The US Environmental Protection Agency raised concerns Monday about TransCanada Corp.’s proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, a project that would transport crude from Alberta’s oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries in the United States.
“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,” said an EPA letter to the US State Department.
The letter listed concerns about greenhouse gas emissions, air and water safety for communities living in proximity to the development, the impact to local ecosystems, and the emergency response capabilities of TransCanada in the event of a leak.
The State Department also announced Monday that it will hold six additional public meetings as part of the review process for Calgary-based TransCanada’s proposal.
“These meetings will give the public an opportunity to voice their views on economic, energy security, environmental, and safety issues ... in determining whether granting or denying the Presidential Permit [for the pipeline] would be in the national interest,” said a release from the State Department.
The meetings come in the midst of increasing pressure by landowners and environmental groups who want a more thorough process for assessing the potential human and environmental impacts from the pipeline. They will be held in five states affected by the proposed pipeline: Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas.
The State Department had already completed a draft environmental impact statement on Monday, but the EPA rated it as “Inadequate-3,” a critical category that calls for a full public review.
Danielle Droitsch, environmental lawyer and U.S. policy director for the Pembina Institute’s Calgary branch, said the State Department’s environmental assessment was “fundamentally flawed” because it claimed the pipeline would have minimal greenhouse gas emissions, and would not impact vulnerable communities such as First Nations.
“Keystone XL will drive upstream production of oil sands which creates a whole other set of impacts on the air, land, and water in Canada, in addition to the impacts in the U.S.,” she said.
“There’s no way the U.S. could possibly conclude that this pipeline would not create impacts upstream in Canada.”
The 2,673-kilometre Keystone XL pipeline expansion would begin at Hardisty, Alberta, and extend southeast through Saskatchewan, Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska before reaching the Gulf Coast of Texas.
The project is an expansion of the Keystone Pipeline that began operations in 2010, transporting crude from Alberta to U.S. Midwest refineries. The expansion is slated to increase the capacity of the pipeline system to 900,000 barrels per day.
The criticism comes at a sensitive time for TransCanada—just days after an oil leak at their Kansas pump station caused a weeklong shutdown of their operations.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) had temporarily ordered the pipeline to remain shut until TransCanada resolved concerns over safety following the Kansas leak, and a 500-barrel spill in North Dakota last month. Operations were approved to resume on Sunday.
In PHMSA’s corrective action order against TransCanada, the associate administrator for pipeline safety wrote, “I find that the continued operation of the pipeline without corrective measures would be hazardous to life, property, and the environment.”
TransCanada did not reply to a request for comment for this report.
Droitsch said the decision from the Obama administration on whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline proposal will be a “symbolic” representation of the president’s stance on climate and energy policy.
“It’s a key decision for [Obama] in terms of his commitments around certain environmental issues. The largest environmental organizations in the United States have made this sort of a touchstone issue—it’s a huge amount of pressure,” she said.
The State Department has said it expects to make a decision on the pipeline permit by the end of 2011, but environmental groups say this should be delayed until 2012 to ensure a thorough review.
