Oil & Water: Natural Forces, Lax Laws Responsible for River Pipeline Spills

St. Croix River headwaters could be affected by powerful rivers and weak oversight.

By

/

/

6 minute read

This story was reported in partnership between St. Croix 360 and the Osceola Sun/Country Messenger. 

[soliloquy id=”10646″]

Map of Line 61 pipeline's route across the St. Croix River headwatersThe roads don’t often go straight in northwest Wisconsin. They twist around wetlands, ponds, lakes, and rivers, making it a little tricky to find where the Line 61 oil pipeline crosses the St. Croix River and its tributaries. One might end up thigh-high in mucky cattail stands while hiking to river crossings, where brightly-colored posts stick out of the ground on either bank. There is no other sign of the river of oil flowing underfoot. Fish swim, birds feed, the water slips ceaselessly past.

By next year, there will be 50 million gallons of heavy crude per day flowing through the pipeline beneath the St. Croix River and its tributaries the Eau Claire, the Totogatic, the Namekagon, and all the countless creeks, ponds, and wetlands that flow into them.

River crossings are particularly risky for pipelines. A spill in moving water is many times more difficult to contain and clean up than on dry land, and the power of rivers increases the chance of a rupture.

Two oil pipelines have ruptured in the Yellowstone River in the past five years, together spilling more than 100,000 gallons of oil. Both breaks were blamed on the pipeline being exposed when the water carried away the soils that covered the pipe in the river. After that happened, floating debris and rushing water damaged the pipes and they ruptured.

Less than one percent of the oil spill in both incidents was collected.

Clean-up ‘virtually impossible’

Clean-up is never very successful, according to spill response leader Paul Peronard of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “In good conditions, you get half the oil that hits the water,” he told VICE News in its recent “Pipeline Nation” documentary. Prevention is paramount.

“Since it is virtually impossible to clean up oil once it’s spilled into our waterways, our focus must be on spill prevention,” Scott Bosse of the nonprofit advocacy group American Rivers wrote after the Yellowstone River spill in January of this year.  He pointed to burying pipelines deeper under rivers as a “common sense” step necessary to avoid the hazards of scour.

Oil recovery workers  on the Yellowstone River in January 2015.
Oil recovery workers on the Yellowstone River in January 2015. (Via Poplar Pipeline Response)

In a petition, American Rivers said burial depth regulations are “woefully inadequate.” Currently, federal law requires that under rivers 100 feet or wider, pipes must be buried four feet beneath the bottom. Under narrower rivers, there is no depth requirement. There is also no requirement that pipes remain buried after they are installed, although if a spill happens and the company failed to consider exposure, they can be fined.

According to Enbridge, when Line 61 was constructed in 2007 and 2008, it was buried “greater than five feet” deep under the St. Croix, Eau Claire, and Namekagon. Under the Totogatic, smaller than 100 feet, and a designated Wisconsin Wild River, Line 61 and the other pipelines in the corridor were buried “from near the surface to approximately two feet deep.”

The science of scour

The usual way to determine if that is deep enough to prevent exposure is to perform a scour analysis, looking at the river’s ability to dig down into its bed at the spot the pipeline crosses under it. Such studies take into account how much water is moving down the river at what speed, whether the bed is sand or gravel or rock, and most importantly, the 100-year flood level. Most major scour and pipeline damage occurs because of extreme flood events.

If those calculations showed the potential for greater scour than the legally-required burial depth, the pipe should be buried deeper.

“A prudent analysis would be that they do a scour analysis, and take the greater of the two depths,” said Dr. David Williams, a hydrologic engineer from Colorado who helps design pipeline river crossings. He said scour analysis is standard for pipeline crossings of medium to large rivers.

According to Enbridge spokesperson Becky Haase, Enbridge does not perform scour studies or flood analyses on the waterways its pipelines cross.

“There may be analysis of this completed during construction phases [so] specific erosion-control protections can be installed,” she wrote in an email, “but it is not done for our operational pipelines.”

If a pipe is exposed, the company might notice the problem during a visual inspection. Enbridge patrols by air every two weeks, said Haase, and on-the-ground patrols are at least that frequent, especially during floods.

Or it might not. The root-beer colored waters of these rivers could easily hide an exposed pipe until damage had already occurred.

“Pipeline scour is one of those things that has unknown potential,” Williams said. “Because you can have pipelines that are exposed and you never know it.”

Improved Enbridge efforts

This "dual-diameter pig," an inline inspection tool with ultrasonic capabilities, has been developed by Enbridge and Germany's NDT Global through a $4.4-million investment and years of design and testing.
This “dual-diameter pig,” an inline inspection tool with ultrasonic capabilities, has been developed by Enbridge and Germany’s NDT Global through a $4.4-million investment and years of design and testing. (Via Enbridge Energy)

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration [PHMSA, pronounced “fim-sa”], requires pipe assessments in environmentally sensitive areas just once every five years. But it suggests pipeline operators patrol more regularly, checking for exposed sections of pipe and other problems along their lines. Although Haase said Enbridge checks Line 61 regularly, the company did not answer questions about the specific dates or findings of last patrols.

