Posted Draft EIS Comments

The State's goals and request seem reasonable: to lessen the danger of a spill, either from a keel strike or simple erosion of the pipe materials.

The problem is that Enbridge has a long history of doing an inadequate job. (The Wikipedia page, for example, lists dozens of its faults.) To mitigate the use of a risky developer, the contract should include unambiguous milestones (including construction, calendar, and cleanliness goals) with sufficient 'bite' to impress upon them that they need to do a stand-up job or go home.

I am a young veteran who has just finished my bachelors in dental hygiene. My experience in the army has taught me the importance of preparation and dental hygiene has shown me attention to detail. The hard work taken to understand the impact gives us the chance to prepare. Understanding this impact should help us realize that we cannot continue to support infrastructure like this and I believe it is time to move on to other opportunities. If this district doesn't agree then I fear it may force me to prepare my life in an other place sadly.

Do not approve Line 5 nor the tunnel. The Great Lakes are the life blood of the country. One small spill, one failure, would be a disaster for the environment, Midwest industry, the fish and wildlife, tourism, and all the Great Lakes and adjacent waters

I have a major concern with the line 5 pipeline. Enbridge does not have a good record on caring for the environment. Case in point the Kalamazoo river. Our Great Lakes are incredibly important, economically, environmentally and as a quality of life. A spill from line 5 would be catastrophic.

The Great Lakes are one of the great treasures of the United States. We should protect them by not allowing a pipeline to cross the straits. The risk of a spill is just too great.

Enbridge is a Canadian energy company transporting Canadian petroleum products from Superior Wisconsin to Sarnia Ontario Canada. It has been said that the pipeline is a strategic investment in Michigans future, yet, I was not able to find any verifiable information regarding exactly how much our State benefits from the pipeline. Being a Canadian company with Canadian products it is conceivable that the Country of Canada may declare that it is in Canada’s interest not to send its’ petroleum products to Michigan(contractual obligations or otherwise). This puts the State of Michigan at the whims of a Canadian Company and the country of Canada, this does not ensure our future. The permit stated that approximately 532,000 bank cubic yards of material from the tunnel construction will be carted away by truck, appropriately 300 loads per day for 6 years. What is the environmental impact of all that material and who pays for the mitigation of that impact? That many heavy trucks traveling on Michigan roads will create a large infrastructure impact in repairs and replacements which someone will have to pay for(Michigan already has enough trouble paying for the road issues as it is). There will also be an environmental impact from the dust, noise, and emissions from all those trucks. Six years of exposure to this will have an impact on people and the environment. Enbridge has stated it will purchase environmental impact credits to offset some of their environmental impact but that does not do the people who are impacted by this much good. The Army Corps of Engineers has sated that the environmental impact of Line 5 Tunnel Project will be significant, they assume that sessation of construction will cause the impact to cease. This is at least a 6 year project it is inconceivable that issues resulting from the construction will disappear almost immediately(at one point the Corps stated ground water will only take 2 days to recover from 6 years of influence). Other long term projects where the environment was altered have taken years to decades o recover, some at considerable expense. Companies like Enbridge talk about safety and the environment being their primary concern. This is great public relations but like everything else in business safety and the environment have a cost. Company's major concern is profit, Enbridge is no different. Enbridge is going to spend what the average cost for them to keep a project safe and environmentally sound. As an example if the average cost to keep a similar project safe and environmentally secure is 100,000 dollars they are not going to spend 200,000 dollars to make it more safe and environmentally sound. A good illustration of this is Enbridge’s Line 6 rupture in the Kalamazoo region, post analysis indicated short coming in their procedures and training. In the Army Corps of Engineers haste to fast track this project I believe they have left too many questions unanswered that will fall on the people of Michigan to bear the consequences.

The only acceptable option for line 5 is to shut it down. We can’t afford to take any risks with a resource as beautiful, priceless, and essential as our Great Lakes. The preservation of this resource will yield far greater value than its degradation as a fossil fuel conduit, especially as the world leans into reducing fossil fuel dependency. We have better options that deserve our investments.

The current pipeline has operated without fail since 1953, which is 21 years past its 50 year design life proving it is a robust design especially when you consider it has survived recent anchor strikes. Maybe a more realistic and cost effective solution to get around the explosion hazard of pipelines in a tunnel would to be to replace the current pipelines with a similar design and install protection from anchor strikes, if that is if fact the biggest risk. Perhaps elevated cables on either side of the pipeline to snag ship anchors before they reach the pipeline similar to the arresting cables used on aircraft carriers to stop jet fighters as they land. Follow this up with severe penalties for shipping companies violating a no anchor drag policy.

Hello,

I am a resident and taxpayer in upper Michigan.

Studies have shown that the energy delivered by Line 5 pipeline is not crucial to energy supply in Michigan or the upper US. Other alternatives are available.
Enbridge has not had a good history safe guarding the environment from spills. A spill in the Mackinac straits would be catastrophic, with an economic, toxic, cultural and spiritual impact that will far outlast any short term fossil fuel transport benefit by the pipeline.
The tunnel merely prolongs the negative effects of the pipeline.
The pipeline should be shut down: the risks are too high, the reward minimal.
The tunnel risks are also too high. Risks of leaks and ground water contamination is too possible with this unnecessary project.
Fred Groos

As you know, the following are concerns:

The Line 5 tunnel project has not undergone a comprehensive risk assessment, which is crucial for a project that poses risks to the Great Lakes, our climate, and our future.
Many tunnel experts who have reviewed Enbridge's plans share concerns for the logistics of placing a tunnel under the lakebed, considering it to be complicated, dangerous, and technically challenging. Experts also share concerns for the workers who are subjected to the dangerous pipeline construction and operations.
The supposed "energy emergency" used to justify fast-tracking this project is false and politically motivated, and should not override public safety and environmental protections.
An oil spill in the Great Lakes would be catastrophic for drinking water, wildlife, and Michigan’s economy. More than 1.3 million jobs, equating to $82 billion in wages, are directly tied to the Great Lakes.
Approving this tunnel locks us into decades of fossil fuel dependency, exacerbating the climate and public health crises; it must be thoroughly assessed for its greenhouse gas emissions and health impacts before proceeding.
Tribal nations and Indigenous communities have not been meaningfully consulted. Their rights, treaties, and voices must be honored.