[PPT] - Meet Our Panelists Stanley "Skip" Pruss Dr. Edward E. PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

SLIDE 2

Meet Our Panelists

Moderator: Liz Kirkwood, E.D. FLOW

Dr. Edward E. Timm, PhD, PE

Retired as Senior Scientist, Dow Chemical Company Stanley "Skip" Pruss Former Dir. of MI Dept. of Energy, Labor, and Economic Growth & Chief Energy Officer for MI

Bryan Newland Chairman, Bay Mills Indian Community Ian Bund Senior Advisor, Plymouth Growth

Securing a Brighter Future without Line 5 or an Oil Tunnel

SLIDE 3

Questions for Our Panelists?

Please enter your questions in the:

Zoom Q&A
FLOW’s Facebook Live comments

Edward Timm Skip Pruss

Bryan Newland Ian Bund

Securing a Brighter Future without Line 5 or an Oil Tunnel

SLIDE 4

8/4/2020

E. E. Timm, PhD, PE

4

“Certain Signs Precede Certain Events” Cicero (106-45 BC)

Why Do Technological Disasters Happen?

SLIDE 5

8/3/2020

E. E. Timm, PhD, PE

5

Challenger, 1986

Why Do Technological Disasters Happen?

SLIDE 6

8/3/2020

E. E. Timm, PhD, PE

6

❖ The Rogers Commission found NASA's organizational culture and decision-making processes had been key contributing factors to the accident, with the agency violating its own safety rules. ❖ NASA managers had known since 1977 that contractor’s design of the Solid Rocket Boosters contained a potentially catastrophic flaw in the O-rings, but they failed to address this problem. ❖ NASA managers disregarded warnings from engineers about the dangers of launching posed by the low temperatures of that morning!

8/3/2020

E. E. Timm, PhD, PE

6

Lesson: Never ignore original design information without thorough re-analysis

Why Do Technological Disasters Happen?

SLIDE 7

8/3/2020

E. E. Timm, PhD, PE

7

8/3/2020

E. E. Timm, PhD, PE

7

Boeing 737 MAX, 2019

Why Do Technological Disasters Happen?

SLIDE 8

8/3/2020

E. E. Timm, PhD, PE

8

❖ Original design in 1964 ❖ Stretched twice and re-engine three times while retaining the original cable and pulley flight control system ❖ Modifications made in 2017 to accept more powerful engines resulted in stability problem in certain flight conditions ❖ To patch this problem, engineers added a computer-controlled stability enhancement system ❖ In 2019, two Boeing 737 MAX aircraft crashed with all hands lost. ❖ Investigations showed that the new stability enhancement system could take over control from the pilots and crash the aircraft. ❖ During these investigations numerous communications were uncovered where engineers warned that the system was problematic.

Lesson: When remediating a problem that emerges due to a change from an original design always analyze the change for the introduction of new failure modes

Why Do Technological Disasters Happen?

SLIDE 9

8/3/2020

E. E. Timm, PhD, PE

9

Edenville, MI Dam, 2020

8/3/2020

E. E. Timm, PhD, PE

9

Why Do Technological Disasters Happen?

SLIDE 10

8/3/2020

E. E. Timm, PhD, PE

10

❖ Designed and constructed in 1924 for a circus owner turned real estate developer ❖ In 2006 FEMA engineers determined the dam’s spillways were too small to handle a maximum probable flood based on current weather and geographic information

❖ In 2018, the Federal Energy Commission revoked the dam’s license to generate power and turned regulation of the dam over to the State of Michigan. ❖ Subsequently, State inspectors determined the dam was unsafe but the MIDNR took no enforcement action ❖ In May, 2020, the dam failed during a torrential rainstorm causing great damage to the downstream area.

Lesson: When inspectors repeatedly find structural problems, action must be taken to prevent disaster.

Why Do Technological Disasters Happen?

