{"id":140,"date":"2012-08-03T17:48:55","date_gmt":"2012-08-03T21:48:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/?p=140"},"modified":"2013-01-25T17:05:32","modified_gmt":"2013-01-25T22:05:32","slug":"three-core-issues-for-landowners-residents-part-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/2012\/08\/03\/three-core-issues-for-landowners-residents-part-3\/","title":{"rendered":"Three core issues for landowners, residents: Part 3"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the first two installments of our three-part series on core issues for landowners and residents affected by the Enbridge Line 6B project (and that’s pretty much all of us!) we discussed individual landowner negotiations<\/a> and local consent<\/a>. In our discussion of the latter, we emphasized the importance for local municipalities to try and assert their autonomy and authority (granted by the state constitution) by insisting that Enbridge follow the law and seek consent before beginning construction. We ended that post with the key question:\u00a0what good it will do for local municipalities to demand that Enbridge seek their consent? That is, what is to be gained?<\/p>\n

The key answer to that question (in our view) can be summed up in a single word: safety.<\/p>\n

Core issue #3: Safety \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

It can’t be stated often enough: in 2010 Enbridge dumped over one million gallons of tar sands crude into Talmadge Creek near Marshall, Michigan in what became the most expensive oil spill on U.S. soil in history. Recently, the National Transportation Safety Board released a report<\/a> on the spill, which documents how (among other things):<\/p>\n

Enbridge\u2019s delayed reporting of the \u201cdiscovery of condition\u201d [of the pipeline; namely, a series of corrosion fatigue cracks] by more than 460 days<\/strong>\u00a0indicates that Enbridge\u2019s interpretation of the current regulation delayed the repair of the pipeline.<\/p>\n

PII Pipeline Solutions\u2019\u00a0analysis of the 2005 in-line inspection data for the Line 6B segment that ruptured mischaracterized crack defects<\/strong>, which resulted in Enbridge not evaluating them as crack-field defects.<\/span><\/p>\n

Although Enbridge had procedures that required a pipeline shutdown after 10 minutes of uncertain operational status,\u00a0Enbridge control center staff had developed a culture that accepted not adhering to the procedures<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Although Enbridge quickly isolated the ruptured segment of Line 6B after receiving a telephone call about the release,\u00a0Enbridge\u2019s emergency response actions during the initial hours following the release were not sufficiently focused on source control and demonstrated a lack of awareness and training<\/strong>\u00a0in the use of effective containment methods.<\/p>\n

Enbridge\u2019s failure to exercise effective oversight of pipeline integrity and control center operations, implement an effective public awareness program, and implement an adequate postaccident response were organizational failures that resulted in the accident and increased its severity.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Given Enbridge’s track record in Michigan (and elsewhere) it is not at all unreasonable to have serious concerns about the safety precautions that will be taken during and following installation of the new 6B pipeline. The public– and Michigan public officials– owe it to themselves to insist that Enbridge demonstrate that they are worthy of our trust.<\/p>\n

Fortunately, Enbridge has itself provided some guidelines for how they might go about doing just that. According to their own public statements<\/a>, Enbridge has responded to public concern in Canada over the Northern Gateway project by putting in place a number of enhanced safety measures that exceed both industry and Canadian regulatory standards. These measures include (among others):<\/p>\n

\n
    \n
  • Increasing pipeline wall thickness of the oil pipeline<\/span><\/li>\n
  • Additional pipeline wall thickness for water crossings such as major tributaries<\/span><\/li>\n
  • Increasing frequency of in-line inspection surveys across entire pipeline system by a minimum 50% over and above current standards<\/span><\/li>\n
  • Staff pump stations in remote locations on a 24\/7 basis for on-site monitoring, heightened security, and rapid response to abnormal conditions<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    In light of Enbridge’s public statements about their ability to enhance pipeline safety by employing “the most advanced technology, safety measures and procedures in the industry today,” we can’t help but wonder: why can’t they do the same here in Michigan? “We have to do everything we can to ensure confidence in the project,” an Enbridge executive has said about Northern Gateway. Are they doing everything they can in Michigan as well? Why should we settle for anything less here?<\/p>\n

    As a condition of their consent, local municipalities across Michigan should insist on nothing less than the Northern Gateway standards.<\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    In the first two installments of our three-part series on core issues for landowners and residents affected by the Enbridge Line 6B project (and that’s pretty much all of us!) we discussed individual landowner negotiations and local consent. In our discussion of the latter, we emphasized the importance for local municipalities to try and assert […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":807,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[22,15,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-140","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-landowner-issues","category-marshall","category-series"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=140"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":143,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140\/revisions\/143"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/807"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=140"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=140"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=140"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}