Starting Tuesday, Sept. 29, the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) will host four online public hearings and receive public comment on the expected wetland and wastewater impacts of constructing and operating Enbridge’s proposed, roughly four mile-long oil tunnel under the Great Lakes. The tunnel would house a new Line 5 pipeline to continue carrying up to 23 million gallons of oil and natural gas liquids a day through the public trust bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac, where Lake Michigan meets Lake Huron.
It’s important for the members of the public—including individuals, families, business owners, community leaders, and others—to sign up ASAP to comment at these online public hearings using the links below because public comment during the meetings likely will be first-come, first-served.
To assist you, FLOW is providing guidance below on the public hearing schedule that runs from Sept. 29 to Oct. 8, how to sign up to comment, key points to consider making, and a template email you can tailor and submit as your written comment too by the Oct. 19 written comment deadline.
Hearing Schedule—Click a link below to register via Zoom and select “Yes” where it asks, “Would you like to make an official comment at this hearing?”:
- EGLE Public Hearing on Enbridge Line 5 Application for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Wastewater Permit (same meeting will be held once during the day and once at night):
- EGLE Public Hearing on Enbridge Line 5 Application for Proposed Tunnel Construction Involving Potential Wetlands Impacts (same meeting will be held once during the day and once at night):
Points to Make in Public Comments at the Public Hearings — FLOW is providing this content for you to draw from and supplement with your own information and perspective. EGLE will provide up to 3 minutes for each public comment. Start by stating your name, where you live, and if you are representing an organization, indicate which one. Here’s our guidance:
Not in Support:
- I urge EGLE and the state of Michigan to deny Enbridge’s wetlands resource and NPDES wastewater permit requests to build a tunnel for the Line 5 oil pipeline through the public trust bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac for the following reasons: 1. Enbridge’s application and project description is too narrow, and does not consider the cumulative effects, the existence of alternatives to the tunnel and wetlands related project purpose pursuant to Sections 303011(1) and 30311(4)(b) of the Wetland Protection Act.
- Not authorized — The new easement (December 2018) granted by the former Snyder administration to the Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority and assigned to Enbridge for the proposed tunnel is invalid because it has not been authorized based on the required determinations of the Part 325 of the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act and/or section 2129 of the public utility easement in bottomlands of Great Lakes law, MCL 324.2129.
Not a Solution, nor the Best Alternative:
- It is clear that taking 5-10 more years to study, seek permits, and build a crude oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac is not a solution because it fails to address Line 5’s immediate threat to the Great Lakes and Pure Michigan economy and the risk posed by the pipeline’s more than 400 stream and river crossings in the Upper and Lower Peninsulas.
- Enbridge’s proposal to allow electrical lines and other infrastructure to occupy the proposed oil pipeline tunnel is a bad idea that poses an explosion risk.
Not Fully Disclosed:
- Enbridge has indicated that the size of the proposed tunnel will increase from a 10 ft diameter to an 18-21 foot diameter, yet Enbridge continues to use the original estimate of $500 million. Since consumers will ultimately pay for the tunnel, it is important to determine the new estimated cost.
- The announcement by EGLE that it will defer to other agencies or the MPSC to consider the likely effects and alternatives of the proposed tunnel project is contrary to the law of Michigan under the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA). MCL 324.1701 and applicable court decisions.
Not Acceptable — Wastewater and Wetland Impacts:
- Enbridge is requesting to release up to 5 million gallons/day of treated wastewater back into Lake Michigan on the south shore and up to 14 million gallons daily during storm events. What chemicals will be used in the tunneling process and how will the wastewater be treated to remove those chemicals?
- If the waters of the Straits are contaminated, there would be extremely negative impacts to fish populations, tribal fishing rights, and communities who rely on drinking water from the lake and tourism business. How can EGLE consider this permit without having the full details about treatment plans and what chemicals will be used?
