The future of Enbridge Inc.’s Line 5 across Michigan’s Straits of Mackinac, between Lakes Michigan and Huron, remains uncertain as politicians in the state debate whether it should be replaced, as operator Enbridge proposed in June, or removed. Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican, supports the first approach, while US Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) says too many questions about risks that a potential leak poses for the region have not been answered satisfactorily.
“Line 5 cannot remain in the straits indefinitely. We need a concrete strategy and timeline to expedite its replacement,” Snyder said as Enbridge submitted its proposal on June 15 under an agreement it reached with the state the previous November.
The proposal called for replacing the existing pair of 20-in. pipelines with a single, 40-in. line either in a concrete-lined tunnel beneath the straits or inside a larger secondary-containment pipe buried in a trench near the shore and laid on the lake bed covered with rock to protect it at deeper depths. A third alternative, involving horizontal drilling, was not considered feasible.
But concern about a possible Line 5 leak became more immediate after a barge dragged its anchor across the straits on Apr. 1, breaking some submerged power lines and releasing dielectric fluid, which is used to inhibit sparks, into the water and denting Line 5 but not causing a leak. “The vessel ignored markers in the channel and clearly identified hazards on navigational charts that make clear that an anchor should not be deployed in this area of the straits,” Atty. Gen. Bill Schuette (R) said as he brought civil charges against owner Vanenkevort Tug & Barge Inc. on Apr. 17.
Peters convened a field hearing on Aug. 20 in Traverse City in response to the incident. “We know that Michiganders are deeply invested and deeply concerned about the continued existence of Line 5, an aging pipeline in the Straits of Mackinac in one of the most vulnerable locations in the entire Great Lakes. If you’re looking for the absolute worst place for an oil disaster to occur, it would be the Straits of Mackinac,” he said in his opening statement.
Peters noted that a team of scientists assembled by Michigan Technological University (MTU) in Houghton submitted a draft report on July 19 to the state’s Petroleum Pipeline Task Force describing possible consequences of a major leak from Line 5 under nine worst-case scenarios. “The costs could be billions of dollars, to say nothing of the businesses and lives which would be shattered,” Peters said.
Notable unknowns
Projections of possible impacts from a leak into the straits are not certain because the US experience with offshore oil spills is almost entirely limited to occurrences in saltwater off the country’s coasts. The MTU risk analysis considered seasonal weather conditions in the area, including shoreline ice formation and winds up to 40 nautical mph, in its findings. But it also used as scenario starting points the 2010 spill following the Macondo deepwater well blowout and fire in the Gulf of Mexico and the leak following the 1989 grounding of the Exxon Valdez tanker in Prince William Sound off Alaska.
A 2010 rupture of another Enbridge pipeline in Marshall, Mich., released at least 19,500 bbl of light synthetics and heavy and medium crude oil into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River (OGJ Online, July 29, 2010). Enbridge ultimately paid at least $62 million to resolve natural resources damages in settlements of federal and state government actions, the US Department of Justice said (OGJ Online, June 9, 2015).
When accidents occur, federal enforcement agencies initially rely on information from pipeline operators’ tests of their systems, witnesses indicated at the hearing. “We are dependent not only on Enbridge but every operator in the 2.7 million-mile pipeline network that we have in this country,” US Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Administrator Howard Elliott said.
“With hundreds of operators, we are dependent on the operators to promptly report incidents that occur to their pipelines. We have a number of enforcement tools and our capability to help encourage those who do not report as they’re required to,” Elliott told Peters.
Elliott said that in his 10 months as PHMSA’s administrator, he reviewed many of the US Department of Transportation agency’s responses to incidents, including those leading up to the Aug. 20 hearing, and concluded that they were prompt, thorough, and effective. The agency’s actions after the 2010 leak at Marshall included corrective action orders directing the operator to review its integrity management operations for the entire US portion of its Lakehead pipeline system, he told Peters.
“Enbridge reported spending $2.5 billion to comply with PHMSA’s orders. System-wide testing required by PHMSA led to repairs of concerns before they could cause releases. [It] ultimately replaced the entire Line 60 pipeline after assessments revealed integrity concerns,” Elliott said.
Response to anchor strike
Such incidents also have raised concerns about Line 5’s integrity, particularly the segment traversing the Straits of Mackinac, he said. “Recently, gaps in support under the pipeline, areas of coating loss, and dents resulting from an anchor drag have deepened this concern,” Elliott testified. “In each case, PHMSA acted decisively upon notification in executing its industry oversight function. PHMSA engineers reviewed the best, most current inspection data available and found no evidence that structural integrity was compromised to a point necessitating a full shutdown of the pipeline.”
To ensure that its own assessment for the lines in the straits was accurate, he said PHMSA asked the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to conduct an independent assessment of the data. Its expert, careful review confirmed PHMSA’s initial findings, Elliott said.
“It was also noted that the twin, 20-in. diameter lines running along the bottom of the straits were designed to a higher-than-normal standard with pipe thickness three times that of other lines in the Lakehead system, and of seamless construction, eliminating the risk of cracking along longitudinal welds, which is a big concern of ours,” he testified. “These design factors came into play after the April anchor drag which caused three dents in the pipeline. PHMSA’s inspection and evaluation of video footage and data from multiple in-line inspections conducted both before and after the incident did not identify damage sufficient to warrant a complete pipeline shutdown.”
Peters expressed concern, however, that PHMSA did not respond quickly enough to the possibility that the anchor strike caused serious damage to the pipeline. Elliott said the operator notified the agency of its suspicion on Apr. 3, days after the event, and began working with the PHMSA’s engineers. It shut the pipeline down and conducted some internal control tests to see if there were any anomalies indicating there were any integrity issues because of the anchor strikes. In-line inspections identified dents that the anchor made, after which Enbridge brought in divers and a remote operated vehicle (ROV) to make visual inspections.
PHMSA was not the first federal agency at the response site. The US Coast Guard was, as the lead agency handling an incident on a domestic waterway, and initially concentrated its response on the dielectric discharge from the submerged power lines, Ninth District Commander Rear Adm. Joanna Nunan said.
“Through further research and development, along with partnerships with other government agencies and companies in the oil industry, we are bolstering our research to improve response capability throughout the Great Lakes region,” Nunan said. “Along the same lines, the Coast Guard administers the Oil Spill Removal Organization, or OSRO, Classification Program. Through this program, the Coast Guard provides clear standards for OSROs to follow to foster a robust network of marine response providers in each Captain of the Port zone.”
Maintains equipment inventory
To supplement the pipeline industry’s response capabilities, the USCG maintains an inventory of oil-spill response equipment throughout the Great Lakes region, which is readily available for deployment. Nunan said. In the event of a spill where OSRO resources are limited, this equipment lets the USCG react promptly to contain a spill, she said.
USCG Sector Sault Ste. Marie station responded to the Apr. 1 spill of dielectric fluid into the straits, Nunan said. “After receiving a report of the discharge, the sector commander initiated an interagency response in accordance with the Northern Michigan Area Contingency Plan and established a unified command. Under the unified command’s direction and supervision, OSROs worked over several weeks to remove residual dielectric fluid from the cables and cap them,” she said.
“If there is a bright spot to this unfortunate event, it provides a fine example of federal, tribal, state, and local government and industry cooperation through advanced planning and execution to respond to an environmental threat,” Nunan observed.
The third federal agency witness, Scott Lundgren, Emergency Response Division chief in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Response and Restoration Office, said the US Department of Commerce agency is responsible for supporting spill response, assessing damages, and interagency coordination and response through a 15-agency federal response team as well as state, federal, and tribal response organizations covering the Great Lakes.
“Moving to regional collaborations, we maintain strong connections to other NOAA programs in the region, such as the NOAA Great Lakes Research Laboratory, the National Weather Service, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, and several others. We draw on their expertise, models, data, and services in our work,” Lundgren said. “Beyond NOAA, we collaborate with other state, federal, and international partners related to our roles in restoration.”
Preparedness and training is another important NOAA function, he added. “We train responders on oil and chemical spill science. In 2015, NOAA contributed significantly to a collaborative training and exercise series focusing on the Straits of Mackinac,” Lundgren said. “NOAA’s suite of products, services, and research, combined with the expertise of our personnel, are critical in our mitigating harm, allocating resources, and restoring affected coastal environments in the unfortunate event of a spill—all contributions important for protecting the Great Lakes,” he said.
Questions initial emphasis
But Peters questioned whether the initial response by the USCG-led unified command waited too long to determine if the pipeline had been damaged while concentrating on cleaning up the dielectric spill from the submerged power lines. “The unified command did stand up for the mineral oil spill,” Nunan said. “In it, we also coordinated with Enbridge, PHMSA, and the state of Michigan. They were all there participating in the unified command setup and were able to provide the most up-to-date information. Enbridge was able to do some diagnostic testing on its line, which determined that there was not a breach.
“We also, within hours of the report of the mineral oil leak, were able to do an overflight of the area, which we did daily with shoreside and waterborne patrols that found there was never an indication of any sheen. That was the linkage which brought all the partners together in the unified command to look at the affected area,” she said.
Peters asked her if the initial emphasis on the power lines delayed getting a visual inspection of Line 5. “So, the strike on the pipeline could have been a ticking time bomb at that point because you had not had a visual inspection,” he said.
“I don’t think I would explain it like that,” Nunan replied. “The unified command, standing up, did provide quite a bit of focus on the entire region and any other issues that may have occurred. I think that the diagnostic testing [and] the ability of Enbridge and PHMSA to determine if there was any breach in [Enbridge’s] line was probably the most important piece.
“As far as visual inspections, I don’t think that was needed in the initial response. Eventually, we did have some ROVs which were able to do visual inspections, but that’s not typically critical for the early response efforts,” she added.
Nunan said that in this instance, the responsible party in the anchor strike, American Transmission, ordered the first, with Enbridge ordering a second soon after to look directly at Line 5. “The ROV is not necessarily part of most immediate responses. ROVs are not located everywhere in the country. They may become part of the follow-up and further investigation,” she said.
Incidents reveal regulatory flaws
Yet another witness said the recent anchor strike as well as the 2010 leak in Marshall showed there are major problems with the pipeline on the state and federal levels. “Line 5 serves mainly as a shortcut for mostly Canadian oil and natural gas liquids to go to mostly Canadian export markets,” said Michael Shriberg, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes Regional Center in Ann Arbor. “In fact, new independent research, which has been submitted for the record, reveals that the small amount which Line 5 actually supplies the people of Michigan could easily be replaced without noticeable impacts to consumers.”
State and federal regulatory processes need to be more transparent, loopholes which leave certain fresh water supplies inadequately protected should be closed, and clear leadership and authority needs to be shown by the state, he said in his opening statement.
“Finally, we need to require end-of-life and public benefit assessments,” Shriberg said. “The straits section of Line 5 was built for a 50-year life. It now is in its 65th year, with no end-of-life assessment. In recent months and years, we’ve learned about major problems, each of which has been discovered not by PHMSA but essentially by accident.”
But an American Petroleum Institute official testified that Michigan’s nearly 9,000 miles of gas transmission lines and nearly 3,500 miles of petroleum and products pipelines play a critical role in delivering energy to the state’s residences and businesses. “Energy infrastructure contributes to local communities across the Great Lakes states, supporting more than 14,000 jobs and providing nearly $1 billion in labor income in 2015,” said David Murk, API’s pipelines, midstream, and industry operations manager.
The state leads the nation in propane consumption for home heating, where one in 10 residences uses propane, kerosene, or fuel oil, he said in his written testimony. Michigan also was in the top 15 national consumers of distillate fuel oil, NGLs, and motor gasoline in 2016, he said.
“Enbridge’s Line 5 is an example of a pipeline that provides a vital link to propane and other petroleum products in northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula,” Murk said. “Line 5 transports up to 540,000 b/d of light crude oil, light synthetic crude oil, and natural gas liquids, which are refined into propane. These products heat homes and businesses, fuel vehicles, and power industry.”
