Posted Draft EIS Comments

No one on either side of this issue can conclusively predict whether the construction of Line 5 will be safe. Even amid the interesting arguments, our concerns will at best create the need to assess a risk.
In my career as an attorney, and as state counsel for a title insurance underwriter, the need to responsibly assess risks arose on a daily basis.
The assessment of every risk is twofold: it weighs the magnitude of harm against the frequency of occurrence. Every risk inescapably involves these two considerations. Full stop.
Crossing the street pivots the serious magnitude of an automobile injury against the relatively infrequent occurrence of an occurrence.
The frequency of harm for Line 5 is admittedly low. But it is not nonexistent. The magnitude of harm, on the other hand, is catastrophic. Our Great Lakes comprise 20% of the world’s surface fresh water. The magnitude of harm for the planet would be immeasurable.
Alternative corridors and alternative energies exist.
I respectfully and earnestly implore you to not impose this magnitude of harm on our conscience, or on the wellbeing of our successors.
John F Rohe

I am writing about my concern for the Line 5 tunnel project. The 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. Additionally, 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.
As you know, 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. And lastly, but definitely not least, tribal nations and Indigenous communities have not been meaningfully consulted. Their rights, treaties, and voices must be honored!

In favor of tunnel.

Time and time again, Enbridge has shown a total disregard for the safety of our Great Lakes — from the 2018 anchor strikes, to exposed bare metal weakening the pipeline’s integrity, to the rupture of Line 6B in 2010 that spilled more than a million gallons of oil, they have proved their priorities lie in profit and not in protecting our natural resources and people. Enbridge has failed to demonstrate proper care for the current Line 5 pipeline and it cannot be trusted with our most precious natural resource. We have no reason to believe this tunnel project would be any different.

In 2010, Enbridge’s Line 6B Pipeline ruptured west of Marshall, Michigan spewing oil into the Kalamazoo River and the surrounding area. More than 800,000 gallons of oil contaminated the environment, and it took Enbridge 17 hours to realize the spill had even happened. This event shook the community and caused permanent environmental damage. The spill took more than a decade to clean up, which is still ongoing and the price tag has exceeded $1 billion. The unfortunate truth is, Michigan is home to the second largest inland oil spill in history because of Enbridge Energy. We can’t afford to repeat past mistakes by allowing this company to build another major pipeline project in the heart of our Great Lakes.

Unasked in this EIS is, “What’s the worst thing that can happen, and ore the consequences acceptable?” Regardless of the relatively low probability of a major release from damage to the tunnel, the consequences for the downstream Great Lakes aquatic environment from such an occurrence are unacceptably catastrophic!

The existing Line 5 installation on the bed of the Straits of Mackinac is vulnerable to damage from strikes, as has already been demonstrated when it was struck by a ship’s dragging anchor. It is also vulnerable to external corrosion, since it is submerged in water. The pipeline’s location makes it difficult to access, whether for inspection or for maintenance.

Placing Line 5 in a tunnel eliminates, or greatly reduces, all of these risk factors. Since the tunnel will be in solid rock, the pipeline cannot be reached by ships, ice, or other external impactors. if the environment inside the tunnel is kept dry, there will be no external corrosion of the pipe. Inspections can be carried out more easily and more frequently inside the tunnel. Plus, the tunnel can be equipped with leak detectors for continuous monitoring even when personnel are not in the tunnel.

In a worst-case scenario where the pipe ruptures, the tunnel will provide containment for the resulting spill, preventing the material from polluting the waters of the Straits of Mackinac. With the current vulnerable lake bed installation of Line 5, any leak would instantly be a catastrophe for every organism in the water or along the shore of the area affected by the leak.

A tunnel provides the safest, cleanest, and most environmentally friendly path for Line 5 across the Straits of Mackinac.

I support the proposed tunnel to safeguard the straits from any possible oil spill. The tunnel is the most practical and secure method to allow the flow of oil and gas to continue. It is time to get this project done. I live on the beach just west of the fort.

We should not be rushing something like this that could result in colossal damage of our ecosystem. If we can’t do it correctly and methodically, we shouldn’t be considering it at all. We need to protect our Great Lakes and its inhabitants. Their livelihood is worth more than some pipeline.

Please use sound logic and facts, as engineers are trained to do, and not follow a political agenda in reference to the clear and potential danger of continued line 5 operation through the Great Lakes.

As a mother of four, a proud Michigander, and a person who love and appreciates the beauty that is our Great Lakes State, I urge the Army Core to reject this rushed approval! Please help us protect our home! Future generations are depending on us to protect our environment so we can leave them a livable planet. So many species depend on the fresh water of the Great Lakes and we owe it to them all to be good stewards of this land! Please for us, and for future generations do what you can to protect these lands and waterways! Water is life!