Enbridge has been fined again. This week, Enbridge announced that it has reached a settlement with the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to comply with safety-related measures stipulated in the U.S. Department of Justice consent decree Enbridge agreed to in 2017 as a result of the Marshall spill.
You can read the whole thing here. The fines totaling $6.7 million are the result, among other things, of Enbridge’s failure “to complete timely identification and evaluation of thousands of ‘shallow dent’ features on Lakehead System pipelines” and to take measures to repair or mitigate those defects in their pipelines.
Sound familiar?
This is exhausting. I’ve been writing this same blog post for 8 full years now. I’m frankly tired of it. How many times do I have to point out that Enbridge, despite all of its corporate public relations rhetoric, never learns from its mistakes? How many times do I need to document how they repeat precisely the same (unsafe) behavior over and over? How many times do I have to rehearse the fact that when they get busted they prevaricate and dissemble and make laughable excuses like a teenager caught sneaking peppermint schnapps from the liquor cabinet?
First, let’s be very clear about one thing: failing to take swift action to correct defects on a pipeline is very serious business. By now, everyone reading this knows that is exactly what led to the disastrous spill in Marshall. We all know that Enbridge knew, for years, about cracks and other defects in Line 6B but they did not take measures to fix those problems. We also know the result: a million gallons of diluted bitumen in the Kalamazoo River.
Secondly, fast forward to 2017, when Enbridge once again tried to hide or downplay pipeline defects, this time with Line 5. Enbridge knew about damaged protective coating on Line 5 for years before divulging that very important and very serious information to Michigan state officials
Thirdly, Enbridge’s response in these instances is always grudging compliance and excuse-making. Never do they take responsibility. The present example of this is so extraordinary I need to tell you about it in some detail. Please stick with me:
Although Enbridge has agreed to pay the $6-plus million in fines, they steadfastly refuse to concede that they have committed any safety violations. Instead, in a truly stunning letter to the EPA, Enbridg’s attorneys shamelessly attempt to write the whole thing off as no big deal, insisting that “all of these alleged violations were largely administrative in nature and did not result in any safety issues, missed integrity risk reduction activities, loss of product or any damage to the environment.” So, for example, when the EPA fines Enbridge for failing to report crack features in a timely manner, Enbridge says it was because of “an administrative oversight.” And when the EPA fines Enbridge for completing their Threat Integration for Line 3 a few days late, Enbridge shrugs it off as “an administrative error.” And on and on and on. No parent of a child would ever accept such bullshit.
But two things are worth recognizing here with regard to these “administrative” matters. First, this kind of administration is incredibly important. Enbridge seems to want the EPA and the rest of us to believe that because these things are all “administrative in nature” they are of no particular concern. But there are important reasons for these rules; there are important reasons that regulatory bodies require, say, the timely reporting of crack defects in pipelines: it’s one way to assure that those defects get corrected before there is a problem, like a massive spill. Applying for a driver’s license and keeping your auto insurance updated are also “administrative in nature,” but they are important. Administration is prevention.
Secondly, if a corporation is making that many “administrative errors” isn’t that a sign of some deeper problems? Sure, anybody can make one mistake. There are a hundred reasons why someone might make an auto insurance payment late; insurance companies even make allowances for such things. But if I pay my insurance bill late over and over, eventually my insurer will probably terminate my coverage. And make no mistake about it, Enbridge has a long history of exhibiting troubling patterns of behavior, a long history of just these kinds of systemic problems. Have we already forgotten about the NTSB’s description of the company’s “culture of deviance” from safety protocols? How can Enbridge expect to earn the public’s trust if they’re so sloppy and lax with regard to “administrative” matters?
Finally– and this is the most important part– Enbridge insists to EPA over and over that these administrative problems “did not result in any safety issues, missed integrity risk reduction activities, loss of product or any damage to the environment.” But that argument is outlandish. To extend my analogy, just because I drove my car home safely without a license or insurance does not mean I should have been driving the car. And I definitely shouldn’t be driving it while drinking, which is basically what Enbridge is doing by continuing to operate pipelines with known defects. Just because nothing happened this time doesn’t mean it won’t. Again, that’s the whole point of all of this: prevention.
Frankly, I don’t know how EPA can abide Enbridge’s cavalier attitude toward these things, especially given the way Enbridge has thumbed its nose at the EPA in the past. But one thing is for sure: this troubling behavior, these lapses, these failures to take responsibility, this disturbing pattern of behavior should be given serious consideration when it comes to regulatory approvals (or disapprovals) of Line 3 and Line 5. Enbridge calls them “administrative errors”; I call them “evidence.”