with Enbridge.  Kirkwood’s group and others sent an April 13 letter to Schuette and Snyder outlining multiple easement violations, including those cited by the state this week in its notice to Enbridge.  They also discussed these violations and federal and state law violations with top officials in the attorney general’s office.

In their April 13 letter to Schuette and Snyder, FLOW and other groups identified eight specific violations of the easement agreement and state law, including:

  • Concealing information about cracks, dents, and rust with continued, sweeping assertions and misrepresentations that the Straits pipelines are in “excellent condition, almost as new as when they were built and installed” and have “no observed corrosion.” Of the nine rust spots on the eastern Straits pipeline, corrosion has eaten away 26 percent of the pipeline’s wall thickness in a 7-inch-long area, according to newly released company data.
  • Failing to meet the pipeline wall thickness requirement due to manufacturing defects. Newly released Enbridge data reveals that manufacturing defects in the 1950s resulted in pipeline wall thickness of less than half an inch in perhaps hundreds of sections and up to 41 less thick than mandated on the west Straits pipeline. Enbridge continues to boast about its “nearly one-inch-thick walls of Line 5’s steel pipe travelling under the Straits.” 
  • Failing to meet the “reasonably prudent person” provision by claiming that its steel pipelines lying underwater just west of the Mackinac Bridge since 1953 can last forever and do not require a plan for eventual decommissioning. The 63-year-old pipelines were built to last 50 years.
  • Failing to demonstrate adequate liability insurance, maintain required coating and wood-slat covering to prevent rust and abrasion, adequately support the pipeline resulting in stressed and deformed segments, and adhere to federal spill response and state environmental protection laws, including Act 10 of P.A. 1953, the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act (“GLSLA”), the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (“MEPA”), and public trust law.

The twin Enbridge Line 5 oil pipelines lying exposed in the Mackinac Straits, where Lake Michigan and Lake Huron meet, are a high-risk shortcut moving up to 23 million gallons of oil and propane a day primarily from western Canadian oil fields to eastern Canadian refineries, as well as on to Montreal and export markets. Research shows there are alternatives to Line 5 that do not threaten the Great Lakes, which hold 20 percent of the world’s fresh surface water.

To date, more than 60 cities, villages, townships, counties and tribal organizations across Michigan have voted to call on the governor and attorney general to stop the oil flowing through the Straits, including Mackinac Island, Mackinaw City, and the cities of Cheboygan, Petoskey, Charlevoix, and Traverse City. Dramatic new research from the University of Michigan released in late March shows an Enbridge oil pipeline rupture in the Mackinac Straits could impact more than 700 miles of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron coastlines, as well as more than 15% of Lake Michigan’s open water and nearly 60% of Lake Huron’s open water.

 

FLOW signs-on to Letter Requesting Survey of Pipelines Crossing Michigan’s Waters

A letter sent to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration included with the authorized signatures of…

Anglers of the Au Sable • Clean Water Action • Detroit Riverkeeper • Dwight Lydell Chapter Izaak Walton League of America • FLOW (For Love of Water) • Friends of the AuGres-Rifle Watershed • Flint River Watershed Coalition • Friends of The Boyne River • G.R.E.A.T (Grand River Environmental Action Team) • Grand Valley Metro Council • Great Lakes Council of the International Federation of Fly Fishers, Inc. • Great Lakes Environmental Law Center • Gull Lake Quality Organization • Huron River Watershed Council • Les Cheneaux Watershed Council • Michigan Environmental Council • Save the Wild U.P. • Michigan Land Use Institute • Michigan League of Conservation Voters • Michigan Trout Unlimited • Miller-Van Winkle Chapter Trout Unlimited • Muskegon River Watershed Assembly • Saginaw Field and Stream Club • National Wildlife Federation • respectmyplanet.org • • Sierra Club Michigan Chapter • Sturgeon For Tomorrow •The Watershed Center ~ Grand Traverse Bay • Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council • Upper Black River Council • Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition • West Michigan Environmental Action Council

The Honorable Cynthia I. Quarterman

Administrator Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

East Building, 2nd Floor

1200 New Jersey Ave.,SE

Washington, DC 20590

Director Linda Daugherty

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Office of Pipeline Safety

Central Region Office

901 Locust Street, Suite 462

Kansas City, MO 64106

July 7, 2014

RE: Water Crossing Survey of Michigan Pipelines

Dear Administrator Quarterman and Director Daugherty:

The undersigned organizations hereby request that the United States Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) conduct a water crossing study to evaluate the risk of ruptures and leaks in all sections of pipeline that cross Michigan’s rivers, streams, and lakes.

The Great Lakes represent one-fifth of the world’s fresh surface water. Forty million people rely on the Great Lakes for their drinking water, and millions more benefit from the commerce and business that depend on the waters of the Great Lakes.

Michigan is the Great Lakes state with more freshwater coastline than any other state in the nation. Our lakes, rivers, and streams define not only our boundary but also provide a path to environmental, economic, and social progress. The health of the people of Michigan, our economy, and our quality of life depends on clean water. The Great Lakes ecosystem provides unparalleled recreational and economic opportunities to the 10 million people that call Michigan home. Studies show that the Great Lakes provide Michigan with 823,000 jobs that represent nearly 25 percent of Michigan’s payroll. Additionally, Great Lakes tourism generates billions of dollars each year from those who spend leisure time around our lakes and streams.

Pipelines crossing Michigan’s rivers, streams, and Great Lakes put these resources at risk – threatening our health and economic viability. These treasures demand increased attention from the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration to accomplish its pipeline safety mission by ensuring the safety of pipeline crossings in Michigan waterways.

We request that PHMSA conduct a water crossing survey of Michigan pipelines to:

  • Develop a comprehensive map of pipeline waterway crossings;
  • Determine the status of all existing pipelines running underneath Michigan’s water bodies;
  • Evaluate the pipeline integrity and risk of ruptures and leaks at each pipeline crossing; and
  • Outline what should be done to prevent future pipeline failures.

We request that PHMSA review all the documentation necessary to determine the status of all pipelines running under Michigan’s rivers, streams, and lakes. PHMSA should analyze and critique the structural integrity of each pipeline and the standards required at the time of installation of each pipeline to assess the risk of ruptures and leaks. The review should include a variety of factors including each pipeline’s age, thickness, and degree of corrosion; the condition and operation of all shut-off valves; the valve distances from the streams or rivers; what products the pipelines are carrying; the pipeline diameters and burial depth; and what pressures the pipeline products are under. It should also include identification of any critical information gaps that exist in the pipeline network within Michigan.

In addition, PHMSA should work directly with pipeline operators to complete the water crossing survey. PHMSA should request any and all information related to structural integrity and potential risks from pipeline operators whose infrastructure crosses a river, stream, or lake. PHMSA should also require that companies fill any critical information gaps found during the analysis. This may prompt operators to perform in-depth studies/analyses on all their major pipeline water crossings. All of this information can then be used to make recommendations to prevent any future failures that damage Michigan’s pristine rivers, streams, and lakes.

The state has various programs related to the regulation of pipelines. However, the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) is the only state agency with direct regulatory authority over safety of pipelines. The MPSC’s authority is restricted to natural gas pipelines. All other safety-related authority, including jurisdiction of hazardous liquid pipelines, rests with PHMSA and preempts state regulation of safety factors. Therefore, it is incumbent upon PHMSA to fulfill its mandate and conduct a study to ensure the protection of Michigan’s citizens and environment from the risks that are inherent in the transportation of hazardous materials by pipeline.

The Great Lakes and inland waters are Michigan’s natural resource treasures; they shape our state, our lives, and our economy. The waters of Michigan have already suffered as a result of a July 26, 2010 pipeline rupture that released an estimated 843,000 gallons of crude oil into Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River, a Lake Michigan tributary. It is imperative that history not be repeated elsewhere in Michigan. It is critical to ensure the integrity of pipelines at major water crossings that affect rivers, streams, and lakes in Michigan. To do this, PHMSA must compile a comprehensive inventory of pipelines at water crossings and determine if they are currently safe.

Therefore, the undersigned organizations formally request that the United States Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration conduct a water crossing survey of Michigan pipelines.

If you have any questions regarding this request or would like to discuss further, please contact Jennifer McKay at Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council at (231) 347-1181 or by email at jenniferm@watershedcouncil.org.

Sincerely,

Bruce Pregler President Anglers of the Au Sable

Nic Clark Michigan Director Clean Water Action

Robert Burns Detroit Riverkeeper

Duane De Vries President Dwight Lydell Chapter Izaak Walton League of America

Rebecca Fedewa Executive Director Flint River Watershed Coalition

Liz Kirkwood Executive Director FLOW (For Love of Water)

Jacque Rose Co-Founder Friends of the AuGres-Rifle Watershed

Carl J Wehner President Friends of The Boyne River

Kenny Price President G.R.E.A.T (Grand River Environmental Action Team)

Wendy Ogilvie Director of Environmental Programs Grand Valley Metro Council

Jim Schramm President Great Lakes Council of the International Federation of Fly Fishers, Inc.

Nick Schroeck Executive Director Great Lakes Environmental Law Center

Susan Houseman Vice President Gull Lake Quality Organization

Laura Rubin Executive Director Huron River Watershed Council

G.K. Herron Treasurer Les Cheneaux Watershed Council

James Clift Policy Director Michigan Environmental Council

Hans Voss Executive Director Michigan Land Use Institute

Erica Bloom Policy Manager Michigan League of Conservation Voters

John Walters Vice Chairman Michigan Trout Unlimited

Gregory Walz President Miller-Van Winkle Chapter Trout Unlimited

Gary A. Noble Executive Director Muskegon River Watershed Assembly

Andy Buchsbaum Director, Great Lakes Office National Wildlife Federation

Matt Wandel Founder & Managing Director respectmyplanet.org

Alexandra Thebert Executive Director Save the Wild U.P.

Anne Woiwode State Director Sierra Club Michigan Chapter

Brenda Archambo President Sturgeon For Tomorrow

Christine Crissman Executive Director The Watershed Center ~ Grand Traverse Bay

Gail Gruenwald Executive Director Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council

Carol Moncrieff Rose Chair Upper Black River Council

Nancy Warren Acting President Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition

Nicholas Occhipinti, MPP Policy and Community Activism Director West Michigan Environmental Action Council

Mike Meyer President Saginaw Field and Stream Club

cc: Rick Snyder, Governor, State of Michigan

Dan Wyant, Director, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

Bill Schuette, Attorney General,

State of Michigan State of Michigan Congressional Delegation

Allan Beshore, CATS Manager, PHMSA Harold Winnie, CATS Manager, PHMSA

Harold Winnie, CATS Manager, PHMSA