Haase emphasized that Enbridge has improved its efforts toward spill prevention since diluted bitumen from one of its pipes spilled into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River in 2010, the largest inland oil spill in American history.

“Since that day, Enbridge has completely overhauled its system with technological advances,” said Haase.

The company has increased the number of computer sensors, known as “smart pigs,” running through the pipes to check for corrosion, cracks, or other damage. That increase has led to a higher number of visual inspections and digs to check the integrity of pipes and repair them if needed.

Muddy waters

When it comes to pipe corrosion, the culprit in the Kalamazoo spill, Enbridge seems to have learned from its mistakes. But has it learned from the mistakes of others, especially when it comes to the river-specific risk of scour?

Only Enbridge really knows. The responsibility for assessing and handling risks along lines is left almost entirely up to the company, with few concrete standards.

“PHMSA’s regulations are written to say that the operator is responsible for protecting sensitive areas from failure of pipeline,” said Rebecca Craven of the Pipeline Safety Trust, a nonprofit watchdog group.

To illustrate, she cited a metaphor that circulates among staff at the trust. If pipeline operators were drivers and PHMSA regulations were speed limit signs, drivers passing through would not see numbered limits. They’d see a smiley face.

“It says, ‘Just don’t mess up,’” said Craven.

A PHMSA spokesperson wrote in an email that the agency does not have “specific records for each pipeline they inspect,” but would have inspected the pipeline after construction to ensure it met the four feet depth-of-cover requirement. With only about 120 inspectors for millions of miles of pipeline, the federal government is limited in what it can do.

The state and counties could help, by requiring key information about pipeline safety be publicly reported. Currently, Enbridge is not obligated to release specific information about patrol dates, findings, or depth of cover. Neither the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources nor PHMSA could report how deeply Line 61 had been buried. Depth of cover was not mentioned in the environmental assessment conducted before the pipeline was built in 2006.

Stewardship of special rivers

IMG_7146
The clear waters of the Eau Claire River.

The town of Gordon sits at the confluence of the Eau Claire and St. Croix Rivers. The Eau Claire lives up to its name, and is one of the few rivers in the area that is perfectly transparent, fed mostly by springs, not wetlands. Line 61 flows under it just above the town.

Gordon resident Bob Gile can recall the first fish his granddaughter caught from the DNR dock on the St. Croix River a couple years ago. “I would hate to see the rivers degraded to the point where that couldn’t happen for another little girl,” he said.

Before moving to the area 15 years ago, he continued, “I had never seen rivers that you could see all the way to bottom in, no matter what the depth. If that is lost, it will be more than a tragedy.”

Community Forum – May 14th, 2015

A community forum this week about the Line 61 pipeline will feature experts from around the country and the state, including an Enbridge Energy representative. They will present information and answer questions:

Line 61 Public Forum
May 14th, 2015 – 7 p.m. (Doors open at 6 p.m.)
Spooner High School Auditorium
801 County Highway A, Spooner, WI

The forum is sponsored by the St. Croix River Association, St. Croix 360, and the Washburn County Lakes and Rivers Association. More information here.


Comments

St. Croix 360 offers commenting to support productive discussion. We don’t allow name-calling, personal attacks, or misinformation. This discussion may be heavily moderated and we reserve the right to block nonconstructive comments. Please: Be kind, give others the benefit of the doubt, read the article closely, check your assumptions, and stay curious. Thank you!

“Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge. It requires no accountability, no understanding. The highest form of knowledge is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another’s world.” – Bill Bullard

3 responses to “Oil & Water: Natural Forces, Lax Laws Responsible for River Pipeline Spills”

  1. Harlyn Rohr Avatar
    Harlyn Rohr

    Minnesota is struggling with Enbridge over it’s fraudulent Federal Approval of the pipeline which extends to the Saint Croix ! Enbridge is a KNOWN bad actor , why do any business with them period ! Any spill will be impossible to clean up , just ask Michigan . Harlyn Rohr

  2. Roger Eberhart Avatar
    Roger Eberhart

    Why does it have to go under the river. Is that the best plan?

  3. Harlyn Rohr Avatar
    Harlyn Rohr

    The main purpose of the expanded Enbridge Pipeline is for Canadian Tar Sands Oil the WORST KIND OF HEAVY OIL , meaning the hardest to clean up . Wisconsin should support every effort by Minnesota Agencies and Citizen Groups to expose and curtail or stop Enbridge in their fraudulent pursuit of profits at the expense of our natural and otherwise pristine environment which will be FOREVER DAMAGED in the event of a spill !

REPUBLISHING TERMS

You may republish this article online or in print under our Creative Commons license. You may not edit or shorten the text, you must attribute the article to St. Croix 360 and you must include the author’s name in your republication.

If you have any questions, please email greg@stcroix360.com

License

Creative Commons License Attribution-ShareAlikeCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
Oil & Water: Natural Forces, Lax Laws Responsible for River Pipeline Spills