DOCSLIB.ORG

Line 5 Wisconsin Segment Relocation Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Line 5 Wisconsin Segment Relocation Project Line 5 Wisconsin Segment Relocation Project Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Environmental Impact Report Revised March August 2020 LINE 5 WISCONSIN SEGMENT RELOCATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISED AUGUST 2020 Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Project’s Purpose and Need .............................................................................................................. 4 1.1 LINE 5 System .............................................................................................................................. 4 1.1.1 Permanent Decommissioning of Replaced Segments of Line 5 from Service ...................... 6 Proposed Project Description ............................................................................................................ 7 2.1 Line 5 ............................................................................................................................................ 7 2.1.1 Route ..................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.2 Landowners ........................................................................................................................... 8 2.1.3 Project Schedule .................................................................................................................... 9 2.1.4 Connected Actions ................................................................................................................ 9 2.2 Authorities and Approvals .......................................................................................................... 11 2.2.1 Federal Agencies ................................................................................................................. 11 2.2.2 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ..................................................................... 11 2.2.3 Public Service Commission of Wisconsin .......................................................................... 12 2.2.4 Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection .......................... 12 2.2.5 Wisconsin Department of Transportation ........................................................................... 12 2.2.6 Wisconsin Historical Society .............................................................................................. 12 2.2.7 County and Local Government Interests............................................................................. 13 2.2.8 Status of Wisconsin Required Permits and Approvals ....................................................... 13 Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................... 14 3.1 Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 14 3.1.1 No-Action Alternative ......................................................................................................... 14 3.1.2 System Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 15 3.1.3 Alternative Transport Modes .............................................................................................. 15 3.1.4 Route Alternatives............................................................................................................... 17 Engineering and Construction Practices ......................................................................................... 22 4.1 Physical Pipeline Characteristics ................................................................................................ 22 4.2 Land Requirements ..................................................................................................................... 23 4.2.1 Construction Right-of-Way ................................................................................................. 23 4.2.2 Additional Temporary Workspace Areas ............................................................................ 25 4.2.3 Access Roads ...................................................................................................................... 25 4.2.4 Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards ..................................................................................... 28 4.2.5 Aboveground Facilities ....................................................................................................... 29 4.2.6 Cathodic Protection and AC Mitigation .............................................................................. 29 4.3 Construction Procedures ............................................................................................................. 29 i LINE 5 WISCONSIN SEGMENT RELOCATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISED AUGUST 2020 4.3.1 Preparation of the Right-of-Way ......................................................................................... 30 4.3.2 Clearing and Grading .......................................................................................................... 30 4.3.3 Hauling and Stringing Pipe ................................................................................................. 33 4.3.4 Trenching ............................................................................................................................ 33 4.3.5 Trench Dewatering .............................................................................................................. 34 4.3.6 Bending ............................................................................................................................... 34 4.3.7 Lineup, Welding, and Weld Inspection............................................................................... 34 4.3.8 Field Coating ....................................................................................................................... 35 4.3.9 Lowering In ......................................................................................................................... 35 4.3.10 Backfilling ........................................................................................................................... 35 4.3.11 Hydrostatic Testing ............................................................................................................. 36 4.3.12 Road and Railroad Crossings .............................................................................................. 37 4.3.13 Final Tie-in and Commissioning ......................................................................................... 37 4.3.14 Cleanup and Restoration ..................................................................................................... 37 4.3.15 Revegetation ....................................................................................................................... 37 4.4 Erosion and Sediment Control Practices ..................................................................................... 38 4.4.1 Fugitive Dust ....................................................................................................................... 