It\’s Getting Hot In Here

Yesterday the EPA publicly released its courageous, strongly worded comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.  The comments rated the draft “inadequate” and requested that a revised Draft EIS with substantial new information be circulated for full public review. Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, detailed more than 30 different pieces of additional information necessary to “fully inform decision makers and the public,” about the environmental impact of the pipeline. These additional pieces of information included calculations of greenhouse gas emissions from increased tar sands extraction and studies of the public health and environmental justice impacts of increased tar sands refining in the US.

Map of the proposed route of Keystone XL

The Keystone XL pipeline, if approved, would transport toxic, high carbon tar sands oil from strip mines in the Canadian province of Alberta to refineries in Houston and Port Arthur, Texas. Community groups, impacted landowners, and environmental organizations from all points along the proposed route have forcefully voiced opposition to increased US reliance on a fuel that is incredibly toxic and carbon intensive at every stage of its life cycle.

The EPA today joins this growing chorus of concerned voices, and with this request for more information, has temporarily stopped the clock on any final decision about the pipeline. If the State Department complies with the EPA’s request, a revised Draft EIS would be open to another period of agency and public comment, and could even be elevated to the Council on Environmental Quality in the White House.For the full comments (seriously, read them, they’re fantastic!) go here. Here are some of the highlights of information requested by the EPA:

- A broader assessment of the need for this pipeline, including a     “robust analysis of options for meeting national energy and climate policy objectives”;

- A more thorough investigation into the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project, including a consideration of Canadian tar sands development (which EPA asserts is an action clearly connected to building the pipeline and must be considered: “There is a reasonably close causal relationship between issuing a cross-border permit for the Keystone XL project and increased extraction of oil sands crude in Canada intended to supply that pipeline.”)

- A lifecycle assessment of “well-to-wheel” GHG emissions generated from tar sands (“We estimate that GHG emissions from Canadian oil sands crude would be approximately 82% greater than the average crude refined in the U.S., on a well-to-tank basis”);

- A better understanding of mitigation measures that could be taken to decrease the emissions from tar sands developments;

- An assessment of the air quality impacts of refining tar sands, and a more in-depth look at the environmental justice ramifications of these air quality concerns (“We are concerned that the Draft EIS does not fully identify and address the potential for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority, low-income and Tribal populations.”);

- A much more thorough emergency response plan, including a consideration of the specific impacts to water bodies or a leak or spill of the chemical diluents needed to transport heavy tar sands oil (“We believe that additional efforts to evaluate potential adverse impacts to surface and ground waters from pipeline leaks or spills, including potential adverse impacts to public water supplies and source water protection/wellhead protection areas, are necessary.”);

- A consideration of the safety waiver the Department of Transportation is considering granting to TransCanada, with special attention paid to the sulfur content of the fuel and how this would impact the thinner steel which would be used if the waiver were granted (“In addition, we recommend that the State Department more clearly outline the issues associated with a request for a special permit from OPS to operate portions of the pipeline at a greater pressure than allowed under current regulations. We recommend that the sulfur content of the oil sands crude be specifically considered in making the decisions on the pipeline wall thickness.”);

- A complete assessment of all the project’s impacts to wetlands;

- A consideration of the impacts of Canadian tar sands developments on migratory birds.

Lisa Jackson and the EPA really came through big time yesterday; let’s make sure the State Department includes every one of its requests in the final EIS, and takes the time to do it properly. If we do, we’re one step closer to convincing President Obama and the State Department that the toxic costs of investing in tar sands oil are simply not in our national interest.