July, 27 2012, 10:28am EDT
Scathing Report Outlines Enbridge's Failures in the Nation's Largest and Most Expensive Onshore Tar Sands Spill
Report Reveals Parallel Spill Threats to Dallas-Fort Worth Water Supplies as Enbridge Prepares to Transport Toxic Canadian Tar Sands through Seaway Pipeline
WASHINGTON
A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report slamming pipeline operator Enbridge Inc. for mishandling a 2010 Michigan tar sands spill should serve as a cautionary note to regulators assessing the company's plans to transport tar sands oil through Texas, Public Citizen said today.
In the preliminary report, titled "Pipeline Rupture and Oil Spill Accident Caused by Organizational Failures and Weak Regulations," the NTSB made scathing re-marks regarding Enbridge's response to a spill on the Kalamazoo River.
The Michigan spill occurred on July 25, 2010, from an aging, 41-year old pipeline that had been repurposed for tar sands crude. Despite the company's highly touted computerized monitoring system, the spill continued for more than 17 hours until a local utility worker discovered the leaking crude and contacted Enbridge. The 80-inch pipeline rupture resulted in an estimated 880,000 to 1.1 million gallons of tar sands crude contaminating more than 35 miles of the Kalamazoo, forcing local residents to evacuate.
Enbridge and Enterprise Partners Inc., are now completing pumping stations to transport large volumes of dilbit or tar sands crude from Cushing, Okla., to Texas Gulf Coast refineries through an aging, 36-year old pipeline near the Dallas-Fort Worth area called Seaway. The pipeline crosses upstream tributaries leading to Lake Lavon, Cedar Creek Reservoir and two segments of Richland Chambers Lake. All are major water supplies for the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
The integrity of the pipeline should be closely examined, and the state should ensure that the company's emergency response plan is adequate, Public Citizen said.
According to the NTSB, cost estimates for cleaning up this two-year old Michigan spill by Enbridge total more than $800 million, making it the "largest and most expensive onshore spill in U.S. history." On July 2, federal regulators proposed a $3.7 million civil penalty against Enbridge, which would be the largest fine the agency has imposed.
In the report, NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman said the Michigan spill illustrated a "complete breakdown of safety at Enbridge." She noted that:
* Enbridge had known the line was cracked and corroded since 2005 but failed for more than five years to take any corrective measures to ensure pipeline integrity prior to the 2010 spill.
* "Despite multiple alarms and a loss of pressure in the pipeline, for more than 17 hours and through three shifts, they failed to follow their own shutdown procedures."
* "Their employees performed like Keystone Kops and failed to recognize their pipeline had ruptured and continued to pump crude into the environment."
"Texas officials should take note: Canadian tar sands are pipelines of poison," said Tom "Smitty" Smith, director of Public Citizen's Texas office. "This material contains high levels of toxic benzene, hydrogen sulfide, and heavy metals. The day after the Michigan spill, the benzene levels were off the charts at levels thousands of times higher than federal safety limits. More than 300 individuals suffered health effects related to the spill, and many still feel sick today. Only recently, after two years of clean up, have tributaries of the Kalamazoo started to reopen.
"The Canadian tar sands crude that Enbridge will be transporting near or through Dallas-Fort Worth water supplies is not unlike the crude transported in Michigan -- it's highly acidic, corrosive and toxic," Smith said. "When this unique type of crude hits water, the lighter elements of benzene and hydrogen sulfide go airborne, and the heavier crude components sink like a stone. It's like paving a creek or waterway. It's very difficult to clean up."
Added Rita Beving, a Dallas resident and tar sands consultant for several cities fighting TransCanada's new pipeline, "The Enbridge spill is a cautionary tale which Dallas-Fort Worth officials and water suppliers need to take seriously. We cannot afford to have Dallas residents evacuated or our region's water supplies rendered unusable.
"We need our local officials and state legislators to demand a more thorough review of this pipeline's integrity before Canadian dilbit is allowed to be transported through it. Officials need to assess the Seaway's emergency response plan to deem whether it is adequate in case a spill occurs," added Beving. "Finally, Enbridge plans to pair the pipeline with a parallel segment, and there should be an environmental assessment of the impacts of an additional pipeline along this route."
The Michigan spill, coupled with the NTSB report, are just the latest accounts in a long line of disturbing reports in Enbridge's failure to act as a responsible pipeline operator.
Enbridge has a long history of violations, including the following in less than a five-year span:
* 2006: Enbridge fined for failure to properly monitor internal corrosion and perform maintenance procedures in Houma, La.
* 2007: Two Enbridge employees were killed when repairs on the same Lakehead Line B system in Minnesota caused leaking crude to ignite.
* 2009: Enbridge fined for failure to inspect in-service breakout tanks.
* 2010: U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline Haz!ardous Material Safety Administration (PHSMA) fines Enbridge $2.4 million in civil penalties after the Kalamazoo spill in Michigan
"This damning NTSB report should be a wakeup call that the Michigan story could be duplicated with the same company in our backyard with a pipeline almost the same age," Beving added. "Moreover, the federal agency that investigated this spill has acknowledged that there are not adequate safeguards in place to protect water or the public should another such tar sands spill occur."
As a result of the investigation, the NTSB found that Enbridge had not put in place adequate safety measures and deemed federal standards insufficient to protect the public and environment. The agency issued more than 17 safety recommendations to PHSMA, which oversees pipeline standards, as well as to Enbridge Incorpo!rated, the American Petroleum Institute, the International Association of Fire Chiefs and the National Emer!gency Number Association.
The recommendations call for an audit of PHMSA's onshore pipeline facility response plan and an allocation of adequate resources to ensure such a response plan is sufficient. Recommendations also called for improved inspections, assessment and reporting of pipeline problems by industry; better notification and corrective proce!dures; extended qualification requirements and better pipeline control staff training; and improved notification and enhanced response training for spill emergency responders.
"This accident is a wake-up call to industry, the regulator and the public. Enbridge knew for years that this section of pipeline was vulnerable yet they didn't act on that information," said the NTSB's Hersman. "Likewise, for the regulator to delegate too much authority to the regulated to assess their own system risks and correct them is tantamount to the fox guarding the hen house. Regulators need regulations and practices with teeth, and the resources to enable them to take corrective action before a spill. Not just after."
The NTSB report summary, including the probable cause, findings and list of the safety recommendations, is available at https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2012/PAR1201.pdf . The NTSB's full report will be available on its website in the next several weeks.
A map of the Seaway Pipeline route is available at https://seawaypipeline.com/pdfs/Web_SeawayProjectMap_12-28-11.pdf.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
Booze Hound! Lina Khan, Not Done Yet, Targets Nation's Largest Alcohol Seller
"The FTC is doing what our government should be doing: using every tool possible to make life better for everyday Americans," said one advocate.
Dec 12, 2024
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Thursday sued Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, alleging that the nation's largest alcohol distributor, "violated the Robinson-Patman Act, harming small, independent businesses by depriving them of access to discounts and rebates, and impeding their ability to compete against large national and regional chains."
The FTC said its complaint details how the Florida-based company "is engaged in anticompetitive and unlawful price discrimination" by "selling wine and spirits to small, independent 'mom-and-pop' businesses at prices that are drastically higher" than what it charges large chain retailers, "with dramatic price differences that provide insurmountable advantages that far exceed any real cost efficiencies for the same bottles of wine and spirits."
The suit comes as FTC Chair Lina Khan's battle against "corporate greed" is nearing its end, with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump announcing Tuesday that he plans to elevate Andrew Ferguson to lead the agency.
Emily Peterson-Cassin, director of corporate power at Demand Progress Education Fund, said Thursday that "instead of heeding bad-faith calls to disarm before the end of the year, the FTC is taking bold, needed action to fight back against monopoly power that's raising prices."
"By suing Southern Glazer under the Robinson-Patman Act, a law that has gone unenforced for decades, the FTC is doing what our government should be doing: using every tool possible to make life better for everyday Americans," she added.
