EPA questions pipeline's effect

LINCOLN — Critics of a proposed pipeline that would carry crude oil across the fragile Sand Hills took heart Wednesday from comments issued by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The EPA rated a draft environmental impact statement for the pipeline as “inadequate,” its lowest rating.

In a letter, Carolyn Giles, the EPA assistant adminstrator for enforcement and compliance assurance, said the statement should be revised to address several concerns.

Among the concerns is the potential for harm to the Ogallala Aquifer, which underlies the Sand Hills and provides drinking water for almost 80 percent of Nebraskans.

The aquifer stretches across eight states, but two-thirds of its volume is under Nebraska.

The proposed Keystone XL pipeline would run from tar-sand oil deposits in western Canada to a junction at Steele City, Neb., and ultimately to the Gulf of Mexico.

The pipeline, 36 inches in diameter, would more than double the capacity for shipping tar-sand oil to the United States.

The EPA said possible conflicts between the pipeline and the Niobrara River's status as a national scenic river also need further analysis.

In general, the agency said, the draft statement was inadequate in addressing these points:

Ÿ The purpose and need for the project.

Ÿ Potential greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project.

Ÿ Air pollutant emissions at the receiving refineries.

Ÿ The pipeline's safety and spill response.

Ÿ Potential impacts to minority communities, wetlands and migratory birds.

Ken Winston, a spokesman for the Nebraska Chapter of the Sierra Club, said he was glad the EPA had picked up on concerns raised by environmental groups.

Duane Hovorka, executive director of the Nebraska Wildlife Federation, called the comments evidence that the pipeline is not a “done deal” and said he hopes the EPA position leads to changes in the impact statement.

“I'm hoping that it will at least slow down the process,” Hovorka said.

Because the TransCanada project crosses an international border, it is being overseen by the U.S. State Department.

The department is reviewing comments from eight agencies and from the public on its draft environmental report.

“We will not have a detailed response until we complete the review process,” spokeswoman Jill W. Dietrich said.

Terry Cunha, a spokesman for TransCanada, said the company disagrees with the EPA's position and believes the State Department did a “thorough and complete job” in preparing the statement.

Another TransCanada pipeline went into service late last month. The Keystone pipeline runs through eastern Nebraska from Vermillion, S.D., to Steele City.

The new Keystone XL pipeline has generated more controversy.

U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., has expressed concerns to the State Department about the safety and environmental effects of the pipeline.

Environmental groups have raised questions about air and water pollution, harm to wildlife and the potential for spills.

They have especially questioned TransCanada's request for federal waivers to use thinner pipe and to pump the oil at higher pressure.

In its July 16 letter, the EPA said the project may be referred to the Council on Environmental Quality.

The presidential council coordinates federal environmental efforts and acts as a referee when agencies disagree over the adequacy of environmental impact statements.

This report includes material from the Associated Press.

Contact the writer:

402-473-9583, martha.stoddard@owh.com

« Metro/Region

Share