SLIDE 11

8/3/2020

E. E. Timm, PhD, PE

11

Enbridge Line 5 in the Straits

8/3/2020

E. E. Timm, PhD, PE

11

Original Excessive Span Clay Pile Fix Sandbag Fix Screw Anchor Fix Bent and Ovaled Pipe Not Fixed in Time Anchor Strike One of Many Bent and Twisted Support Cause Not Known Another Bent Support Cause Not Known

Why Do Technological Disasters Happen?

SLIDE 12

8/3/2020

E. E. Timm, PhD, PE

12

❖ Constructed in 1953, unanticipated dredging problems resulted in excessive spans which were remediated by piling clay on pipeline ❖ 1954 construction notes include this comment: “If currents over 2 knots are found at the bottom, it was decided that concrete saddles could be lowered into place, over the line, to add the necessary extra weight to maintain the stability of the pipeline.” ❖ Inspections from the ‘70’s on revealed strong currents were undermining the pipe resulting in, extremely long, unstable spans ❖ In 2001, Enbridge field engineers wrote “In order to maintain pipeline integrity and safety, these repairs can wait no longer.” Enbridge waited until 2003 to begin a significant effort to remediate the sagging pipe ❖ Enbridge continues on its program to remediate the pipeline by adding nearly 200 screw anchor supports ❖ The remediated structure is not compliant with the applicable engineering guideline DNVGL-RP-F105 ❖ No documentation can be found that addresses the many new failure modes introduced by this remediation ❖ Several recent incidents demonstrate that the remediated structure is vulnerable to failure modes not considered in the original design and analysis.

Why Do Technological Disasters Happen?

SLIDE 13

8/3/2020

E. E. Timm, PhD, PE

13

Is Line 5 in the Straits being operated in accordance with Good Engineering Practice?

Lesson: Never ignore original design information without thorough re-analysis Lesson: When remediating a problem that emerges due to a change from an original design always analyze the change for the introduction of new failure modes Lesson: When inspectors repeatedly find structural problems, action must be taken to prevent disaster

Line 5 should be decommissioned until a comprehensive engineering investigation by a proven, unbiased engineering firm determines why Line 5 failures keep

happening. If it proves possible to make Line 5 safe by further construction, then,

and only then, the remediated structural design must be re-permitted under the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act and other governing legislation before re-commissioning

Why Do Technological Disasters Happen?

SLIDE 14

Presentation by Skip Pruss

April 2018 - Tugboat dropped and dragged anchor
May 2020 - Vessels possibly under contract to Enbridge

struck pipelines and supports

2. Catenary Events - Tug and barge traffic and vessel density
3. Cable or chain drags
4. Current-Induced Stress on the Elevated Pipelines

Risk Factors Supporting a Permanent Shutdown of Line 5

1. Anchor Strikes

June 1979 - Consumers Power Co. cables

cut

SLIDE 15

Risk Factors Supporting a Permanent Shutdown

f Line 5 (cont.)
5. Recurrent Pipeline Safety Issues
Enbridge fined $6.7 M for neglecting pipeline safety issues
Enbridge’s pipeline network experienced 215 hazardous

liquids “incidents” from 2002 to August 2018

Line 5 itself has experienced at least 29 leaks and spills since

its installation

6. No publicly disclosed risk analysis for now elevated pipelines
7. Lack of Financial Assurances in the Event of a Pipeline Failure
8. Vessel safety priority if vessel loses power

Presentation by Skip Pruss

SLIDE 16

Presentation by Skip Pruss: Update on Line 5 Litigation

ELPC/NWF v. U.S. Coast Guard - Inadequate Oil Spill Response Plan; Filed: 2018
Anchor Permit Contested Case - Straits of Mackinac Alliance, Grand Traverse

Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, & City of Mackinac Island; Filed: 2018

Enbridge v. State of Michigan - Court of Claims challenging

constitutionality of Act 359 to build a proposed tunnel for petroleum pipeline transport using public trust bottomlands in the Straits of Mackinac; Filed: June 6, 2019

People of Michigan v. Enbridge - State Circuit Court, Ingham County, alleging

1953 easement is void based on ongoing risk of oil spill and associated harm and pollution to public trust resources and public nuisance. Legal theories include violations of public trust law, public nuisance, and Michigan Environmental Protection Act; Filed: June 27, 2019

Bad River Band v. Enbridge - United States District Court, pertaining to 1854

treaty and expiration of easements; Filed: July 23, 2019

SLIDE 17

Federal Approvals:

Army Corps of Engineers
United States Coast Guard
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of

Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)

Regulatory Approvals Required for Enbridge Tunnel

State Approvals:

§ Michigan Department of

Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE)

§ Michigan Public Service

Commission (MPSC)

§ State Historic Preservation

Office (SHPO)

Presentation by Skip Pruss

SLIDE 18

Analysis of the Enbridge Financial Assurances

1. Enbridge, Inc., a Canadian corporation, is not a signatory to any

f the agreements made with the Snyder Administration.

2. The subsidiaries who signed the agreements with the Snyder administration do not have the financial wherewithal to address the consequences of a Line 5 rupture. 3. Enbridge, Inc. is not contractually obligated to stand behind the indemnity agreements of its subsidiaries. Key Point: Enbridge Inc. has provided no legally enforceable financial assurances to the State of Michigan, Tribes, or coastal communities.

Presentation by Skip Pruss

SLIDE 19

“The Commission is also required by law to determine if there are environmental impacts from the proposed project and whether those can be appropriately mitigated.”

Pipeline Siting in Tunnel with the Michigan Public Service Commission

Is there a public need for the proposed

pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac?

Are the safety and engineering standards for the pipeline’s

construction adequate?

Is proposed pipeline designed & routed in a reasonable manner?

Presentation by Skip Pruss

SLIDE 20

Pipeline Siting in Tunnel with the MPSC (cont.)

Determine the public benefits against the potential adverse

effects of the pipelines

Evaluate the reasonably foreseeable downstream emissions and

climate impacts

Apply MEPA required two-part inquiry:

■ Determine whether the project proponent has demonstrated that "there is no feasible and prudent alternative” to the project; and ■ Determine whether “such conduct is consistent with the promotion of the public health, safety and welfare in light of the state's paramount concern for the protection of its natural resources from pollution, impairment or destruction"

Presentation by Skip Pruss

SLIDE 21

Pipeline Siting in Tunnel with the MPSC (cont.)

MPSC Must Examine “Financial Risk”:

a. Financial institutions finding that oil’s days

as a fuel for LDVs are numbered.

b. 17 major tar sands projects have been cancelled in last 5 years.
c. 7 international oil cos. have divested interests in Alberta tar

sands

d. Since 2015, more than 200 North American oil and gas

producers have filed for bankruptcy protection. Presentation by Skip Pruss

SLIDE 22

Pipeline Siting in Tunnel with the MPSC (cont.)

MPSC Must Examine “Financial Risk”:

e. Electric vehicles will result in a reduction

in oil demand of about 2.5 million barrels per day by 2030.

f. The world’s major auto manufacturers are transitioning from

internal combustion engines (ICE).

g. 14 countries have announced intention to ban future sales & in

some cases, use of vehicles with ICE

h. 25 cities & metropolitan areas intend to prohibit the use of ICE

Presentation by Skip Pruss

SLIDE 23

INSIGHT: Great Lakes Face Continuing Threat From Pipeline

Ian Bund commentary Bloomberg Law June 1, 2020

(Note: See Zoom chat box or Facebook Live comments for hyperlink.)

Presentation by Ian Bund: Understanding Enbridge Inc.’s Financial Status

SLIDE 24

COMMENTARY: Low oil prices make Enbridge’s tunnel a bad financial bet

Commentary by ELPC’s Howard Learner Crain’s Detroit Business June 23, 2020

(Note: See Zoom chat box or Facebook Live comments for hyperlink.)

Presentation by Ian Bund: Understanding Enbridge Inc.’s Financial Status

SLIDE 25

The 1836 Treaty of Washington ceded nearly 14 million acres to the federal

government. This territory,

which makes up just under 40% of the state of Michigan today, is colored yellow on this map.