According to the FTC:
Under the Robinson-Patman Act, it is generally illegal for sellers to engage in price discrimination that harms competition by charging higher prices to disfavored retailers that purchase similar goods. The FTC's case filed today seeks to ensure that businesses of all sizes compete on a level playing field with equivalent access to discounts and rebates, which means increased consumer choice and the ability to pass on lower prices to consumers shopping across independent retailers.
"When local businesses get squeezed because of unfair pricing practices that favor large chains, Americans see fewer choices and pay higher prices—and communities suffer," Khan said in a statement. "The law says that businesses of all sizes should be able to compete on a level playing field. Enforcers have ignored this mandate from Congress for decades, but the FTC's action today will help protect fair competition, lower prices, and restore the rule of law."
The FTC noted that, with roughly $26 billion in revenue from wine and spirits sales to retail customers last year, Southern is the 10th-largest privately held company in the United States. The agency said its lawsuit "seeks to obtain an injunction prohibiting further unlawful price discrimination by Southern against these small, independent businesses."
"When Southern's unlawful conduct is remedied, large corporate chains will face increased competition, which will safeguard continued choice which can create markets that lower prices for American consumers," FTC added.
Southern Glazer's published a statement calling the FTC lawsuit "misguided and legally flawed" and claiming it has not violated the Robinson-Patman Act.
"Operating in the highly competitive alcohol distribution business, we offer different levels of discounts based on the cost we incur to sell different quantities to customers and make all discount levels available to all eligible retailers, including chain stores and small businesses alike," the company said.
Peterson-Cassin noted that the new suit "follows a massive court victory for the FTC on Tuesday in which a federal judge blocked a $25 billion grocery mega-merger after the agency sued," a reference to the proposed Kroger-Albertsons deal.
"The FTC has plenty of fight left and so should all regulatory agencies," she added, alluding to the return of Trump, whose first administration saw
relentless attacks on federal regulations. "We applaud the FTC and Chair Lina Khan for not letting off the gas in the race to protect American consumers and we strongly encourage all federal regulators to do the same while there's still time left."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Senate Prepares for NDAA Vote, Progressive Caucus Says It Is 'Past Time' to Slash Pentagon Budget
"This legislation on balance moves our country and our national priorities in the wrong direction," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
Dec 12, 2024
As Senate Democrats prepared to move forward with a procedural vote on the annual defense budget package that passed in the House earlier this week, the Congressional Progressive Caucus outlined its objections to the legislation and called for the Pentagon budget to be cut, with military funding freed up to "reinvest in critical human needs."
CPC Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said following the passage of the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2025 (H.R. 5009) that "it should alarm every American taxpayer that we are nearing a trillion-dollar annual budget for an agency rampant with waste, fraud, and abuse."
Jayapal, who was one of 140 lawmakers to oppose the package, emphasized that the Pentagon has failed seven consecutive annual audits.
Despite being the only federal agency to never have passed a federal audit, said Jayapal, the Department of Defense "continues to receive huge boosts to funding every year. Our constituents deserve better."
As Common Dreams reported last month, more than half of the department's annual budget now goes to military contractors that consistently overcharge the government, contributing to the Pentagon's inability to fully account for trillions of taxpayer dollars.
The $883.7 billion legislation that was advanced by the House on Wednesday would pour more money into the Pentagon's coffers. The package includes more than $500 million in Israeli military aid and two $357 million nuclear-powered attack submarine despite the Pentagon requesting only one, and would cut more than $621 million from President Joe Biden's budget request for climate action initiatives.
Jayapal noted that the legislation—which was passed with the support of 81 Democrats and 200 Republicans—also includes anti-transgender provisions, barring the children of military service members from receiving gender-affirming healthcare in "the first federal statute targeting LGBTQ people since the 1990s when Congress adopted 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and the Defense of Marriage Act."
"This dangerous bigotry cannot be tolerated, let alone codified into federal law," said Jayapal.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday that the legislation "has some very good things we Democrats wanted in it, it has some bad things we wouldn't have put in there, and some things that were left out," and indicated that he had filed cloture for the first procedural vote on the NDAA.