- Doubling the tunnel diameter also results in quadrupling the volume, with four times as much excavated materials to be removed, staged, and disposed of. What are the increased environmental risks associated with the excavation, staging and disposition of these materials?
- Michigan courts have consistently recognized that the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) imposes additional environmental review requirements that are supplemental to existing administrative and statutory requirements. Is EGLE conducting a thorough review under MEPA?
Not in the Public Interest:
- A permit under Part 303 Wetland Protection “shall not be approved unless the department determines that the issuance of a permit is in the public interest… In determining whether the activity is in the public interest, the benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal shall be balanced against the reasonably foreseeable detriments of the activity.” Clearly this project is not in the public interest when considering the impacts to public surface waters, public bottomlands, public drinking water supplies, the climate, and economy.
- A permit under Part 303 Wetland Protection Act “shall not be approved” unless the applicant demonstrates the “need” for the project; clearly, this project is not needed given the obvious decline in demand for oil in the U.S. and world, and because Enbridge’s and Michigan’s future needs for crude oil can be satisfied by the existing crude oil pipeline system in North American and the U.S; and, because the design capacity of Line 6b (now 78) across southern Michigan from Indiana to Sarnia and Detroit or Toledo was doubled when replaced in 2012-2014, which can reasonably handle all of the volume of crude oil and natural gas liquids transported by Line 5 and Straits dual pipelines.
Not Good for the Climate nor Economy:
- Line 5 conveys approximately 8.4 billion gallons of oil and natural gas liquids per year, and when burned, yield over 57 million metric tons of CO2 annually. How can EGLE authorize the tunnel in the face of the incontrovertible evidence of environmental and economic harm caused by climate change?
- Oil when burned, releases carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and unburned hydrocarbons, impairing air quality and having monetizable environmental and health impacts. EGLE must compare the social costs against the benefits.
- Continued capital investment in fossil fuel infrastructure is fundamentally at odds with addressing the existential threat of climate change.
- Federal agencies must determine the carbon emissions attributable to projects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); EGLE and the MPSC must undertake the same analyses under MEPA.
- The construction of Enbridge’s proposed tunnel and pipeline project for the next 99 years is contrary to Governor Whitmer’s Executive Order on Building a Carbon Neutral Economy.
Not the Best Alternative:
- Under Part 303, EGLE must consider “the availability of feasible and prudent alternative locations and methods to accomplish the expected benefits from the activity.” EGLE must evaluate the following:
- To what extent did the 2010 catastrophic failure and oil spill from Enbridge Line 6B into the Kalamazoo River watershed and the more recent temporary, full and then partial closure of Line 5 result in constriction of supply, market disruption, or price increases to end users?
- Does Enbridge Line 6B in southern Michigan, now reconstructed with a larger diameter as Line 78, have the capacity to meet market demand if the tunnel is not built and Line 5 closes?
- Is the carrying capacity of the existing network of North American pipelines sufficient to meet future needs? According to FLOW’s experts, available capacity and flexibility to meet energy demand in the Great Lakes region already exists in the North American energy pipeline system operated by Enbridge and its competitors without threatening our public waters and Pure Michigan economy.
- Would cessation of Line 5 result in a new pipeline system equilibrium capable of meeting existing and future demand for oil and natural gas liquids?
- What is the potential for the tunnel project to become a stranded asset and liability to the State of Michigan in the event market trends play out as predicted?
Written Comment Also Accepted — The public also can comment in writing at any time until EGLE’s comment deadline on Oct. 19. Here’s the:
- Oil & Water Don’t Mix campaign’s public comment form for you to personalize — drawing from FLOW’s guidance provided above — and send, or you can use the EGLE links below.
- EGLE public comment page for Part 303 wetland impacts and Part 325 Great Lakes submerged lands impacts.
- EGLE public comment page for NPDES wastewater impacts.
Background — To learn more about Enbridge Line 5 and the proposed oil tunnel, see these resources on FLOW’s website: