Most of the damage Rick Snyder did during his two terms as the governor of Michigan (2010-2018) will take years if not decades to mitigate. But one destructive decision he made is still within our power to reverse right now: Blocking Enbridge Energy from constructing a tunnel underneath the Straits of Mackinac to transport millions of liquified petroleum products daily through Line 5. Public hearings are underway right now to assess the safety and legitimacy of the oil tunnel proposal, and YOU are welcome to participate. Details about the public hearing follow, after a brief review of where things stand now regarding a complete and total shutdown of Line 5.
Although Governor Whitmer and Attorney General Nessel won handily in November 2018, Gov. Snyder and the GOP-led Michigan Legislature entered into a number of contracts with Enbridge to lock in the replacement for the current version of Line 5 during the lame-duck period at the end of the year. Whitmer and Nessel both ran on a promise to shut down Line 5 entirely, but thanks to Snyder’s unethical (but legal) intervention, Enbridge has been able to move forward so far with their plan to move the pipelines underground, into a utility tunnel that will take as long as ten years to construct. At present, the 67-year-old twin pipes of Line 5 rest, exposed, on the lake bed of the Straits of Mackinac, a couple hundred feet beneath the surface, and they are an environmental catastrophe waiting to happen. Many alarming incidents have already occurred, and Enbridge’s cavalier attitude toward monitoring the pipelines does not inspire confidence. (They already ruined their reputation in Michigan with the catastrophic rupture of Line 6B near Marshall and the Kalamazoo River in 2010.) Every day of its operation, Line 5 gets older and more decrepit, and more at risk of a massive and unrecoverable break.
Procedural efforts by the governor and attorney general to shut down Line 5 are also still in progress, though the initial effort by Nessel to have the contracts with Enbridge deemed unconstitutional was denied at the state appeals court in June of this year. AG Nessel filed another suit to force its shutdown in 2019, and a close call with the pipeline a little later in June resulted in a Temporary Restraining Order blocking its operation (one pipe for a week, and the other for nearly three months). Full operations resumed after the judge deemed that Enbridge had adequately repaired the damage, though Nessel v. Enbridge et al. is still pending. A spokeman for the AG’s office, Ryan Jarvi, reiterated the AG’s position on September 25, 2020, quoted in Michigan Advance as saying “that the pipelines are a clear and present danger and that this recent incident, along with the anchor strike in 2018, demonstrate the continuing risk that a catastrophic accident could occur.”
The governor is taking another path, proceeding rather more deliberately than pipeline opponents would like. In closing their report on the status of Nessel v. Enbridge et al. cited above, Michigan Advance notes that
[Gov. Whitmer] and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) are currently in the process of finalizing the DNR’s yearlong review of Enbridge’s compliance with the 1953 easement, which is the original agreement allowing Enbridge to operate pipelines in the environmentally sensitive Straits of Mackinac.
If that review is damning, Whitmer could use her executive authority to order the DNR to dissolve the agreement.
While their processes unfold, with no certainty of a successful resolution, the opposition to Line 5 has refocused its efforts on challenging the new tunnel project through the regulatory process. This is where we all come in: two public hearings will take place this week, and the public comment period will remain open until October 19.
Initial efforts by Enbridge to sneak the tunnel through without needing to qualify under new environmental standards were foiled, thankfully. Both the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) and the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) are currently involved in the more complete permitting process. The MPSC has closed its public hearing/comment period, but EGLE is still accepting input on two aspects of this massive fossil fuel infrastructure project: wastewater treatment and wetlands/submerged lands impacts. Thus there is still time for YOU, as a member of the public with an interest in the safety of the Great Lakes as an ecosystem, to make your opinion heard.
Two industry experts who testified to EGLE on September 29 challenged the soundness of Enbridge’s latest tunnel proposal on two major grounds. (The link above supplies their testimony as written; the recording of the hearing has not yet been posted on EGLE’s website.) Geological engineer Brian O’Mara, a veteran of many large-scale tunnel projects in the Great Lakes, observed that two major shortcomings in the proposal should cause it to be rejected out of hand, above and beyond any details relative to water and wetland impact. The first fatal issue he cited concerns the lack of adequate boring samples, since Enbridge has produced only about a quarter of the minimum necessary to gain sufficient knowledge of the conditions underground. The second relates to significant modifications that Enbridge has made in the design of the tunnel since it passed through a risk management evaluation, modifications which increase the risks of construction and operation to unacceptable levels. Construction workers would face much greater risk of life-threatening tunnel flooding, collapse, or explosion with the revised design, and similar hazards would remain with the tunnel pipeline in operation. In other words, cataclysmic failure of a pipeline is still a significant possibility with correspondingly irreparable harm, even if it is encased in a tunnel.
The second expert, Mike Wilczynski, worked for twelve years as a Senior Geologist for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), the predecessor to EGLE. His testimony included fundamental challenges to the tunnel project arising from his 40+ years of experience as a hydrogeologist. In his opinion, Enbridge is inappropriately cavalier about the risks presented by bentonite slurry, a key component of the drilling process, to the water, wildlife, and wetlands of Lake Michigan. Furthermore, based on his experience as a civil servant, he believes that the limited staffing and funding of the MDEQ/EGLE means the department cannot possibly monitor let alone address violations of wastewater processing.
This Facebook video recording of a press conference on September 28th includes statements by O’Mara and Wilcynski along with comments by Beth Wallace of the National Wildlife Foundation and Sean McBrearty of Clean Water Action.