39 4.4.2 Spill Prevention and Management ...................................................................................... 39 4.5 Specialized Construction—Waterbodies .................................................................................... 39 4.5.1 Geotechnical Soil Borings and HDD Feasibility Assessments ........................................... 47 4.5.2 Restoration at Waterbody Crossings ................................................................................... 47 4.6 Specialized Construction—Wetlands ......................................................................................... 48 4.6.1 Restoration in Wetlands ...................................................................................................... 51 4.6.2 Wetland Mitigation ............................................................................................................. 51 4.6.3 Post-Construction Wetland Monitoring .............................................................................. 51 4.7 Invasive Species Management .................................................................................................... 51 4.8 Operation, Integrity, and Emergency Response .......................................................................... 52 4.8.1 Integrity Management Program .......................................................................................... 52 4.8.2 Valve Placement ................................................................................................................. 54 4.8.3 Leak Detection .................................................................................................................... 55 4.8.4 Emergency Response .......................................................................................................... 56 Existing Environment ..................................................................................................................... 57 5.1 Air Quality and Noise ................................................................................................................. 57 5.1.1 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pipeline Investigation Report P96H0008
    PIPELINE OCCURRENCE REPORT P96H0008 CRUDE OIL PIPELINE RUPTURE INTERPROVINCIAL PIPE LINE INC. LINE 3, MILE POST 506.6830 NEAR GLENAVON, SASKATCHEWAN 27 FEBRUARY 1996 The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) investigated this occurrence for the purpose of advancing transportation safety. It is not the function of the Board to assign fault of determine civil or criminal liability. Pipeline Occurrence Report Crude Oil Pipeline Rupture Interprovincial Pipe Line Inc. Line 3, Mile Post 506.6830 Near Glenavon, Saskatchewan 27 February 1996 Report Number P96H0008 Synopsis At 0619 mountain standard time, on 27 February 1996, a rupture occurred on the Interprovincial Pipe Line Inc. 864-millimetre outside diameter pipeline designated as Line 3, at Mile Post 506.6830 near Glenavon, Saskatchewan. Approximately 800 cubic metres (m3) (5,000 barrels) of heavy crude oil was released and collected in a low-lying area near the site. Approximately 600 m3 (3,800 barrels) of heavy crude oil was recovered. The Board determined that the rupture was caused by excessive narrow, axial, external corrosion located adjacent and running parallel to the longitudinal seam weld of the pipe, which was assisted by low-pH stress corrosion cracking and was not identified through the company's ongoing pipeline integrity program called the Susceptibility Investigation Action Plan. Ce rapport est également disponible en français. 1.0 Factual Information ....................................................................................... 1 1.1 The Accident ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • OIL PIPELINE SAFETY FAILURES in CANADA Oil Pipeline Incidents, Accidents and Spills and the Ongoing Failure to Protect the Public
    OIL PIPELINE SAFETY FAILURES IN CANADA Oil pipeline incidents, accidents and spills and the ongoing failure to protect the public June 2018 OIL PIPELINE SAFETY FAILURES IN CANADA | Équiterre 2 Équiterre 50 Ste-Catherine Street West, suite 340 Montreal, Quebec H2X 3V4 75 Albert Street, suite 305 Ottawa, ON K1P 5E7 © 2018 Équiterre By Shelley Kath, for Équiterre OIL PIPELINE SAFETY FAILURES IN CANADA | Équiterre 3 TABLE DES MATIÈRES Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 A. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 6 B. Keeping Track of Pipeline Problems: The Agencies and Datasets ..................................................................10 C. Québec’s Four Oil Pipelines and their Track Records .........................................................................................15 D. Pipeline Safety Enforcement Tools and the Effectiveness Gap .......................................................................31 E. Conclusion and Recommendations .........................................................................................................................35 Appendix A .........................................................................................................................................................................37 OIL PIPELINE
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Facts About Line 5
    June 27, 2014 SUBMITTED VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Hon. Bill Schuette Hon. Dan Wyant Attorney General Director Michigan Dept. of Attorney General Michigan Department of 6th Floor G. Mennen Williams Building Environmental Quality 525 W. Ottawa Street Constitution Hall P.O. Box 30755 525 W. Allegan Street Lansing, MI 48909 P.O. Box 30473 Lansing, MI 48909 Re: Enbridge Lakehead System Line 5 Pipelines at the Straits of Mackinac Dear Attorney General Schuette and Director Wyant: Thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership’s Line 5 pipeline crossing of the Straits of Mackinac. We appreciate the dialog that has already occurred to provide some clarity and understanding in relation to the information requests that accompanied your letter of April 29, 2014. In order to fully understand the current situation and our responses to the information requests, I would like to provide some background information to you about the history of Line 5’s Straits crossing, about Enbridge’s operations, and about the significant economic benefits Enbridge’s Line 5 has brought Michigan and its citizens since it entered service in 1953. Historical Facts about Line 5 In 1953, one of the greatest pipeline engineering achievements of its time was completed with the construction of a new 30-inch pipeline from Superior, Wisconsin to Sarnia, Ontario, and also serving Michigan. One of the most notable achievements during construction of this 645-mile line was the 4.6-mile crossing of the Straits of Mackinac in up to 220 feet of water. While such a long crossing had not been attempted before, engineering specialists from Bechtel, the Department of Naval Studies of the University of Michigan, as well as specialists from Columbia University came together to address the challenge.
