By Kim McDarison
Emotions were high last Wednesday after Enbridge representatives gave a presentation to members of the Jefferson County Local Emergency Planning Committee.
The presentation, given by Enbridge Technical Supervisor John Schwart and Enbridge Senior Environment Advisor with the company’s US Environment Remediation division Karl Beaster, focused on a chronology of events surrounding a chemical spill associated with the company’s Line 13, which runs through Jefferson County near Fort Atkinson.
The spill, which occurred in 2019, came to the public’s attention earlier this year after members of the Jefferson County Local Emergency Planning Committee learned that a product called diluent, used to thin petroleum products as they travel through pipelines, had been released in a larger quantity than the company had earlier reported.
Enbridge officials, in earlier correspondence with members of the committee, noted that they initially believed the volume of product that was released near the pipeline was small, about 1.35 gallons, which would not have necessitated a spill report to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
In investigating the source of the spill, according to Enbridge representatives, it was determined that it was much larger than initially reported, closer to 1,218 gallons, which would have required a notification to the DNR. The miscalculation, the company has said in explanation, caused a gap of approximately 15 months between the time the spill occurred and the time in which it was reported.
Expressing its own concern with the reporting gap, the DNR issued a letter to Enbridge requesting an “Enforcement Teleconference,” which was set for May 17.
In the letter, the DNR noted, as a consequence of alleged reporting violations, the company could be fined as much as $5,000 per day for each day the spill went unreported.
After the teleconference, Enbridge submitted to Fort Atkinson Online a letter to the editor (which was published May 19 and can be read in its entirety here) and a statement, which read: “Enbridge representatives met with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) … to discuss the sequence of events around the discovery, investigation and remediation of a release of light hydrocarbon on Line 13 near Fort Atkinson which occurred in 2019. Discussion focused on the investigation, excavation and monitoring that has taken place to date as well as the Supplemental Site Investigation Work Plan and the Interim Action Work Plan for monitoring and remediating the site that will be implemented upon agency approval. The WDNR has indicated it will issue a follow-up letter within a few weeks.”
Both proposals from Enbridge have been made available for viewing on the DNR’s Bureau for Remediation and Redevelopment Tracking System (BRRTS) website (Proposals are found here: https://dnr.wi.gov/botw/Search.do, enter Enbridge and Jefferson County to complete the search).
During Wednesday’s meeting, Schwart and Beaster sought to recreate steps taken by Enbridge after an employee, making a routine inspection in the area in April of 2019, “caught a whiff of a fume,” Schwart said.
The chronology
According to Schwart, after the employee detected the fume, investigations led to the discovery of a release from the company’s diluent line located near Blackhawk Island Road.
Schwart described steps taken by the company to identify the source of the spill, including contacting We Energies, whom, he said, had a natural gas line in the vicinity. Ultimately, he said, Enbridge engaged a third-party environmental consultant. Soil bore samples taken in May of 2019 “characterized contaminants that were similar to our diluent that we transported in line 13,” he said.
Schwart said the release was located using a compound that changes colors when it is exposed to hydrocarbons.
“And that’s how we found the release on this small-diameter elbow. This release was not on the main line; the main line has had integrity the whole time. This was on a 3/4-inch pipeline similar to what you have in your home for your plumbing,” he said.
At the time of its discovery, Schwart said, the release was thought to be of about 1.35 gallons.
An elbow on the 3/4-inch pipe was removed, a valve to release pressure and a plug to stop the leak was installed.
In May, 2019, he said additional laboratory analysis was conducted and it was determined that some chemical contamination from the spill existed in the soil. An excavation process was performed to remove the materials and in early June, 2019, a maintenance report was filed and a new elbow was installed.
Beaster noted that his involvement at the site began when the company realized there had been a release.
“What I really want to make clear today is that we never walked away from the site. When we realized there was an issue, from Day 1, when the personal gas monitor went off on the individual who was doing the routine site inspections, we continued to go after the site … to figure out what was going on,” he said.
Beaster described a process of reoccurring analysis and data collection cycles at the site used to determine and isolate any chemical materials remaining in the soil. When product was detected, he said, the soil was excavated.
While traces of product were small, he said, the company wanted to remove what remained, but COVID-19 interrupted the process.
