Posted Scoping Comments

I would not authorize the tunnel. It would require destruction of the environment.

The pipeline already existing should never have been allowed for the following reason: It is vulnerable to sabotage which if on land would cause a lot of problems but not what it would cause the waters of Lakes Huron and Michigan.. In this day and age, it is not far off and the pipeline already installed should not be reinforced, but shut off and the crude oil if actually needed as we transition away from fossil fuels, can be trucked or a n above ground or buried land pipeline be established.

When weighing the risk factors for the proposed tunnel and pipeline infrastructure, the limited number of comparable projects must be taken into account and risk tolerance must be adjusted accordingly. Specifically, examples of comparable deep sub-sea, high-pressure pipelines enclosed in an "immediately hazardous to life or health" tunnel with limited access points are difficult to find and data to support the long-term viability of these projects is also severely limited.
The current proposed project seems to be little more than the minimal viable proposal from an operational standpoint. It is my opinion after much consideration that the current proposal does not adequately weigh the risks of the project. The long term hazard to personnel working to maintain aging infrastructure is a serious concern. The environmental impact of a failure in or around the straits have been well studied and modeled by others. I do wish to point out the indirect increased risk to pipeline leaks further afield from the immediate project area. The proposed high-volume pipeline would encourage continued and expanded pipeline use throughout the state through sensitive natural areas, wetlands, farmlands, and urban areas (drinking water). Enbridge cannot guarantee the ability to build and maintain the pipelines safely in perpetuity; therefore, significant risk would be transferred to the public.

Alternatives:
Truck and train transport which utilizes and expands existing infrastructure which can be cross-utilized for other freight transport. Risks to environmental contamination include added CO2 outputs, local spill risks (more likely to be identified early with limited downstream impact). These risks seem more acceptable given the expected long-term decrease in demand for fossil fuels and expected continuing need for overland transportation. This is likely to be the best alternative, and would be my recommendation.

Suspended bridge pipeline(s) could be built OVER the straits. While likely to be considered a visual nuisance, they would allow for easier and safer access for workers and would be more "removable" than a tunnel in the future. The development of such "bridging" pipelines would likely require significant development work and almost certainly fail to gain public approval. Therefore, this alternative is not considered viable at this time.

Expanded multi-function tunnel(s)- A much larger multi-part tunnel infrastructure project that would be used for public use (i.e. transportation under the straits (likely road, but possibly rail)) would run parallel to the pipeline tunnel with many access points for utility workers. By expanding the scope and size of the tunnel project it would ensure accountability and redundancies to secure the pipeline portion of the project. The public would benefit from the tunnel and the long term sustainability of the project would be more likely. This alternative is by far the most costly, but may help to clarify the significant risks and limited public benefits of the currently proposed tunnel.

If all direct and indirect risks are considered and weighted against the fact that there are few if any comparable projects existing in North America, I believe an appropriate decision will be made. My current opinion is that the proposed tunnel is not in the public's best interest from both an environmental and health/safety standpoint. And that an ideal alternative would be to increase investment in road and rail transport infrastructure.

Thank you,
Jay

If the pipeline is monitored properly for leaks there shouldn't be a problem. There should be an adequate monitoring process in place before the line is built. I beleive there should also be shut off valves at critical points and every 5-10 miles. This should be standard for every pipeline. Existing lines need to have shut off valves installed as well.

Are we getting free gas from this pipeline? Why should we close line 5? How is line 5 benefiting the state of Michigan, tribal lands and tribal citizens? What's the impact of shutting down line 5 indefinitely? Why should we continue to let these corporations take willful advantage of our fresh water? Is Enbridge going to pay for the clean up when it leaks? Will Enbridge go bankrupt when the line fails and destroys the freshwater system or ecosystem in the Great lakes? ...Too many questions...

I am opposed and strongly object to the proposed project of this Line 5 Tunnel. I believe the continuation of these types of projects pose a clear and present danger and environmental disaster potential for any of the fresh water of the Great Lakes. Better planning by the owners of the means in the oil industry must be underscored, profits used to mitigate dangers to the fresh waters.

Building a safe passage for the pipeline is an excellent safeguard for for all.

I have just read what Enbridge is saying about the product that would be transported by this pipeline, if completed. What kind of assurances do we have that this Canadian company will actually be transporting those products rather than dirty tar sands oil for export? As I continue to review the info that's available on this project, I might have additional comments to add, but for now, I'll just say that I haven't seen anything about what they'd do if the tunnel digging equipment gets stuck or bogged down or breaks in the underwater stretch.

In favor of. By encasing the line 5 pipeline in an appropriate tunnel, a potential line 5 rupture under the straight would be contained prior to line shut down. Risk to the Great Lakes would be adequately addressed. Other than political pressure, there is not a logical reason to not affirm the permitting process to improve upon the current situation (no enclosure) for the benefit of all parties.

I believe that we should NOT do this project as it will create more problems than anticipated.