Posted Scoping Comments

I am a long-time Michigan resident who earned a Bachelors of Science in Environmental Science from the University of Michigan and have worked in energy, public health, education, and agriculture fields at private enterprises including those I helped establish or co-founded, and non-profits that worked over the course of more than a decade at municipal, state, regional, and national capacities for policy.

The Army Corps of Engineers is obligated to enforce §404 the US EPA Clean Water Act, and with goals to ultimately “prevent oil pollution from reaching navigable waters and adjoining shorelines, and to contain discharges of oil. The regulation requires these facilities to develop and implement Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans and establishes procedures, methods, and equipment requirements (Subparts A, B, and C).” as summarized by the EPA:
https://www.epa.gov/oil-spills-prevention-and-preparedness-regulations/overview-spill-prevention-control-and

The best prevention is to keep it away from the Great Lakes and water bodies altogether, not just the shore.

Thus, denying the issuance of any permitting to Enbridge for Line 5 and similar project proposals would be the most appropriate response for sound risk management and in accord with the regulations outlined to uphold objectives of the US EPA Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act.

Michigan’s Great Lakes are among one of the few regions on the continent that are valued for its potential resilience to disaster in the upcoming decades. We also know that the Oil and Natural Gas industries have consistently resorted to underhanded and disingenuous appeals and conduct.

Enbridge has been incompetent at providing assurances for adequate preparedness and appropriate response to its existing and past leaks for its own infrastructure as seen with the Oil spill in Marshall, MI which continues to require cleanup or even in repairing natural aquifers including the Line 3 related groundwater aquifer leak which took nearly a year to halt in the past year.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2022/01/20/enbridge-says-its-stopped-line-3-groundwater-aquifer-leak
https://www.epa.gov/enbridge-spill-michigan/enbridge-spill-response-timeline

Furthermore, Enbridge has demonstrated consistent disregard for Indigenous sovereignty and ecological priorities in its dewatering and pipeline development project implementations. For example, drawing far more water than is ecologically sound and thus endangering already climate-threatened and federally protected Wild Rice which is also held culturally significant, nutritionally important, and sacred to the people of Anishinaabe nations and Tribal governments across the Great Lakes Region such as the White Earth Band Ojibwe in Minnesota, and the numerous Tribal Governments in Michigan which are also working to steward and harvest the plant in accord with tradition since time immemorial before settler contact:
https://www.startribune.com/federal-regulator-steps-in-to-protect-minnesota-s-wild-rice-stands/600051813/
https://www.michigan.gov/egle/newsroom/press-releases/2022/03/09/egle-announces-100k-grant-to-support-stewardship-of-native-wild-rice

The pipeline projects would also conflict with the State of Michigan’s EGLE Water Strategy objectives, specifically to “Protect and restore aquatic ecosystems (p. 17), and ensure clean and safe water (p. 46):
https://www.michigan.gov/egle/-/media/Project/Websites/egle/Documents/Offices/OGL/Water-Strategy.pdf?rev=96b5ba8be447474f9a6cc992643f7409&hash=819A7334DDC894B25FEF4DE5021C91C0

Line 5 poses an unnecessary threat to our local, regional, national security and international agreements especially in a time where arable land and potable water becomes increasingly important for climate warming-related crisis adaptation and climate migration refugees–this project from Enbridge endangers a significant asset critical to our national and regional resilience.

Drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions–especially but not limited to meeting carbon-negative emissions targets and net-zero targets within the next few decades (with key targets taking place as soon as 2035, well before 2050–is being deliberated in EGLE’s Climate Action Plan with the State of Michigan and regional stakeholders plus the National targets.
https://www.michigan.gov/egle/about/organization/climate-and-energy/mi-healthy-climate-plan

The State of Michigan and US economy must prioritize energy resilience by diversifying and divesting from strategically vulnerable or even dangerous sources such as oil and natural gas while moving in accord to meet the oncoming trajectory of energy sourcing that emphasizes decentralized, overwhelmingly renewable, and electrified sources of energy rather than relying on hydrocarbon-based sources as the US Army Corps of Engineers and rest of the military community is familiar with in other theaters of operation especially where conflict or climate impacts are already in effect.

It is in the public's best interest and Army Corps of Engineers duty to deny further permitting appeals to Enbridge for the Line 5 and similar Pipeline projects to it in Michigan and throughout the United States of America. Thank you.

I am opposed to the Line 5 tunnel project. The Enbridge corporation has a track record that should disqualify it from constructing
and operating in the United States any pipe line for transporting toxic carbon rich fluids that can threaten the ecological, sociological
and public health of the communities through they pass.

