Pipeline warning dismissed

Premium ContentMouse over Home then click on Premium Content for information.

LINCOLN — When a university professor with expertise in hazardous waste sounds alarms about a proposed oil pipeline in Nebraska, the federal agency overseeing the project should pay attention.

That's the view of State Sen. Ken Haar of Malcolm, who questions whether the U.S. State Department has ignored a warning that the Keystone XL pipeline could pollute Nebraska groundwater much worse than predicted.

One line from the government's environmental impact statement raised the senator's ire, he said, because it struck him as out of place in a serious analysis.

Referring to the professor's report, the government document said, "This is simply the latest case of opportunistic fear-mongering, dressed up as an academic study."

"I am very offended by this unprofessional dismissal of a Nebraska scholar and his important work," Haar wrote last week to an official with the Environmental Protection Agency.

"It certainly calls into question the integrity of those hired by TransCanada to do their environmental analysis.

As it turns out, the comment about the Nebraska professor was written by two staff engineers and a consultant working for TransCanada, the sponsor of the pipeline project. It was the opening salvo in their repudiation of every point raised in an 18-page risk analysis by associate professor John Stansbury, who teaches environmental and water resource engineering at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

The disagreement represents more sparring over a proposal that would pipe 700,000 barrels of oil per day from tar sands of Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas. The route would cut through the Nebraska Sand Hills and over the Ogallala Aquifer, the state's largest supply of underground drinking and irrigation water.

A growing number of elected leaders, including Nebraska's governor and its U.S. senators, say they don't oppose the pipeline but want the route shifted east so it avoids the Sand Hills. Some state senators, including Haar, support a special legislative session to adopt a pipeline siting law that would give Nebraska final say on the route.

In a meeting last week with state lawmakers, TransCanada officials would not agree to move the route because doing so would require a new round of environmental analysis and result in a two-year delay.

Company spokesmen have long promised that Keystone XL would be the safest pipeline ever built, and they offered last week to explore putting more safety measures in Nebraska to alleviate concerns.

In addition, the company points to the three-year impact study, which says the project would have "limited adverse environmental impacts."

The environmental statement represents a major part of the project review by the State Department, which has final say on the pipeline because it crosses an international border. The department is expected to determine by the end of the year whether the project is in the national interest.

While debates over oil, job creation, environmental protection and big money all swirl around Keystone XL, many people like to think science is objective and somehow immune from political pressure. Scientific data should need no arbiter.

But that's exactly what Sen. Haar said is needed to settle the questions surrounding the project's spill risk: Let a third party, with no ties to the company or the professor, have a look and decide which analysis is more accurate.

The professor, who also teaches risk assessment for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, released his analysis last summer, saying the potential frequency and magnitude of oil spills from Keystone XL were intentionally underestimated in the environmental impact statement.

For example, he said, TransCanada's engineers came up with a prediction of 11 spills along the 1,700-mile pipeline over its 50-year lifespan. Their projection was based on improved safety and monitoring technology for Keystone XL.

Stansbury came up with 91 potential spills, which he said was based on an analysis of historical spill data from existing pipelines.

"Their spill frequency is eight times less than historical data," he said. "It may be less, but eight times less is way beyond credibility."

Put another way: "They're not going to build this thing eight times better than any other pipeline."

The larger problem, in Stansbury's view, is that TransCanada's analysis appears throughout the main body of the environmental impact statement. He argued that such an analysis should not be done by the project applicant, which stands to gain the most if the pipeline is approved.

Others also have questioned the environmental impact statement because it was paid for by TransCanada and prepared by a consultant with a close relationship with the company. Cardno Entrix, based in Houston, has done millions of dollars in business with TransCanada in the past.

While it's not unusual for governmental agencies to pass impact statement costs on to project applicants, the State Department also let TransCanada recommend three consultants for the job.

Cardno Entrix was TransCanada's top recommendation, the New York Times reported last week.

Stansbury also has argued that the State Department risks violating the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires environmental statements to be independent. The Keystone XL statement does not meet such criteria, he said.

TransCanada officials harbor their own questions about Stansbury's independence. They have noted that his report was released by Friends of the Earth, an environmental group that opposes the pipeline project in its entirety.

Stansbury said that he allowed the group to distribute his analysis but that the organization did not pay him, nor did it review his work or have any input whatsoever. Nor is he a member, he said.

In response to questions about the divergent findings by TransCanada and Stansbury, the State Department plans an additional review of the pipeline risk analysis, Wendy Nassmacher, a spokeswoman in Washington, D.C., said Friday. The review will factor into the department's final decision.

The State Department instructs that the risk assessment review should be done by an "independent consultant" commissioned by TransCanada. The engineering analysis would, at a minimum, assess whether additional shutoff valves should be added to the pipeline, along with external leak detection systems in areas of particular environmental concern.

The scope of the analysis and selection of the independent consultant would be approved by the State Department, in consultation with the EPA and the federal government's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

Nassmacher could not say whether the Stansbury report had anything to do with the additional review, but she made it clear that department officials are aware of it. The final version of the environmental impact statement includes the report in its entirety, and there are references to the professor's work in parts of the impact statement that deal with risk.

"We take the issue of pipeline safety very seriously and have consulted with experts across the federal government, both during the environmental impact statement process and the national interest determination period," Nassmacher said.

But the State Department also sought TransCanada's response to the Stansbury analysis. The company conceded to none of the professor's 50 critiques.

Stansbury, in turn, answered the company's response. He identified two valid points raised by the company. One had to do with a technical calculation on flow rate, and the second involved the professor's assertion that if the pipeline were ever sold, new owners might be less committed to safety than TransCanada says it will be.

"I would say I don't believe any of us are completely unbiased," Stansbury said. "But . . . I'm absolutely certain that an unbiased, objective analysis of the impacts of this project has not been done."

Contact the writer:

402-473-9587, joe.duggan@owh.com

« Metro/Region

Share