    [Show full text]
  • The Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Pipeline: Attitudes, Symbolism, and Geography
    Colby College Digital Commons @ Colby Honors Theses Student Research 2019 The Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Pipeline: Attitudes, Symbolism, and Geography Catherine W. Fraser Colby College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/honorstheses Part of the Environmental Studies Commons Colby College theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed or downloaded from this site for the purposes of research and scholarship. Reproduction or distribution for commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the author. Recommended Citation Fraser, Catherine W., "The Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Pipeline: Attitudes, Symbolism, and Geography" (2019). Honors Theses. Paper 963. https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/honorstheses/963 This Honors Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at Digital Commons @ Colby. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Colby. The Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Pipeline: Attitudes, Symbolism, and Geography Catherine W. Fraser Environmental Studies Program Colby College Waterville, ME May 20, 2019 A thesis submitted to the faculty of the Environmental Studies Program in partial fulfillment of the graduation requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts with honors in Environmental Studies ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ Philip Nyhus, Advisor Gail Carlson, Reader Daniel Abrahams, Reader Copyright © 2019 by the Environmental Studies Program, Colby College. All rights reserved ii ABSTRACT Oil pipelines, such as the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, are increasingly controversial and contested in the United States. Since its proposal in 2015, the Enbridge Line 3 Replacement (L3R) pipeline in Minnesota has also generated considerable debate.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Pipeline Transportation System Energy Market Assessment
    National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie CANADIAN PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ENERGY MARKET ASSESSMENT National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie National Energy Office national Board de l’énergieAPRIL 2014 National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie CANADIAN PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ENERGY MARKET ASSESSMENT National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie National Energy Office national Board de l’énergieAPRIL 2014 National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie Permission to Reproduce Materials may be reproduced for personal, educational and/or non-profit activities, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from the National Energy Board, provided that due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the information reproduced; that the National Energy Board is identified as the source institution; and that the reproduction is not represented as an official version of the information reproduced, nor as having been made in affiliation with, or with the endorsement of the National Energy Board. For permission to reproduce the information in this publication for commercial redistribution, please e-mail: [email protected] Autorisation de reproduction Le contenu de cette publication peut être reproduit à des fins personnelles, éducatives et/ou sans but lucratif, en tout ou en partie et par quelque moyen que ce soit, sans frais et sans autre permission de l’Office national de l’énergie, pourvu qu’une diligence raisonnable soit exercée afin d’assurer l’exactitude de l’information reproduite, que l’Office national de l’énergie soit mentionné comme organisme source et que la reproduction ne soit présentée ni comme une version officielle ni comme une copie ayant été faite en collaboration avec l’Office national de l’énergie ou avec son consentement.
    [Show full text]
  • Crude Oil Forecast, Markets and Pipeline Expansions
    Appendix D-4: Exhibit A-37: Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Report, Crude Oil Forecnst, Markets nlzd Pipeliize Expaizsions, Jt~i~e2007 REPORT Crude Oil Forecast, Markets and Pipeline Expansions June 2007 Background The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) represents 150 producer member companies that explore for, develop and produce natural gas, natural gas liquids, crude oil, oil sands, and elemental sulphur throughout Canada. CAPP member companies produce more than 95 percent of Canada’s natural gas and crude oil. CAPP also has 130 associate members that provide a wide range of services that support the upstream crude oil and natural gas industry. Together, these members and associate members are an important part of a $100 billion-a-year national industry that affects the livelihoods of more than half a million Canadians. Disclaimer This publication was prepared by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP). While it is believed that the information contained herein is accurate under the conditions and subject to the limitations set out, CAPP does not guarantee its accuracy. The use of this report or any information contained will be at the user’s sole risk, regardless of any fault or negligence of CAPP. 2100, 350 – 7th Ave. S.W. 403, 235 Water Street Calgary, Alberta St. John’s, Newfoundland Canada T2P 3N9 Canada A1C 1B6 Tel (403) 267-1100 Tel (709) 724-4200 Fax (403) 261-4622 Fax (709) 724-4225 Email: [email protected] Website: www.capp.ca Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Crude Oil Forecast, Markets and Pipeline Expansions 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................. 1 2 CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION AND SUPPLY FORECAST ..........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Enbridge Support Letter to the Illinois Commerce Commission
    Governor INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF NORTH DAKOTA John Hoeven Attorney General NORTH DAKOTA PIPELINE AUTHORITY Wayne Stenehjem Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson Apri122,2008 The Honorable Charles E. Box, Chairman Illinois Commerce Commission 160 N. LaSalle, Suite B-800 Chicago, IL 60601 RE: ICC Docket No. 07-0446 Enbridge Pipelines (Illinois) LLC Application for Certificate in Good Standing and other relief Dear Chairman Box: North Dakota's crude oil production is now approaching 140,000 barrels per day. There are over 60 drilling rigs currently operating in the state. This development activity continues to have positive economic impacts on our state and region. The Enbridge pipeline system is a major transporter of North Dakota-produced crude oil. Their North Dakota pipeline gathers a significant portion of our production and delivers it to Clearbrook, Minnesota. There it interconnects with other pipelines that deliver crude oil to refineries in the Midwest and South. Because the above-named project will have a direct affect on the amount of crude oil that can be shipped through Clearbrook, the North Dakota Industrial Commission, acting through it Pipeline Authority, supports Enbridge's efforts to increase the downstream capacity of its pipeline system. North Dakota has recently learned how inadequate regional pipeline capacity can become a matter of public necessity. Periods of inadequate export pipeline capacity in 2006 and 2007 led to significant crude oil price differentials in North Dakota. These price differentials reduced the income of North Dakota citizens who are royalty owners, tax revenues that support programs important to all of our citizens, and the income of North Dakota oil and gas producers by millions of dollars.