Line 5 threatens pollution to Lake Michigan, Huron , Erie and Ontario as it currently ages under the Mackinac Straits while transporting liquids that increase carbon pollution of biosphere. Currently CO2e is at 800ppm and increasing as fugitive methane from fracking, melting permafrost and warming arctic ocean sea floor, build up in the atmosphere. Existential atmospheric warming is underway due to loss of arctic sea ice as reported at https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/arcticnews.org which warns that the blue ocean event is at hand, confirming Harvard climate scientist James Anderson's warning, delivered at the University of Chicago when he gave the Benton Lecture in 2018, "We have five years to save ourselves from climate change". https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/01/15/carbon-pollution-has-shoved-the-climate-backward-at-least-12-million-years-harvard-scientist-says/?sh=7a1ae504963e

He details more here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y12P76EYQJ8 explaining the structures of the atmosphere that are changing due to heat trapped by increasing green house gases.

Line 5 will be phased out obsoleting the Line 5 tunnel whose construction itself poses risks to the drinking water of millions. The operation of line 5 places at risk the future of humanity. But likely only corporate profits will be the basis of you decision as the regulations you operate under have no room for morality and preservation of life.

Enbridge itself is the great threat multiplier, maximizing potential harm from its projects exponentially.

The company has a record of reckless endangerment. Between 1996 and 2014, Enbridge pipelines had 1,276 spills totaling 9,433,708 gallons.

This includes the 2020 rupture of Line 6B into the Kalamazoo River, the second largest US land spill and the most costly cleanup.

Three inspections between 2005 and 2010 noted the defect that would burst where a layer of polyethylene tape wrapped around pipe to prevent corrosion loosened, allowing corrosion and cracks.

During that period, in 2009, Line 6B had over 300 required repairs to fix within a six month period. Enbridge completed less than 40 of them. The cracks under the the loose tape weren’t even on the list.

In 2020 that section of Line 6B turned into a 6 foot rupture. Then things started to go seriously wrong.

Automatic monitors alerted Edmonton headquarters of a pressure loss. Over three shifts, workers thought it was a false alarm. Twice they shut down the line and the leak slowed. Believing a bubble in the line dropped pressure, they restarted it and increased pressure to dislodge the bubble of their imaginations, intensifying the spill. These restarts caused 81% of the total spill.

Seventeen hours later, a local utility worker who saw black oil pouring into Talmadge Creek on its way to the Kalamazoo River gave Edmonton the news.

The floating booms and skimmers that “clean up” crude oil spills didn’t work on this spill. Line 6B hemorrhaged diluted bitumen, aka dilbit, a viscous tar sands oil with the consistency of asphalt. Bitumen has to be diluted with something like natural gas to be able to move through the pipeline.

Once released, the natural gas with its carcinogens evaporates into the air. The bitumen, no longer diluted, sinks to the water bottom where it binds to the sediment.

Enbridge never informed the EPA the spill was diluted bitumen. A week after the spill, responders finally learned what they were grappling with unprotected.

Because the Kalamazoo was in flood stage, it carried the bitumen to the flood plain and nearby wetlands. In 2014, the EPA ruled the cleanup “complete” although some of the bitumen could not be removed without dredging so much it would destroy the riverbed and sections of the flood plain.

The wetlands had already been compacted by cleanup equipment and that stretch of river redesigned.

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ruled Enbridge violated several laws regarding pipeline management, use of procedural manuals for proper procedures, accident reporting, etc. PHMSS fined Enbridge $3,699,200.

In a settlement with the DOJ and EPA, Enbridge agreed to pay $177 million in penalties and for improved safety measures.

In a National Transportation Safety Board internal report in 2014, Chair Deborah Hersman called Enbridge the Keystone Kops. The report referred to “pervasive organizational failure,” noted systemic flaws in operational decisions due to “culture of deviance” from regulations.

The report also called out 15,000 defects in the then 40-year-old pipeline.

I’m afraid the NTSB got it wrong. The Keystone Kops neither failed nor deviated from their absolute devotion to their own bottom line. All the fines and penalties are the cost of doing a very, very profitable business.

And those 15,000 defects? They’re just Enbridge playing the odds, confident they won’t cost the company dearly enough to mend their mendacious ways.

So what if Enbridge and their contractors can’t seem to follow their own construction plans.

Enbridge’s Line 3 permit allowed the digging of an 8-10 foot deep trench near calcereous fens, a type of wetland dependent on mineral-rich groundwater.

Surprise, surprise! The actual trench was about 18 feet deep. And while they were at it they drove sheet piling down to 28 feet. Who knew!