When travel restrictions were removed, he said, Enbridge employees returned to the site in July of 2020, at which time, he said, they “confirmed the impacts to groundwater, and when that was confirmed, we immediately reported it to DNR.
“So Enbridge reported this release to DNR. It was not reported by a third party or by news media, or anybody else. Enbridge took that initiative; we did what we were supposed to do.”
Beaster continued: “Since then, we have worked very closely with DNR on completing our site investigation, which was completed in August and September of 2020. That included sampling the nearest potable wells to the site … and those showed no detections. Upon submitting all of this information to the DNR in January of 2021, they reviewed that data and came back with some additional requirements, that we have since fulfilled or will fulfill and be following up with very soon. And that included the more site-wide, regional potable wells sampling that we performed within 1,500 feet of the site. The requirement is 1,200 feet. We extended it to 1,500, because one of the property owners had a couple wells that fell just outside of that radius.”
Sampling of wells taken in 2021 have come back “non-detect for (Volatile Organic Compounds) VOCs,” which, Beaster said, “is the required list of parameters. All of those results were also immediately shared with each of the individual property owners, and the state DNR.”
The company has submitted a Supplemental Site Investigation Work Plan, which, Beaster said, was required by the DNR, and an Interim Action Work Plan. Both plans, once they are approved by the DNR, will be executed in the coming weeks and months, he added.
Sharing with committee members lessons learned, Schwart said: “We’ve been working to ensure that the site is remediated … and we never stepped away from the site — we’ve always been trying to go after it as long as we’ve seen anything. We’ve been going above the DNR recommendations as far as sampling more wells.
“We are investigating and trying to figure out any lessons that we can learn that examine our procedures and contacts in a release situation as well as prevent this from reoccurring at this site or any others.”
Questions from the committee
After the presentation, several member of the committee asked questions, including:
Q: Why did this happen?
Schwart: “The release valve on one of our small diameter service piping — the mechanics use the service piping to service the valve body and do a body vent and body drain — and it occurred on this service piping at one of the thread engagements. We could not figure out a reason as far as exactly what caused that to fail over time, but threads and that connection were not engaged as they should have been over time.”
Q: Of the eight monitoring wells that were installed, have any tested positive for VOCs?
Beaster: “Right now we have the eight monitoring wells at the site. Monitoring well 1 — we call it MW-1 — is as close to the source area as we could get it and so that’s considered our source area well. And that does have detections of benzine, toluene and benzine-xylenes that are on that VOC list. We do also have one other detection at our down-grading monitoring well 6. The first event was in October of 2020, we do quarterly groundwater monitoring, so every three months. The second event was in January of 2021, the third was in April, and the next one will be in July.
“In January, there was a flag detection by the lab, which means a very, very low detection and they can’t confirm it was an actual detection, and then in April, we did see a positive hit of benzine in monitoring well 6. I believe it’s at 3.4 parts per billion and the enforcement standard is 5. So we are still below the enforcement standard but nonetheless it is a detection. And part of the supplemental work that we will be doing is adding additional down-grading monitoring wells to make sure we have it completely surrounded.”
Q: What do you do when there is results showing VOCs in the groundwater? Do they just stay there?
Beaster: “VOCs do naturally attenuate with time. But what we want to do is speed that process up. So our intention, right now — we haven’t submitted any of these plans to the DNR yet — but we are intending some sort of remediation. Remediation could be all sorts of different things. We haven’t decided on what that technique is going to be for sure yet. As an interim action, until we get to full-scale remediation, we would have some of our interim action work plan that consists of a passive, bio-venting approach, where we basically install wells into the residual source soils that are around the valve site and let them breathe and let them naturally attenuate. We are trying to get more atmospheric air in there. It’s a passive approach; it’s just something that we can do in the immediate timeframe to buy us a little time until we can come up with a more long-term aggressive approach.”
Q: Was there an issue before you found out what is actually going on with the well water that would have caused contamination to residents when drinking that water?
Beaster: “None of the potable wells have been contaminated. We have confirmed that with one sampling event. We have preposed that we do another sampling event. That is of course contingent on property owners letting us have access, allowing us to be on their property to collect those samples. We have proposed that as part of our supplemental work plan.”
