A June 2010 handout photo of the TransCanada's Keystone Oil Pipeline Contruction in North Dakota. TransCanada is now working on approval for its new Keystone XL pipeline.
Photograph by: Handout, TransCanada
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has expressed "significant" new fears about the safety of Calgary-based TransCanada Corp.'s proposed Keystone XL oilsands pipeline, criticizing decision makers in the Obama administration for conducting a flawed study of the project's potential impact.
In a letter to the State Department, the EPA warned officials at the State Department they must "carefully consider" the possibility of finding an alternate route for the 2,700-kilometre line that moves it away from sensitive ecosystems in the U.S. Great Plains.
Moreover, the EPA says State officials may have underestimated potential lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of oilsands production by as much as 20 per cent.
The agency asks the State Department to seek "detailed descriptions" of efforts by the Alberta government and Canadian oil producers to reduce emissions before deciding whether to approve or reject construction of Keystone XL.
The EPA also wants to see estimates of "the social cost of carbon," which it said should include information about potential damage to agriculture production, property and human health associated with climate change.
"As explained in this letter, we have a number of concerns regarding the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, as well as the level of analysis and information provided concerning those impacts," writes Cynthia Giles, the EPA's assistant administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
The Keystone XL pipeline would transport up to 700,000 barrels per day of diluted bitumen from northern Alberta's oilsands to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas.
But the EPA's letter signals an attempt to throw up more obstacles to a pipeline project the Alberta government complains has been unnecessarily delayed.
The missive was sent on Monday, as the State Department completed a public comment period on a supplemental environmental study it had conducted into Keystone XL.
Terry Cunha, a spokesman for TransCanada, said the company was still reviewing the EPA's letter but "in general we do believe the project has already been thoroughly reviewed."
The EPA gave the State Department study a rating of "Environmental Objections," meaning it had identified "significant environmental impacts" associated with Keystone XL.
The State Department, which has the authority to grant a presidential permit approving the pipeline, has announced a new round of public hearings in response to opposition in states along Keystone XL's proposed route.
But State Department officials also said this week they expect to make a final ruling on Keystone XL by the end of the year, suggesting they are not open to extensive new reviews.
"With this rating, the EPA is standing up for the people who would be hurt by the Keystone XL pipeline, including Midwest farmers and low-income people around Texas refineries," said Alex Moore, a spokesman for Friends of the Earth.
"All eyes are on Secretary of State (Hillary) Clinton. Will she comply with the law and ensure that these impacts are studied or not?"
U.S. supporters of Keystone XL contend the project has met guidelines set out under the National Environmental Policy Act, and that further delay in approving the pipeline would be harmful to the U.S. economy and energy security interests.
"We now urge (the State Department) to validate the energy, economic growth and national security benefits of this project and proceed with the national interest determination as soon as feasible," Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said in a letter.
The EPA has been seeking more rigorous environmental study of Keystone XL since last July, after determining an earlier draft failed to answer concerns about the threat posed to communities along the pipeline's path, and about increased greenhouse gas emissions that might occur as a result of greater oilsands production in northern Alberta.
In its letter this week, the EPA again expressed fears that a spill could cause significant damage to the vast Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska, which supplies groundwater to much of the Great Plains.
It said two recent leaks that temporarily shut down the existing Keystone pipeline highlight the need to require TransCanada to take more rigorous steps to limit the threat of a major spill on the new line.
"If a spill did occur, the potential for oil to reach groundwater in these areas is relatively high given the shallow water table depths and high permeability of the soils overlying the aquifer," the letter says. "In addition, we are concerned that crude oil can remain in the subsurface for decades despite efforts to remove the oil and natural microbial remediation."
Cunha said TransCanada has "demonstrated we have taken appropriate steps to make sure the pipeline is safe and would not have an impact on the aquifer."
The company will "continue to address any questions with regard" to safety, but the proposed path "has gone through a lot of review and analysis and has been determined to be the best route for the project."
The EPA says TransCanada's plan to detect spills — by monitoring pressure drops along the pipeline and through aerial surveys — is inadequate and "may result in smaller leaks going undetected for some time, resulting in potentially large spill volumes."
Fears about the impact of a spill on the aquifer have become a major political issue in Nebraska, and both of the state's U.S. senators have asked Clinton to consider rerouting the pipeline to avoid the area.
Clinton's department failed to properly assess potential alternative routes, the EPA says, and should "re-evaluate the feasibility" of different paths for the pipeline.
The EPA's concerns about greenhouse gas emissions from oilsands production remain largely the same as they were one year ago, when the agency raised its initial objections to the pipeline.
It criticizes the State Department for saying "there are no expected disproportionate adverse impacts to minority or low-income" residents who would live near the pipeline's terminus in Port Arthur, Texas.
Many residents there "are already burdened with large numbers of emitting sources of air pollutants" and "it is not self-evident" the addition of a major pipeline from Canada would not make the situation worse.
"Our concerns include the potential impacts to groundwater resources from spills, as well as effects on emissions levels at refineries in the Gulf Coast," the letter says.
salberts@postmedia.com
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar