ENBRIDGE ENERGY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SPECIAL USE PERMIT

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 6 Chequamegon- Nicolet National Forest ENBRIDGE ENERGY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SPECIAL USE PERMIT Fact Sheet July 5, 2017 Situation: Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership (Enbridge) has requested to continue operating and maintaining an existing pipeline and associated facilities on the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest for a new term under a special use permit of up to 30 years. Background: Enbridge proposes to continue operating and maintaining the 30-inch crude oil pipeline buried within an existing 50-foot wide right-of-way (ROW) across National Forest System lands in Bayfield County, Wisconsin. The ROW is approximately 11.5 miles long x 50 feet wide and encompasses around 70 acres. The pipeline section is part of a system known as (Lakehead) Line 5 that transverses the Great Lakes region traveling from Superior, Wisconsin to Port Huron, Michigan. The pipeline that was first permitted to, and constructed by, Lakehead Pipeline Company, Inc. in In 1962, the construction of an associated pumping station was also permitted. In 1991, Lakehead Pipe Line Company, Limited Partnership, a subsidiary company, was formed, and ownership of the improvements was transferred to that company. The name of the company (Lakehead Pipe Line Company, Limited Partnership) changed to Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership in Enbridge holds the original special use permit that expired September 10, 2013, for the same 50 foot right-of-way for occupancy, use and maintenance activities of the pipeline and associated improvements. Enbridge did not propose changes to the authorization. The Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) oversees the safety of the Enbridge pipeline, as outlined under Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 195 (transportation of hazardous liquids by pipeline). Current Status of Project: The is analyzing the potential effects related to the continued pipeline operation and maintenance on National Forest System lands. This analysis will be used to decide whether to reauthorize continued use. If reauthorized, the analysis will be used to determine the term of the reauthorization (could be authorized for up to 30 years) and identify terms and conditions for the special use permit to mitigate environmental impacts. Scoping is on-going to gather comments from the general public, local and state governments, tribal members, community members, and other interested parties. To date, the Forest has received more than 600 public comments on the proposal. In summary, the input from these comments focused on requesting an environmental impact statement be prepared, questioning the age and safety of the pipeline, and requesting a public meeting in Bayfield County. This input will be considered in the environmental analysis, development of resource protections, and terms and conditions of the permit, if reauthorized.

2 Page 2 of 6 The Regional Forester is the authorized officer in deciding whether or not to authorize the continued operation and maintenance of the pipeline and associated facilities. The Forest anticipates a decision regarding the reissuance of the permit by October Environmental Review: Authorization of proposed special use permits may be categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmental assessment (EA) if there are no impacts to extraordinary circumstances related to the proposed action that warrant further analysis and if it is within one of the categories identified in 36 CFR 220.6(d) and (e). Resource conditions that will be considered in determining whether a categorical exclusion may be applied include: i. Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or sensitive species ii. Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds iii. Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas iv. Inventoried roadless area or potential wilderness area v. Research natural areas vi. American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites vii. Archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas The mere presence of one or more of these resource conditions does not preclude use of a categorical exclusion. Rational for Conducting the Environmental Review under a Category Exclusion: The analysis will inform whether this project may be within category 15 of 36 CFR 220.6(e): Issuance of a new special use authorization for a new term to replace an existing or expired special use authorization when the only changes are administrative, there are not changes to the authorized facilities or increases in the scope or intensity of authorized activities, and the applicant or holder is in full compliance with the terms and conditions of the special use authorization. Enbridge has a special use permit that expired September 10, 2013, for the same 50 foot right-of-way for occupancy, use, and maintenance activities of the pipeline and associated improvements. Enbridge did not propose changes to the authorization. resource specialists are currently evaluating the proposal for potential impacts. The Forest will consider the results of this environmental review to determine whether this proposed action may be categorical excluded from analysis and documentation in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmental assessment (EA). For more information on the National Environmental Policy Act please visit

3 Page 3 of 6 Frequently Asked Questions: Responses were coordinated with Enbridge and the Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). 1. Please host a public hearing in Bayfield County. The Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest is coordinating an Open House to share information about the proposal on July 27, 2017 from 5-8 p.m. at the Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center in Ashland, Wisconsin. The public is invited to the open house to learn more about the s special use program. Representatives from PHMSA and Enbridge will also be on hand to answer questions related to the pipeline itself and how the operations of the pipeline are regulated. 2. What legislation allows pipelines to be permitted on National Forest system lands? The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, (30 U.S.C. 185(1)) - This act authorizes the issuance of permits and easements for oil and gas pipelines. It requires annual payments in advance which represent fair market rental value and provides for reimbursement to the Government for administrative and other costs incurred in monitoring, construction (including costs for preparing required environmental analysis and documentation), operation, maintenance, and termination of oil and gas pipelines. 3. Please explain why the special use permit is dated 1993, but the scoping letter dated December 7, 2016, was about a special use permit from 1953? The last special use authorization was issued to Enbridge in Enbridge currently operates and maintains the same pipeline that was constructed by, and first permitted to, Lakehead Pipeline Company, Inc. in In 1962 the construction of an associated pumping station was also permitted. In 1991 a subsidiary, Lakehead Pipe Line Company, Limited Partnership, was formed and ownership of the improvements was transferred to that company. The name of the company (Lakehead Pipe Line Company, Limited Partnership) changed to Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership in The pipeline section is part of a system known as (Lakehead) Line 5 that serves the Great Lakes region traveling from Superior, Wisconsin to Port Huron, Michigan. 4. How is the applicant continuing to operate under the 1993 special use permit which expired in 2013? Is Enbridge breaking any laws by continuing to operate with an expired permit? The permit that Enbridge is currently operating under was signed September 10, 1993, and expired September 10, The (agency-wide) has a backlog of special use authorizations that have expired and yet remain active. The is continuing to administer the permit while analyzing proposed reissuance of the permit. The proposed reissuance of the permit first appeared on the Schedule of Proposed Actions in July 2014.

4 Page 4 of 6 The proposes that the renewal of the permit for Line 5 may be categorically excluded from documentation in an EIS or EA under category 15 of 36 CFR 220.6(e): Issuance of a new special use authorization for a new term to replace an existing or expired special use authorization when the only changes are administrative, there are not changes to the authorized facilities or increases in the scope or intensity of authorized activities, and the applicant or holder is in full compliance with the terms and conditions of the special use authorization. Category 15 applies to expired permits. Enbridge is requesting the reissuance of a permit for the same 50 foot right-of-way for occupancy, use, and maintenance activities of the pipeline and associated improvements as authorized in the 1993 permit. Enbridge did not propose changes to the authorization. No noncompliance issues have been reported during the term of the permit. The renewal process includes determining the scope of work, preparing and executing a cost recovery agreement, public and tribal scoping, gathering data/conducting field studies/writing reports, gathering public input on the proposed reauthorization, preparing the environmental analysis and decision document, and (if approved) preparing the new permit. The Forest anticipates a decision regarding Enbridge s request for continued use by October The line is currently 63 years old and had a 50-year expected life. What are the proposed replacement plans? At this time, the is unaware of any proposed replacement plans. If proposed, replacement of the pipeline will require additional coordination and analysis for the Forest Service to make a decision for allowing such a proposal with specific terms and conditions under the National Environmental Policy Act. 6. Has the Forest ever done an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment (EA) for the section of pipeline in question? The Forest has investigated the historic files surrounding this project and has not located an EIS or EA for this section of pipeline. If additional information is found, we will provide it if/and when available. The initial permit was authorized in 1953, before the law of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was enacted on January 1, The decision to be made is whether to authorize Enbridge s request for a new special use permit for a new length of time with the existing pipeline and associated facilities. The effects of the proposed project under current conditions is being analyzed.

5 Page 5 of 6 7. How does the oversee the terms and conditions outlined in the special use permit that Enbridge operates under? The monitors Enbridge s activities, as needed, to verify that the terms and conditions of the permit are being adhered to and there are no unanticipated effects to National Forest System lands, however the does not have jurisdiction over Enbridge s maintenance of the pipeline itself. One example of such monitoring would be the evaluation of intermittent work requests from Enbridge for clearing vegetation along the right-of-way and excavating areas along the pipeline. These requests are reviewed by specialists for compliance with law, policy and permit terms and conditions. Specific mitigations are dictated to prevent resource impacts and to promote rehabilitation of disturbed sites. employees may also conduct pre-work meetings, equipment inspections and site visits to ensure mitigations are implemented and to evaluate restoration work. 8. How does the Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) oversee the safety of the Enbridge pipeline? As an inter-state hazardous materials transporter, Enbridge s pipeline operations are regulated under Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 195 which is enforced by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). As such, Enbridge is required to perform prescribed pipeline integrity-related maintenance activities, such as running inline inspection tools through the pipelines, and those maintenance logs and information are audited and reviewed by PHMSA. Pipeline integrity activities include anti-corrosion coatings, cathodic protection (application of a low-level electrical current), interior cleaning of pipes, aerial and ground patrols, and preventative maintenance inspections. Enbridge s Pipeline Control Center monitors its system, using both human and automated resources on a continuous, 24/7 basis and Enbridge regularly uses in-line inspection tools that allow it to monitor the health of the pipeline systems from the inside out. 9. What are the names of all of the substances (including additives, or any other chemical used to facilitate oil movement through the line) transported through the pipeline in addition to petroleum? The following substances are transported through the pipeline: light crude, natural gas liquids, and drag reducing agents. The Material Safety Data Sheets and Safety Data Sheets for these products can be found on the project website at Have there ever been any incidents reported along the line? There have been no reportable incidents on the segment of the pipeline that crosses the

6 Page 6 of 6 Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest as far back as PHMSA s electronic reporting system, which is Furthermore, records indicate there have been no reportable releases within the Forest since 1968, which is when federal incident reporting requirements for pipelines were first established. 11. What sort of damage control plans are in place in the event of a leak or spill? Specifically, what response time is there for a spill near Fish Creek or Chequamegon Bay, where would response teams come from and is their equipment on hand to address this? As an inter-state hazardous materials transporter regulated by PHMSA, Enbridge is required to have Integrated Contingency Plans approved by Enbridge s regulator. These plans consider all the factors that influence the behavior and potential impact of a release including drinking water, flow of running water, air emissions, wildlife and animal livestock, and shoreline impacts. The plan is available on PHMSA s website at: Additionally, as part of Enbridge s overall Integrated Contingency Plan, they have tailored and detailed emergency response plans, region-by-region, that govern the response for all types of situations. These Field Emergency Response Plans, are available to emergency response organizations in Enbridge s areas of operation. Field Emergency Response Plans focus on firstresponse actions, and contain the most relevant information for first responder groups both inside and outside the Enbridge organization. They provide information on how Enbridge will work with emergency responders during the initial stages of a pipeline incident. The most recent version of Enbridge s Field Emergency Response Plans can be accessed by emergency responders and regulators though The Enbridge line traversing the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest is covered by Enbridge s Integrated Contingency Plan for the Superior Region Response Zone. The oil spill response plan was submitted to PHMSA in accordance with 49 CFR Part 194 / OPA90. The plan was last approved July Since its approval, PHMSA received a non-substantial update in July 2016 and a substantial update in March The March 2017 plan is currently being reviewed and is not final until approved. The response requirements found in 49 CFR Part 194 require a response time of 6 hours for High Volume Areas (HVAs - as defined in 49 CFR 194.5) and 12 hours for non-hvas. The Great Lakes are considered HVAs. Streams and creeks in the National Forest are not HVAs. The response times are for planning purposes only; operators are expected to respond as soon as possible following the discovery of a spill. Enbridge has contracts with U.S. Coast Guard classifies Oil Spill Removal Organizations (OSROs) and maintains its own response equipment. The nearest OSROs to the National Forest that are under contract with Enbridge has equipment located in Duluth, Minnesota, and is capable of meeting both the 6 and 12 hour timeframes.