Presentation by Bryan Newland: 1836 Treaty of Washington

25

Presentation by Bryan Newland

SLIDE 26

Presentation by Bryan Newland

SLIDE 27

Questions for Our Panelists?

Please enter your questions in the:

Zoom Q&A
FLOW’s Facebook Live comments

Edward Timm Skip Pruss

Bryan Newland Ian Bund

Securing a Brighter Future without Line 5 or an Oil Tunnel

SLIDE 28

Attend the Aug. 6 EGLE Webinar on Oil Tunnel Permitting and Comment Period

(Note: See Zoom chat box or Facebook Live comments for hyperlinks.)

The EGLE permitting process for Enbridge’s applications for an oil pipeline tunnel in the Straits of Mackinac involves evaluating water resources impacts under state law -- MEPA and NREPA:

Aug. 6 at 6:00 p.m. webinar -- EGLE will take questions from the

public on permitting process, but will not accept public comment on the tunnel applications at this session.

Sept. 19 -- EGLE public comment deadline.
See EGLE’s notice for details.

Take Action to Protect the Great Lakes

SLIDE 29

Attend the MPSC Hearing on Tunnel Pipeline Siting

(Note: See Zoom chat box or Facebook Live comments for hyperlinks.)

The Michigan Public Service Commission on June 30 voted 3-0 to order a contested case, rejecting Enbridge’s claim that no approval was needed for the proposed oil pipeline tunnel in the Straits.

Aug. 5 (today) - Deadline for Petitions to Intervene
Aug. 12 at 1 p.m. E -- Online ALJ pre-hearing for parties wishing to

formally intervene in the case

Aug. 24 public hearing with public comment

See http://www.michigan.gov/MPSCLine5 for details.

Take Action to Protect the Great Lakes

SLIDE 30

30

Stay Tuned to FLOW for Updates on the Army Corps Permit Review

(Note: See Zoom chat box or Facebook Live comments for hyperlinks.)

Enbridge has applied for a Department of Army permit under Section 10, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, & Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Public comment ended July 14.

In a 22-page comment, FLOW, environmental, and tribal groups urged

U.S. Army Corps to hold public hearing & reject Enbridge Line 5 tunnel permit.

For details, see the Army Corps website.
Stay tuned by signing up for FLOW’s e-newsletter.

Take Action to Protect the Great Lakes

SLIDE 31

Donate to Support Our Efforts to Shut Down Line 5

(Note: See Zoom chat box for these hyperlinks.)

Donate to FLOW -- Protect the Great Lakes now and for generations to come.
Donate to the Straits of Mackinac Alliance -- Taking legal action to protect the

Great Lakes.

Take Action to Protect the Great Lakes

SLIDE 32

Contact Gov. Gretchen Whitmer

(Note: See Zoom chat box or Facebook Live comments for hyperlinks.)

Tell the State of Michigan to Shut Down Line 5:

FLOW - Help Permanently Shut Down Line 5 by submitting your comment to Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and State of Michigan agencies urging them to take decisive action and revoke the 1953 easement. See the the “Line 5” button on FLOW’s homepage for the take action link: www.ForLoveofWater.org or call Gov. Whitmer at 517-335-7858 (Constituent Services)

Take Action to Protect the Great Lakes

SLIDE 33

Thank You for Joining Us!

Moderator: Liz Kirkwood, E.D. FLOW liz@flowforwater.org forloveofwater.org

Dr. Edward E. Timm, PhD, PE

Retired as Senior Scientist, Dow Chemical Company edtimm@gmail.com Stanley "Skip" Pruss Former Dir. of MI Dept.

f Energy, Labor, and

Economic Growth & Chief Energy Officer for MI pruss@5lakesenergy.com

Bryan Newland, Chairman Bay Mills Indian Community bnewland@baymills.org http://www.baymills.org Ian Bund Senior Advisor Plymouth Growth Ibund@plymouthgp.com https://plymouthgp.com/