Enbridge, of course, dismisses all these concerns as trivial. But, as I and a number of other speakers observed during the EGLE public hearing on September 29, Enbridge doesn’t have to care. They are accountable only to their shareholders, and the consequences of any failure of their plan matter little to their bottom line. This is part of what I said:
The state permitting processes involving EGLE and the MPSC constitute rare opportunities to demand the fullest possible evaluation of the risks of a major utility development compared to its benefits. The half-billion dollars Enbridge expects to spend to build their tunnel project is pocket change when compared to the financial exposure we as Michigan citizens and taxpayers would have in the case of a tunnel failure. While this larger issue may not directly concern wastewater treatment, it is nevertheless important and legitimate to take advantage of every chance to consider the implications of such a project.
The core lesson we should take away from the natural disasters we’ve seen this year all around the country is this: Nowhere is safe from the ravages of climate change. Michigan already sees effects of global warming in the sectors of recreation, public works, forestry, and agriculture. Rising lake levels, proliferating insect infestations, and the increase in extreme weather, including the polar vortex events that have devastated our stone fruit orchards, are all taking a toll in our state. The actions that we take collectively today are already rear-guard actions to mitigate, not reverse, the impact of unsafe levels of atmospheric CO2. We can slow this runaway train. But only if we decide to apply the brakes now.
EGLE is holding two more public hearings on the Line 5 Oil Tunnel proposal during the week of October 5th. The first hearing, on Tuesday, October 6 at 6 PM, concerns wastewater treatment as regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
The second hearing, on Thursday, October 8 at 6:00 PM, concerns potential impacts on wetlands and Great Lakes submerged lands as addressed in Parts 303 and 325, respectively, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act of 1994 (NREPA).
To register, click on the desired link below and look for the fine print that contains a URL to a Zoom meeting registration. When the registration page displays, enter your personal information and say YES you’d like to make a public statement. You can cancel or change your mind at any time. Participants are not obliged to speak, but if one does decide to make a statement there is a firm three-minute limit.
EGLE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE LINE 5 OIL TUNNEL
It is also possible to submit written testimony to EGLE until October 19th. Oil and Water Don’t Mix, a coalition of organizations and individuals opposed to the operation of Line 5 under any form, provides a convenient portal with a good basic text you can customize for your own statement. If you prefer, you may use the official EGLE comment forms.
In preparing your spoken or written testimony, you may want to consult this thorough list of talking points prepared by For Love of Water (FLOW), an advocacy group whose mission is to safeguard the Great Lakes. It wouldn’t hurt to send a cc of your statement to the MPSC, via MPSCedockets@michigan.gov (subject - U20763), to Gov. Whitmer via GovernorsOffice@michigan.gov, and (if you’re in Michigan) to your state senator and representative as well.
Yes, it can be a little daunting to be part of a public hearing. I don’t have any scientific qualifications whatsoever, and it can feel presumptuous to put myself on a list of speakers. I suspect the regulatory process is mysterious and obscure by design. Yet it is really interesting and in the end moving to hear other ordinary people like me take the time to speak up on behalf of what we know is important. What I contribute is what we all have: an interest in preventing any more investment of time or money in dangerous, toxic, world-threatening fossil fuel infrastructure. The future of the planet rests on the choices we make right now, and part of that duty rests on pushing the people with authority to make the right choice.
UPDATE
Today I received an email alert from Oil and Water Don’t Mix reminding me about the closing of the public comment period and the two public hearings this week. It included an excellent list of talking points which I offer here for your consideration (emphasis added):
These are the main points we are encouraging you to make:
- Thorough consideration should include a full, independent Environmental Impact Study completed with robust citizen engagement completed for EGLE’s deliberations. A project of this magnitude has never been proposed in the Great Lakes, and moving forward without a full EIS would be fundamentally at odds with EGLE’s mission of protecting our natural resources and public trust waters and bottomland.
- Any contractors retained by EGLE to aid in the review of these permit requests, including evaluating potential geological impacts of tunnel construction, must be thoroughly vetted to ensure that they are qualified, unbiased, and have no conflicts of interest in determining approval or denial of the permits in question.
- For the NPDES permit, Enbridge acknowledges that their discharges into Lake Michigan will not meet EGLE water quality or coastal zone standards. How could this project be permitted if they don’t even intend to meet these standards?
- For the resource permit, it is critical that EGLE consider climate impacts as well as other potential environmental and public health impacts. The potential climate impacts of a project that seeks to tie our state to moving fossil fuels through the Great Lakes for the next 99 years must be carefully examined as global climate experts claim we have less than ten years to take significant steps towards a carbon-free economy to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
- At the heart of your decision on these permit requests lies a fundamental question as to the role and responsibility of EGLE. The role of EGLE is to protect the Great Lakes and other natural resources on which we all rely, not to expeditiously issue permits for building projects with minimal regard for how irresponsible or reckless the projects in question are. If your role is to protect our natural resources, there is simply no way to allow an oil tunnel to be built through one of the most ecologically sensitive parts of the Great Lakes ecosystem, and one of the most important resources held in trust for the people of this state.
- Given you have estimated a minimum of 5-to-7 years of tunnel construction if permits are approved, we urge you to carefully consider whether this project is at all feasible in achieving its stated objective of protecting the Great Lakes from a catastrophic Line 5 rupture.
Thanks again for stepping up to help protect the Great Lakes and our precious planet from this folly.