Q: Well MW-1 and well 6 are the two that you had? Do you have another set of wells around that?
Beaster: “Yes. Currently there are 8 monitoring wells. The other wells are all non-detect for all listed VOCs. That’s obviously really good news, but even with a detection, maybe still it doesn’t meet the enforcement standard, so sometimes we see detections but it doesn’t necessarily mean it warrants any additional action.”
Q: Do you know how long the release was actually occurring?
Schwart: “No. We can’t say with certainty because the fitting was buried underground.”
Q: Can you explain the new calculation of 29 barrels out and how that was determined?
Beaster: “We operated under the information we had at the time. Once the site investigation was complete, and we had a much larger data set to look at and apply the appropriate industry calculations to come up with the refined volume out — it doesn’t happen overnight, it took a while, they had to totally break down all the data, and apply it as appropriate. Once we did that — and this is all in the site investigation report that was submitted in January — toward the end of that report are some tables and some text that describes exactly how we did it, there are references and industry accepted practices, that’s how we come up with these revised volumes out, and that’s when we made that revision. So that was reported — it wasn’t fully vetted and accepted and reviewed internally, we had to do that first — until January, and then we submitted that information to THMSA (the Pipeline and Hazardous Safety Administration) and the DNR.”
Q: What actually was the calculated release?
Schwart: “The calculated release was 29 barrels. A barrel is 42 gallons.”
Beaster: “Enbridge has also reported within their calculations that 12 barrels have been recovered.”
Comments from members of the public
Four members of the public in attendance gave comment during the meeting. Each was allowed up to 7-1/2 minutes.
Kenneth Pundsack, a resident of Hartwick Lane, said he lives about 180 yards south of the last test well.
“What I heard here this afternoon is that there were dangerous chemicals — whether you call them small or what — they’re there. You can’t tell us when they occurred, if our wells were contaminated prior to the testing or will be contaminated in the future.”
Of Enbridge representatives, he asked: “What do you plan to do to help us protect our health and our property? We have heard nothing from you other than to come up and test our wells. And I’m also wondering where our local governments are. We haven’t heard one thing from the county other than one phone call, nothing from the DNR and our township. So I feel we’re out here all alone.”
Pundsack said he worried about his family’s health, and wondered if his grandchildren had been drinking “polluted water.”
“My thought right now initially what you need to do is to provide us with carbon filters for our wells at your expense,” he said.
Victoria Hatchel described herself as Pundsack’s neighbor, saying she lives closer to the Enbridge site than he does.
“I don’t claim to be a scientist or an environmentalist, I’m just a neighbor to Enbridge for 22 years. I enjoyed having them; they were coming every year to give us a little card that said: Here’s a number. If you see anything, smell anything, give us a call. I felt safe. They’re looking into it and so they want our help. But when this happened, we didn’t get that call. And that’s my biggest issue. Why?”
When notification came a year and a half later, she said, “it wasn’t by Enbridge; It wasn’t by the county; it wasn’t by the DNR. We were given information by a citizen from Lake Mills. That’s the only way we knew about this. Otherwise, it would have slipped under the rug.”
Said Hatchel: “At this point, knowing what I know about the VOCs, people look at this and they say: well it’s an oil spill. TV says put Dawn on it. The little ducky walks away free. This is not oil. It’s diluent, It’s huge. It’s dangerous and it’s a killer. And it’s not easily detected.
“I’m almost to the point where I want to say: should I be filing felony charges against Enbridge because they tried to poison us? Because that’s how I feel; they’re trying to poison us and we don’t know it.”
Hachel said she wanted some assurances from Enbridge that they would protect the residents living near the pipeline.
Town of Aztalan resident Ronnie Monroe, describing herself as an activist, said she was aware of “pipeline issues” in Wisconsin.
“I think it is really disingenuous for Enbridge to not give the readings that were in MW-1 … I can’t remember what the exact distance on it is, it was not actually ground zero which is inside the fence I believe. I think MW-1 might be as far as 200 feet out. However, the benzine level in MW-1 on March 26 of 2021 … was 24,400 micrograms per liter. Or 4,880 times the limit for state reporting,” Monroe alleged.
