EPA questions Enbridge air monitoring work

Enbridge Energy may be violating its Kalamazoo River oil spill cleanup agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by submitting incomplete air sampling data, the EPA says in a document it released to the public accidentally.

Canadian tar sands crude covered a 30 mile long stretch of the Kalamazoo River system last summer after the company’s Lakehead pipeline ruptured in Marshall. The spill triggered headaches, nausea and other health problems for hundreds of nearby residents and local health officials recommended evacuation because of high levels of benzene in the air.

Despite a year’s worth of federally-supervised cleanup activities, 200 acres of river bottom remain covered with tarry oil deposits.

Amid heavy rains and high temperatures this spring residents complained of intensified oil odors along the river and EPA ordered Enbridge to strengthen its air monitoring.

In a July 20 Notice of Potential Non-Compliance Federal On-Scene Coordinator and Incident Commander Ralph Dollhopf notified Enbridge VP Rich Adams that the company has failed to submit required data about weather conditions in areas where it is testing the air for toxins.

Specifically, comprehensive meteorological data from Enbridge’s two portable meteorological (MET) stations have not been submitted to the U.S. EPA. The approved Plan specifically required the use of two portable MET stations to collect “more time-resolved meteorological data than the once-hourly National Weather System (“NWS”) observations.” … The Plan allowed for meteorological data to be obtained from the NWS in other areas outside of the Ceresco Dam and Baker Estates areas where the MET stations were placed or in the event portable station data were not available.

Based on U.S. EPA’s review of the information submitted to date, it appears that Enbridge used the NWS data as the only source of meteorological data during air sampling and monitoring. Further, it appears that Enbridge’s portable MET stations operated for short time periods or provided non-representative wind data and provided non-continuous data.

Dollhopf told Enbridge to provide a written explanation of the company’s failure to provide wind data. When contacted by the Michigan Messenger, however, the EPA said the document had been inadvertently posted to the agency’s website and had not yet been sent to Enbridge because it was not in its final form.

The concentration of airborne toxins is affected by weather conditions and detailed local weather data gives EPA a way to verify when and where sampling occurred.

The missing weather data is not the only problem EPA has found with Enbridge cleanup operations this summer. In June the company was cited for failing to prevent the spread of oil. In a June 27 letter EPA’s Dollhopf wrote that Enbridge had violated the terms of its Administrative Order with the agency.

U.S. EPA oversight personnel observed and documented the discharge of sediment and oil sheen generated by submerged oil recovery operations in Talmadge Creek to the Kalamazoo River. The amount of containment boom and sediment curtain at the confluence and the frequency of monitoring were insufficient to contain oil, sheen, and sediment at the time of the discharge.

Whether either violation leads to punitive action against the company remains to be seen. Enbridge is still facing potential criminal charges for the oil spill itself and multiple lawsuits from local residents.

Todd Heywood contributed to this report