One of our readers recently asked an important question about the availability of a detailed map showing the route of Line 6B. As far as I know, no such map is readily available to the public; Enbridge posts only a general map of the pipeline’s route across Michigan online. But that map doesn’t do you much good if, say, you live near the Talmadge Creek in Marshall and you suddenly begin to smell a foul odor, but aren’t sure where it’s coming from. It’s not very likely that your first guess is going to be that the source is a Canadian corporation’s 30-inch diameter underground pipe transporting diluted bitumen.  

Some local municipalities  (perhaps all; I can’t say with certainty) through which the pipeline runs have maps that, presumably, any citizen can see– if she or he even knows to ask– and most (but possibly not all) individual landowners are probably aware if and where the line runs across their property. But do my neighbors two parcels over or across the street– where there is no pipe– have any idea that millions of gallons of dilbit underground a mere two- or three-hundred yards from their homes? Probably not. Mainly, that’s simply because the pipe is below ground; it’s not visible. And that little detail– this matter of visibility– is the topic of our second installment in our series on tales and lessons from the NTSB report on the Marshall spill (Part 1 is here).

Part 2: Meaningful and transparent consultation

In its Corporate Social Responsibility Policy Enbridge states, among other things, its commitment to “Stakeholder Relations” (that’s you and me: anyone affected, directly or indirectly, by Enbridge’s operations is a stakeholder). They state:

Enbridge will engage stakeholders clearly, honestly, and respectfully.

Enbridge is committed to timely and meaningful dialogue with all stakeholders, including shareholders, customers, and employees, indigenous peoples, governments, regulators, and landowners, among others.

Now, from personal experience, I can tell you that Enbridge does not always quite live up to these statements– that was the topic of our little visit to their corporate offices in Superior, Wisconsin last month.  But that’s a matter for a different post. What this story is about is a related statement, the one in their 2009 Statement on Business Conduct where they state that:

Enbridge will ensure meaningful and transparent consultation with all stakeholders and strive to integrate its corporate activities with local communities so they may benefit from our presence.

This statement– and others like it in Enbridge’s Statement of Business Conduct– portrays Enbridge as an open, responsible, community-minded partner with its local stakeholders. Yet among the three major “pervasive organizational failures” at Enbridge the NTSB cites as making possible the Marshall spill, there is this:

Insufficient public awareness and education, which allowed the release to continue for nearly 14 hours after the first notification of an odor to local emergency response agencies.

Here’s what happened: in response to a 911 call on July 25, describing a strong odor in the vicinity of what would later be identified as the spill site, firefighters were dispatched to investigate. Suspecting natural gas as the possible cause and unfamiliar with the odor of crude oil, the firefighters searched the area but were unable to identify a source. During the next 14 hours, several more 911 calls reported a strong odor in the area; the callers were assured that firefighters had already checked the area and that no natural gas leak had been discovered. No more firefighters were dispatched in response to these calls.  All the while, oil continued to spill from the ruptured pipe.

So a major factor in the amount of time before the pipeline was shut down (around 17 hours in all), according to the NTSB, was not just that the firefighters were unable to identify a source of the odor. More crucially, emergency responders demonstrated a lack of awareness of the oil pipeline at all and consequently never searched along the line’s right of way and never contacted Enbridge. Why would they?

The NTSB places responsibility for this state of affairs squarely on the shoulders of Enbridge and the failings of its public awareness program. The report notes, for instance, that Enbridge even knew about the ineffectiveness of its public awareness and education efforts. According to their own surveys, only 47% of emergency officials and just 39% of public officials considered themselves “very well informed” about pipelines in their communities. For the affected public, that number is a mere 23%. Oh, and after the spill, in July 2011, a regulatory review of Enbridge’s revised public awareness program found a number of “deficiencies” which it required Enbridge to correct. Nevertheless, the NTSB still has concerns about Enbridge’s awareness and education efforts. A brochure they sent out to emergency officials, for instance, did not even identify its pipeline’s locations.

Which returns us to our reader’s original question about a detailed map of the pipeline, to which I can only respond: apparently, even the emergency officials who need it most aren’t provided with that information.

There’s a final lesson here also, one that goes beyond the very important matter of the kind of public awareness that could help prevent another Marshall, one that opens up larger concerns about Enbridge’s commitment to “transparent consultation.” It is our understanding– and I hope to find out more at an upcoming township board meeting– that some local officials have had a difficult time convincing Enbridge to attend public meetings to discuss their project.

So what we know is this: when it comes to dealings with individual landowners, when it comes to education and awareness for local officials and emergency personnel, and when it comes to public discussion with local municipalities, Enbridge appears to be a lot like that section of pipe in Marshall: defective and hard to find.