    [Show full text]
  • The Edge of Disaster for the Great Lakes
    The Edge of Disaster for the Great Lakes Near Misses from Enbridge’s Aging and Degraded Line 5 The Edge of Disaster for the Great Lakes: Near Misses from Enbridge’s Aging and Degraded Line 5 Table of Contents 3 Three Strikes and You’re Out! 4 A Failed Safety Record, Corroding Pipeline and Corroded Public Trust 5 A Lack of Supports 5 Enbridge Lacks Pipeline Integrity and Insurance 6 A Duty to Protect the Great Lakes Now 7 Achieve True Energy Security Through Alternatives 8 What You Can Do “ [T]he Coast Guard is not semper paratus [always prepared] for a major pipeline oil spill in the Great Lakes.” Admiral Paul Zukunft, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard THE EDGE OF DISASTER FOR THE GREAT LAKES 1 very day 540,0000 barrels of oil and natural gas liquids are carried along the bottom of the environ- mentally sensitive Straits of Mackinac, moving Ethrough pipelines with walls less than one inch thick. Line 5 runs 645 miles from Superior, Wisconsin to Sarnia, Ontario and was constructed in 1953 with a payment by Enbridge Energy of only $2,450 to the state of Michigan for an easement under the Straits. It is this easement agreement with the state of Michigan, which includes clear Source: University of Michigan Water Center requirements for operating the pipeline with due care, that has driven a campaign for transparency and account- ability against the operators, Enbridge Energy, to ensure unique and fragile environment of the Straits. Required that public trust in the Great Lakes is protected. This transparency has revealed that Line 5’s protective coating is report documents recent near disasters, which could have currently, or has previously been shown to be, missing in up resulted in a catastrophic spill, and are a result of poor to 47 locations, at least 16 locations have lacked the oversight and management from both Enbridge and state required structural support to hold the line safely in place, and federal agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • As a Concerned Resident of Michigan, I Am Asking That You Please Deny The
    From: Sherri Valdes To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:37:47 PM As a concerned resident of Michigan, I am asking that you please deny the application for Enbridge Energy's proposed Line 5 tunnel project under the Straits of Mackinac. We can no longer allow Enbridge to endanger our precious waterways and resources. Regards, Sherri Valdes Howell, Michigan Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. From: Deb Hansen To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Comments Regarding Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:46:52 AM RE: Case U-20763 Dear MPSC Commissioners, I am writing to ask you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to move forward with a tunnel at the Straits of Mackinac. I live near the Straits, so this is very personal for me. I do not want to see my home turned into an industrial zone to meet Canada's energy needs. I am also someone who respects the sanctity of the land and the water. The tunnel would literally be a rape of the Straits. Given the grim realities of climate destabilization, for the State of Michigan to enable a massive investment in fossil fuel infrastructure, the energies that are stealing the future of our children and grandchildren, is perverse. The construction of a tunnel not maintenance as suggested. This tactic is an industry strategy that's been proven successful in skirting legal protections. We saw that after Enbridge's dilbit spill on the Kalamazoo River.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of a Line 5 Shutdown
    Line 1, 2B, 3, 4, 65, 67 Gretnana Montreal Line 1, 2B, 3, 4, 67 Superior Line 5 Clearbrook Line 9 Lewiston Line 7 Toronto Line 6, 14, 61 Line 10 Line 78 Westover Kiantone Stockbridge Nanticoke Delevan Sarnia CanadianLine Mainline 11 Lockport Lakehead System (U.S. Mainline) Line 64 Mokena Toledo EnbridgeLine Pipelines 79 (Joint Ownership) Other Enbridge Lines Manhattan Grith/Hartsdale Line 55 Enbridge Crude Oil Storage Flanagan City/TownLine 17 Salisbury Patoka Line 62 The impactWood River of a Line 5 shutdown Enbridge’s Line 5 has been a vital Enbridge’s Line 5 is a 645-mile, 30-inch- • Michigan would face a 756,000-US-gallons- piece of energy infrastructure diameter pipeline that travels through Michigan’s a-day propane supply shortage, since there since 1953—not just for Michigan, Upper and Lower Peninsulas—originating in are no short-term alternatives for transporting but for the entire U.S. Midwest and Superior, Wisconsin, and terminating in Sarnia, NGL to market. Ontario, Canada. points beyond. • The region (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Line 5 transports up to 540,000 barrels per day Ontario and Quebec) would see a For more than 65 years, Line 5 has (bpd), or 22.68 million US gallons per day, of light 14.7-million-US-gallons-a-day supply delivered the light oil and natural crude oil, light synthetic crude and natural gas shortage of gas, diesel and jet fuel (about liquids (NGLs), which are refined into propane. 45% of current supply). gas liquids (NGL) that heat homes and businesses, fuel vehicles and Line 5 supplies 65% of propane demand • Michigan would need to find an alternative in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, and 55% of supply for anywhere from 4.2 million to power industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Michigan Crude Oil Production: Alternatives to Enbridge Line 5 for Transportation
    MICHIGAN CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION: ALTERNATIVES TO ENBRIDGE LINE 5 FOR TRANSPORTATION Prepared for National Wildlife Federation By London Economics International LLC 717 Atlantic Ave, Suite 1A Boston, MA, 02111 August 23, 2018 Michigan crude oil production: Alternatives to Enbridge Line 5 for transportation Prepared by London Economics International LLC August 23, 2018 London Economics International LLC (“LEI”) was retained by the National Wildlife Federation (“NWF”) via a grant from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, to examine alternatives to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (“Enbridge”) Line 5 for crude oil producers in Michigan. About sixty-five percent of the crude oil produced in Michigan currently uses Enbridge Line 5 to reach markets. This production is located in the Northern and Central regions of the Lower Peninsula. Oil production from the Southern region of the Lower Peninsula does not use Enbridge Line 5 to reach markets. LEI’s key findings are that the lowest-cost alternative to Enbridge Line 5 would be trucking from oil wells to the Marysville market area. LEI estimates that the increase in transportation cost to oil producers in the Northern region would be $1.31 per barrel based on recent oil production levels and recent trucking costs. For the Central region, the cost increase on average would be less, as these producers are located closer to markets. There would be no impact on Southern region producers. The $1.31 per barrel cost increase amounts to 2.6 percent of a crude oil price of $50 per barrel. It is much smaller than typical monthly swings in Michigan crude oil prices, which have ranged from $28 per barrel to over $100 per barrel from 2014 through 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Enbridge Profile
    Out on the Tar Sands Mainline Mapping Enbridge’s Web of Pipelines A Corporate Profile of Pipeline Company Enbridge By Richard Girard, Polaris Institute Research Coordinator with Contributions from Tanya Roberts Davis Out on the Tar Sands Mainline: Mapping Enbridge’s Dirty Web of Pipelines May 2010 (partially updated, March 2012). The Polaris Institute The Polaris Institute is a public interest research and advocacy organization based in Canada. Since 1999 Polaris has been dedicated to developing tools and strategies for civic action on major public policy issues, including energy security, water rights and free trade. Polaris Institute 180 Metcalf Street, Suite 500 Ottawa, ON K2P 1P5 Phone : 613-237-1717 Fax: 613-237-3359 Email: [email protected] www.polarisinstitute.org For more information on the Polaris Institute’s energy campaign please visit www.tarsandswatch.org Table of Contents Foreword ......................................................................................................................... iv Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................3 1. Organizational Profile ...................................................................................................5 1.1 Enbridge’s Business Structure ....................................................................................5 1.1.1 Liquids
    [Show full text]