Below is a write up you can copy and past into an email to submit a public comment about the NFA request for a site of environmental contamination located on Talmadge Creek between I-69 and A Drive North, south of Marshall, Michigan. Contamination at the site was caused by the release of crude oil from the Enbridge Line 6B pipeline rupture on July 26, 2010. Crude Oil, contaminated soil, and impacted surface water were removed from the site during remedial activities.
Please send your email/ comment to email@example.com TODAY (12/12/2016). Don’t forget to sign with a name! If you are seeing this after the 12th, feel free to send it anyways. Demand that the NFA requests are visible to the public!
For information about what an NFA request is- CLICK HERE
Chris Lantinga and MDEQ,
I am writing to you today to enter a few comments about Enbridge’s NFA request for Segment 4, located on the Talmadge Creek.
I am concerned that there was no publicized public informational session for this NFA request. There were public meetings for the NFA requests regarding Segment 1 and segment 3. The public meeting for Segment 3 took place prior to the date public comment was due. The public meeting for Segment 1 took place on the same day public comment was due. There seems to have been no public meeting for segment 4. The public meetings are crucial to any claims to transparency on the Department’s behalf, and important for the public to understand the remedial work that was done on the river.
I have become aware that this NFA comment period was not published in the Nov. 28, 2016 DEQ Calendar. The lack of a public meeting as well as the absence of the public comment period in the November 28, 2016 DEQ calendar is of great concern to any legitimate claims of this process being transparent.
I could not help but notice the Groundwater Aesthetic Impact section of the NFA request. Enbridge, in section 3.5 of the request, claims that there have been sightings of oil sheens in the ground water. Not only that, they go on to state that these sightings have occurred in “several areas”. Apparently Part 201 of Section 451 does not address any criteria for ground water aesthetics. The state law being used has no means to address this situation! Enbridge claims that the Groundwater Aesthetic Impact meets Drinking Water Criteria. According to Enbridge in this same request, none of the residents use groundwater as a drinking source. The lack of attention to these oil sheens is very concerning.
The Zoning/ Land Use for this NFA request was determined from the Marshall Township Zoning Map (dated October 2006). Is there not a more recent zoning map that could be used? Has the land use in this area changed in the past 10 years?
The lack of visibility to this process is very frustrating. Please make this information more accessible to the public.