All this breached an artesian aquifer, groundwater under pressure, meaning an estimated 24.2 million gallons of water poured UP into the trench. Oopsie!

Not that surprisingly, Enbridge didn’t report the breach. By June, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources figured it out.

On 10/16/22, the DNR ordered Enbridge to pay $3.32 million for failure to follow environmental laws. They also referred the case for criminal prosecution. Good luck on that.

The harm was ongoing and repair possibilities unclear.

Water must be removed from the trenching before laying Line 3. Enbridge’s original proposal to drain 520 million gallons from wetlands and waterway was approved. The following summer, during one of Minnesota’s worst recorded droughts, Enbridge asked to drain 10 times that much, 5.1 billion gallons. This was approved. The risk of removing this quantity of water is unstudied.

During original permitting, the Minnesota Public Utilities Comission required Enbridge to carry $200 million “environmental impairment insurance” in addition to $900 million in corporate liability insurance. Somebody must have warned them. Enbridge reported it unlikely that it could obtain this much insurance. Looks like someone warned the insurance companies, too.

The moral of all this is that the Corps must not rely on anything Enbridge puts in its proposal. What it says does not match what it does.

And somebody else always pays more than Enbridge.

The Great Lakes are an incredibly valuable and important resource. Very few places on Earth have anything even remotely resembling these treasures. The Laurentian Great Lakes of North America have a water volume of 22,810 km3. This amounts to about 20% of all Surface Fresh Water on Earth, and 95% of the surface water in North America. For 69 years oil products of various types have been moving under two places in the Great Lakes, one of them where Line 5 crosses the Straits of Mackinac. Parts of Line 5 run near the shores of Lake Superior and later near the shores of Lake Michigan. The risks this entails (Line 5 has spilled well over a million gallons of oil during its 69 years of operation) to the most pristine of the Great Lakes, Lake Superior, and the still good water quality sections of Northern Lake Michigan are a part of the environmental risks this ill-advised pipeline poses.
In the Purpose and Need section for the Line 5 Tunneling proposal it states that: “The purpose of the project is to provide transportation of light crude oil, light synthetic crude oil, light sweet crude oil, and natural gas liquids … ”. However there are no guarantees that Diluted Bitumen (dilbit) will not be transported through Line 5 in the future. As one Michigan resource protection organization has pointed out: “Diluted bitumen (dilbit) is not transported through Line 5 at this time and according to Enbridge, 'there have never been any prior, current or future plans to move heavy crudes through Line 5.' … Additionally, the State of Michigan and Enbridge signed an agreement that prevents the transport of heavy crude through Line 5, except under certain circumstances. … Unfortunately, the agreement is weak, containing loopholes that could allow heavy crude to be transported through Line 5 in the future under certain circumstances. Under the agreement, Enbridge could transport heavy oil through the pipelines in the Straits if 1) the state approves changes to the engineering or operation of the pipelines that allows for transportation of heavy crude oil or 2) if Enbridge is ordered to transport heavy crude by a regulating agency.”1 (Emphasis added)
It must be remembered that Enbridge Pipeline Company is an integral part of the overall operations that move the Bitumen, mined near Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada out to world markets. This is accomplished, at this point, via 5 pipelines. These Enbridge Pipelines 3 (that runs from the Athabascan Tar Sands mining region to Superior, Wisconsin). From there the Diluted Bitumen (Dilbit) is moved through Enbridge Line 61 (formerly Line 6A) to the Chicago, Illinois area; where it connects with Enbridge Line 78 (formerly Line 6B) that transports the oil or gas to near Port Huron, Michigan and Sarnia, Ontario. Here in a less well known place this pipeline system crosses the Great Lakes in Lake Water another time. In Sarnia the oil connects to Line 9 and is transported up to Montreal, Quebec where it makes a connection with the Portland - Montreal Pipeline that moves the Dilbit to Portland, Maine where further refining takes place and the product is shipped to world markets.
Enbridge spent the last few years expanding and strong-arming Line 3 through Minnesota, providing extra funding for local police and sheriffs departments to enable them to enforce the company's wishes against protesters. The Athabascan Tar Sands, already the worst oil source on Earth in environmental terms and one of the worst in terms of Energy Return on Investment (EROI). The Tar Sands are in danger of becoming a stranded resource. The Keystone XL Pipeline was planned to transport Dilbit from the Athabascan region to some refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas that were built refine heavy crudes (namely Orinoco Tar Sands from Venezuela). But President BIden blocked construction of that pipeline keeping a campaign promise. Progress on pipelines to move Dilbit to the Canadian West Coast, including the Trans Mountain and Enbridge Gateway, has been slow due to stout resistance from First Nations people along their routes. The only functioning route for moving Dilbit from the Athabascan region to world markets are the pipelines through Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ontario, Quebec, and Maine.
What is more the company proved to be both dishonest and incompetent in terms of maintenance for Line 6B (now Line 78) when it ruptured near Marshall, Michigan in 2010. Enbridge's criminally negligent and dishonest actions allowed the Dilbit to damage a 50 mile reach of the Kalamazoo River, fortunately miles short of Lake Michigan. The company ignored many warnings of weak spots and problems along the 41 year old pipeline’s length:
“In 2008, Enbridge identified 140 corrosion defects on 6B as serious enough to fall into the 180-day category. But the company repaired just 26 of them during that period.
“In 2009, Enbridge self-reported a separate set of 250 defects to PHMSA. The company fixed only 35 of them within 180 days. (PHMSA is the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration)
“Instead of immediately addressing the 329 defects that now remained, Enbridge got a one-year extension from PHMSA by exercising its legal option to reduce pumping pressure on 6B while it decided whether to repair or replace the line.”2
Defects at the actual place, mile post 608, where the line ruptured were noted previously at least 3 times: “... in 2005, 2007 and 2009, according to documents Enbridge filed with PHMSA over the years. But each time, Enbridge decided it wasn’t significant enough to require repairs within 180 days. Ten days before 6B ruptured, Enbridge applied to PHMSA for another extension. It asked for an additional two and a half years to decide whether 6B should be repaired or replaced.”3
Ten days before the Marshall, Michigan spill, a high ranking company official: “Richard Adams, the company’s vice president of U.S. operations, assured a congressional subcommittee on pipeline safety that Enbridge was well prepared for an emergency. ‘Our response time from our control center can be almost instantaneous, and ourlarge

NO Proposed Tunnel.
Shut Down Line 5

My parents live a little over 10 miles from line 5 near the mackinaw straights. The line has spilled over a million gallons of oil since it has been in place. It’s many years past it’s 50 year exoneration date, and should be immediately decommissioned to minimize pollution. A tunnel will bring further distraction and violence. It is absurd to have this pipeline running underneath the mackinaw straights. A failure could be catastrophic. Enbridge has a terrible track record in the Great Lakes states and we need to start phasing this company’s pipelines out of the picture.

Dear ACE,

I am a freshwater and marine sciences student at UW-Madison and proud to be from Lake Michigan's Watershed. I'm writing in solidarity with the tribes of the Upper Great Lakes and their neighbors in demanding that permits be denied for the line 5 experimental tunnel beneath the Straights of Mackinac, and that the existing pipeline finally be reviewed as well. I also ask that the public comment period be extended and that requests for meetings with the Bays Mills Indian Community be honored.

Thank you for protecting the Great Lakes,

Sydney Widell

I am writing to you as a pastor, family matriarch, Water Protector, and human being, urging you to deny all permissions for the Line 5 pipeline.

The record of environmental contamination and degradation by Enbridge Corporation, headquartered in Canada, is clear. As researcher Beth Wallace has found, Line 5 has already spilled more than 1.13 million gallons of oil in at least 30 incidents in the past 50 years. Indeed, Enbridge is responsible for the largest in-land oil spill in recorded history. The pipeline route is home to some of the most pristine natural habitat in the U.S., making the stakes even higher.

Not only is Enbridge not a good faith actor, but the pipeline project would offer little to no benefit to Michigan or the United States. Roughly 95% of the oil would come from Canada -- and return to Canada. Considering the risks to habitat, drinking water, and the climate overall, there is simply no sound reason to permit Enbridge to undertake this project.

I urge you to deny this project in its entirety.

Sincerely,
Rev. Karen Van Fossan

Ref: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project LRE-2010-00463-56-A19

I am requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conduct a thorough and complete review of the proposed project as part of its Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act.

This review should be as thorough as possible in scope, including a detailed review of at least all of the following:

A) Comprehensive alternatives analysis: Independent studies have revealed that Line 5 is not a necessary piece of infrastructure and that other options for transporting the products currently transported on Line 5 exist and could be implemented in short order. A review of the existing Line 5 pipeline vs. the tunnel as the only two options would accordingly be inadequate. To avoid this inadequacy, the alternatives analysis should include an alternative that considers using the existing capacity in Enbridge’s pipelines to transport the petroleum products that the proposed project is designed to accommodate. If existing capacity is inadequate, the alternative should assess expanding capacity elsewhere within Enbridge’s existing pipeline system, as well as alternative forms of transport such as trains and trucks. The “no action” alternative should account for the fact that Enbridge is operating Line 5 in Michigan without a valid easement, and in Wisconsin, it continues to operate years after being evicted by the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. Ongoing lawsuits from the State of Michigan and the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa could soon lead to the decommissioning of the Line 5 pipeline. Thus, in USACE’s alternatives analysis, the “no action” alternative cannot assume that Line 5 will continue to function indefinitely.

B) Cumulative impacts: Regardless of its scope, the EIS must consider all indirect and cumulative impacts and avoid segmentation of other pending proposals to modify Line 5, including, but not limited to, the proposed reroute of Line 5 through northern Wisconsin. Allowing Enbridge to improperly segment permitting requests for multiple concurrent projects on one pipeline could prevent a thorough review of the cumulative impacts and potential environmental and climate damages of an unnecessary pipeline expansion through a critical and fragile ecosystem.

C) Inadequacy of geotechnical studies: Initial geotechnical studies performed on the site for the Line 5 tunnel are inadequate, comprising roughly 1/10th of the industry recommended research for a tunnel of this scope. The inadequacy of the geotechnical review has not been considered by either the review of Michigan EGLE or MPSC. USACE must thoroughly review the complex geological and hydrogeological conditions that exist in the Straits of Mackinac and could preclude the feasibility of safely building a tunnel in this location.

D) Potential archaeological and cultural site: USACE must meaningfully consult with Tribal Nations, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in the NHPA Section 106 process regarding potential adverse effects to the potential 10,000-year-old Indigenous cultural site that has been located at the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac, near the proposed tunnel project. Tunnel construction could destroy this potential world heritage site and important cultural resource for local Tribal nations, and all care must be taken to ensure that this will not happen.

E) Explosion risk during construction and operation: Over the course of MPSC’s review of this proposal, expert testimony indicated a significant risk of explosion due to operating an oil and NGL pipeline within the confines of a subterranean tunnel with an open annulus design. Further, PHMSA expressed concerns to MPSC about the operations and maintenance of this pipeline within the confined space of a tunnel. USACE must fully evaluate this risk. Further, in the limited geotechnical analysis that was completed, dissolved methane in groundwater above reportable levels was detected. This leads to an explosivity risk during construction as well.

F) Climate impacts: Also, in MPSC testimony, experts presented climate impact analyses of this proposal and indicated that this project would potentially add 27 million metric tons of carbon pollution annually. USACE must fully review the potential climate impacts of this proposal to ensure that it adheres to the goals of the U.S. and global climate policy.

G) Drilling slurry: The applicant proposes to use a bentonite drilling slurry in the Tunnel Boring Machine to drill through the Straits of Mackinac. Bentonite drilling slurry is a potential hazardous waste. Bentonite, when released into surface water, expands and can coat the gills of fish, resulting in large fish kills. Given that the Straits of Mackinac are Treaty-protected fishing grounds for local Tribes and are, in fact, the most productive part of the Great Lakes Tribal fishery, the use of bentonite drilling slurry must be evaluated. Enbridge’s track record of recent frac-outs on the Line 3 expansion project should call its methods into question. A bentonite slurry spill into the Straits of Mackinac must be avoided at all costs.

Thank you.

We NEED a FULL EIS on the entire Line 5 project to help protect clean water for everyone! I documented the environmental damage Line 3/93 has left behind in Minnesota and there are areas of permanent and ongoing damage. Hundreds of millions of gallons of water have been released from confined aquifers and continue to leak millions per month. Enbridge, Michels, and Barr Engineering have really caused major damage to our precious aquifers and failed at nearly two-thirds of the river crossings and released Bentonite into the nearby wetlands and rivers causing a massive fish kill in the Mississippi River last year. Michels drilling released drill mud with harmful additives into our waterways, despite safety spec sheets specifically stating to keep away from sewers, wetlands, and low areas. They didn't conduct proper cleanup at the Mississippi River location 7 miles north of the headwaters. The MN State Agencies like the PUC, MPCA, and MN DNR could not be counted on to conduct their duty to protect our environment and were more concerned with getting the project done as fast as possible. Their lack of oversight and signing of a contract to ERM for Environmental Monitors, it turned out that 17 of the 41 environmental monitors were former Enbridge/Michels employees. I implore you to fully investigate and take into account the damage left behind in Minnesota from the recent Line 3/93 project. Also take into account their long history of spills in our waterways and ask yourself, do you really want to add to that story with the Line 5 project without conducting a FULL EIS. The EPA has already stated that the Line 5 project will be detrimental to the Bad River water and wild rice beds along Lake Superior.

Ron Turney
Anishinaabe from White Earth Band of Ojibwe
Founder of Makwa Initiative & BC Studios