“You’ve taken several samples since then and there has been some of what would be called natural attenuation,” she said, acknowledging that VOC levels in the area were coming down.
“But let’s be really honest about how high these levels were at MW-1. And clearly, you either have a large pool of (product) down there or it’s migrating. One or the other. And I just want to say I looked at your plan — and I’m not really prepared here and I’m speaking off the cuff — but the new plan seems to address this issue of how big is this pool … that’s down there. The wells are going down almost double from what it first was; they are going to dig them deeper. You aren’t just putting in venting wells, you’re putting in a bunch of monitoring wells for groundwater and I applaud you for that — that’s fantastic — it should have been done two years ago.”
Monroe described what she believed was a growing lack of trust.
“I want to know you’re being honest,” she said.
Monroe also noted her concern for groundwater in the area near the pipeline, saying: “You didn’t put wells in until the summer of 2020, which, she said, was a year after the spill.
Monroe rebuked Enbridge representatives for blaming time lapses on COVID-19, asking: “Are you not considered essential workers? God help us if you weren’t essential workers and we have a spill or a leak. You’re not the librarian; you can’t just say, well, we’re going to close the library. You’re being out there is the difference between life and death for some people. Not to mention the environment and the animals.”
Monroe further cited a lack of communication between Enbridge and government agencies and the public, saying that Enbridge had a “moral obligation” to notify people living near the pipeline about the release.
Looking ahead, Monroe said: “It would be reasonable for the county emergency personnel to have a map of the pipeline in detail, with properties located within the consultation zone.”
In addition, she advocated for the development of a list of residents, with contact information and addresses, living near the pipeline to be created, along with a “reverse 9-1-1 system” which could be activated if there was a need to evacuate the area.
“I’m asking for personal gas monitors, one per household, for all of us residing in the consultation zone, along with a yearly training on how to use the device and how it should react to safety hazards,” she said.
County supervisor and Lake Mills resident Anita Martin addressed Enbridge representatives saying: “I’m extremely relieved that the drinking water tests for the families living in the pipeline spill area came back last month non-detect for harmful chemicals such as benzine, which is a known carcinogen, and toluene — if it had been in that water back in April, you shouldn’t have even been showering in that water, nor should your kids or grandkids have been. That really disturbs me, and it kept me up at night waiting to hear what those results were.”
Martin asked Enbridge representatives if they could provide information about the company’s environmental impairment liability insurance coverage.
“It is important to know that your company has enough insurance to cover pipeline spill costs which may not be paid for by the oil spill liability trust fund. There is such a fund, I don’t know how much money is in it, but if the dollars exceed it then we need to know.”
Further, she said: “Our county has two easements with Enbridge which are located on recreational property. So these questions I’m asking about the insurance, they do apply and the answers do matter.”
Looking at community relations, she said: “After I was elected to the Jefferson County board last year, a letter arrived at our home from Enbridge welcoming me to the board and offering to meet with me to discuss our community’s needs.”
She next offered three things she believed could benefit the community:
“We have an aging pipeline. It seems very fair and logical to say there will probably be future spills of petroleum products in Jefferson County. Going forward, when there is a pipeline spill, Enbridge individuals please notify the municipality where the spill occurred, and also notify the county in writing as soon as possible. No matter whether you think — initially think — the spill is less than 5 gallons. State law does not require this notification. Nonetheless, this is fair, just, responsible, and the ethical and moral thing to do. It is completely unacceptable for residents living in the high-consequence area to find out almost two years later about a diluent spill.
“Please Enbridge representatives conduct community training for our residents that live on the pipeline regarding safety issues, responding to a spill, evacuation, etc. This needs to be a public meeting, clearly and properly noticed, videotaped, and posted on a municipal site for those unable to attend to view.
“Whenever Enbridge representatives meet with county staff and/or county elected officials to discuss a pipeline spill which has already occurred, there needs to be a mechanism for transparency and public access to these discussions.”
Note: A full chronology of events surrounding the spill and cleanup efforts as earlier reported by Fort Atkinson Online is here: https://fortatkinsononline.com/enbridge-dnr-say-impacts-limited-after-pipeline-leak-monitoring-will-continue/.
This post has already been read 3256 times!