The vote is expected to take place early next week, and 60 votes are needed to begin debate on the package.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a longtime critic of exorbitant U.S. military spending, said in a floor speech on Wednesday that he plans to vote no on the budget.
"While middle-class and working-class families are struggling to survive, we supposedly just don't have the financial resources to help them," he said. "We just cannot afford to build more housing, we just cannot afford to provide quality childcare to our kids or to support public education, or to provide healthcare to all."
"But when the military industrial complex and all of their well-paid lobbyists come marching in to Capitol Hill," he continued, "somehow or another, there is more than enough money for Congress to provide them with virtually everything that they need."
Jayapal noted that the funding package includes substantive pay raises for service members and new investments in housing, healthcare, childcare, and other support for their families.
"Progressives will always fight to increase pay for our service members and ensure that our veterans are well taken care of," said Jayapal. "However, this legislation on balance moves our country and our national priorities in the wrong direction."
By cutting military spending, she said, the federal government could invest in the needs of all Americans, not just members of the military, "without sacrificing our national security or service member wages."
"It's past time we stop padding the pockets of price gouging military contractors who benefit from corporate consolidation," said Jayapal, "and reallocate that money to domestic needs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Urge Biden to Limit Presidential Authority to Launch Nuclear War Before Trump Takes Charge
"As Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office, it is more important than ever to take the power to start a nuclear war out of the hands of a single individual and ensure that Congress's constitutional role is respected and fulfilled," wrote Sen. Edward Markey and Rep. Ted Lieu.
Dec 12, 2024
Two Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden Thursday, urging him to place more checks on potential nuclear weapons use by mandating that a president must obtain authorization from Congress before initiating a nuclear first strike.
The letter writers, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), argue that "such a policy would provide clear directives for the military to follow: A president could order a nuclear launch only if (1) Congress had approved the decision, providing a constitutional check on executive power or (2) the United States had already been attacked with a nuclear weapon. This would be infinitely safer than our current doctrine."
The two write that time is of the essence: "As Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office, it is more important than ever to take the power to start a nuclear war out of the hands of a single individual and ensure that Congress's constitutional role is respected and fulfilled."
The Constitution vests Congress, not the president, with the power to declare war (though presidents have used military force without getting the OK from Congress on multiple occasions in modern history, according to the National Constitution Center).
During the Cold War, when nuclear weapons policy was produced, speed was seen as essential to deterrence, according to Jon Wolfsthal, the director of global risk at the Federation of American Scientists, who wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post last year that makes a similar argument to Markey and Lieu.
"There is no reason today to rely on speedy decision-making during situations in which the United States might launch first. Even as relations with Moscow are at historic lows, we are worlds removed from the Cold War's dominant knife's-edge logic," he wrote.
While nuclear tensions today may not be quite as high as they were during the apex of the Cold War, fears of nuclear confrontation have been heightened due to poor relations between the United States and Russia over the ongoing war in Ukraine, among other issues. Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree lowering the threshold for potential nuclear weapons use not long after the U.S. greenlit Ukraine's use of U.S.-supplied long range weapons in its fight against Russia.
This is not the first time Markey and Lieu have pushed for greater guardrails on nuclear first-use. The two are the authors of the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act, a proposed bill first introduced in 2017 that would bar a U.S. president from launching a nuclear first strike without the consent of Congress.
"We first introduced this act during the Obama administration not as a partisan effort, but to make the larger point that current U.S. policy, which gives the president sole authority to launch nuclear weapons without any input from Congress, is dangerous," they wrote.
In their letter, Markey and Lieu also recount an episode from the first Trump presidency when, shortly after the January 6 insurrection, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley ordered his staff to come to him if they received a nuclear strike order from Trump.
But Milley's ability to intervene was limited, according to Lieu and Markey, because his role is advisory and "the president can unilaterally make a launch decision and implement it directly without informing senior leaders." They argue this episode is a sign that the rules themselves must change.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular