Keystone Xl Project Epa Comment Letter 20110125

8/3/2019 Keystone Xl Project Epa Comment Letter 20110125

1/9

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C, 20460

JUN ()S 2011ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE Mr. Jose W. Fe rn andez

Ass istant SecretaryEconomic. Energy and Business AffairsU.S. Department o f StateWashi nglon, DC 20520

Dr. Ker ri-Ann JonesAssistant SecretaryOceans and Interna tiona l Environ men tal and Sc ientific AffairsU.S. Depart ment of StateWashington, DC 20520Dear Mr. Fe rnandez and Dr. Jones :

In accordance with our authorities und er the Nat ional Environmental Po licy Act (NE llA).the Counc il on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations, and Section 309 of the CleanA ir Act, EPA has reviewed the Suppl ementa l Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDE IS)fo r TransCanada' s proposed Keystone XL Project ("Project").

EPA reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for this project andsubmitted comments in Ju ly o f 20 10. At that time EPA rated the DEIS as " Inadeq uate-3"because potentially significant im pacts were not eval uated and addi tional in fo rma tion andanalyses were necessary to ens ure that the EIS fully in formed decision makers and the publicabout potent ial consequences of the Keystone XL Project. Since that time, the State Departmentha s worked diligent ly to deve lop additional information and a nalysis in re sponse to EPA'scomments and the large number of other comments received on the DEIS. The State Departmentalso made a ve ry construc tive decision 10 seek fu rther pub lic review and comment throughpub lication of the SDEIS. to help the public and decision makers carefu lly weigh theenviron mental cos ts and benefi ts of transporting oi l sand s crude from Canada to delivery pointsin Oklahoma and Texas. The co nsideration of the environmental impacts associated wi thconstruct ing and operating th is proposed pipe line is espec ia lly important give n that currentexcess pipeline capac ity for transporting oil sand s crude to the United State s will likely persistunt il after 2020, as noted in the SDEIS.

Whi le the SDEIS has made progress in respond ing to EPA 's comments on the DElS andproviding information necessary for making a n in formed decision, EPA believes additionalanal ysis is necessary 10 fully respond to our ea rl ier comments and to ensure a fu ll eva luation of

Internel Address (URl) _ nnp' """"",,_ep.1 .gov RecyclelVRecyclable _ Pnnlecl" Vegetable Oil B.a$&d Inks on 1 ~ Poslconsumer. Process Chlorine Flee Recycled Paper
http:///reader/full/ep.1.govhttp:///reader/full/ep.1.govhttp:///reader/full/ep.1.govhttp:///reader/full/ep.1.govhttp:///reader/full/ep.1.gov


2/9

the potenti al impacts of proposed Project, and to identify potential means to mitigate thoseimpacts. As EPA and the State Department have di scussed many times, EPA recommends thatthe State Department im prove the analys is of o il spill risks and alternative pipe line routes,provide addi tiona l analys is of potential impac ts to communit ies along the pipeline route andadjacent to refineries and the associated enviro nm ental justice concerns, together with ways tomitigate those impacts, improve the discussion of lifecycle greenhouse gas emi ssions (OHOs)assoc iated wi th oil sands crude, and improve the analys is of potential impacts to wetlands andmi gratory bi rd populations. We are encouraged by the State Department 's agreement to includesome of these additional analyses in the Final En vironm enta l Impact Statement (F inal EIS). Wehave noted those agreements in th is letter, and look forward to working with yo u to developthese analyses fo r the Final EIS.Pipel ine Safety/O il Spill Risks

EPA is the lead federa l response agency for responding to oil spi lls occurring in andaround inl and waters. As part of tha1 responsibi li ty, we have considerable experience working topreve nt and respond to o il spi lls. Pipeline oil spills are a very real concern , as we saw during thetwo pipeline spills in Michigan and Ill inois last summer. Just in the last month, the KeystonePipeline ex perienced two leaks (in North Dakota and Kan sas), one ofwhi ch was brought to thecompany's atten tion by a local citizen. These leaks resulted in shut-downs and issuance of anorder to TransCanad a from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration(PHM SA), requiring that corrective measures be taken prior to the subsequent ly approved restartof operations. PI-IM SA's Order of June 3, 20 II for the Keystone Pipeline - which also carriesCanadian oil sands crude o il and is operated by the same company as the proposed Keystone XLProject was based on the hazardous nature of the produc t that the pipe line transports and thepotentia l that the conditions causing the failures that led to the recent spill s were presentelsewhere on the pipeline. These events, which occurred after EPA's comment letter on theDEIS. underscore the comments about the need to carefully consider both the route of theproposed Keystone XL Pipeline and approp riate measures to prevent and detect a spill.

We have several recomm endations for add itional ana lyses th at relate to the potential foroi l spills, as well as the po tential impacts and implications for response activities in the event of apipeline leak or rupture. We recommend and appreciate yo ur agreement that the Final EIS usedata from the National Re sponse Center, whieh reports a more comprehensive set of hi stori calspil l events than the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration's incident database,to assess the risk of a spill from the proposed pipel ine. With respect to the spi ll detect ionsystems proposed by the applicant, we rema in concerned that relying sole ly on pressure dropsand ae rial surveys to detect leaks may result in smaller leaks go ing undetected fo r some lime,resulting in potentially large spi ll volumes. In light of those concerns, we also appreciate yo urag reement that the Final EIS consider additional measures to reduce the risks of undetectedleaks. Fo r example, requiring ground-level in spections of valves and o ther parts of the systemseveral times per yea r, in addition to aerial patrols, could improve the ability to detect leaks orspills and minimize any damage.

The SDElS indicates that there may be a "minor" increase in the number of mainlineva lves installed to isolate pipeline segment s and limit impacts of a spi ll , compared to what was

2


3/9

originally reported in the DEIS (SDEIS, pg. 2-4) . However, no detailed information or decisioncrite ria arc provided with regard to the number of valves, or their location. In order to evaluatepotential measures to mitigate accidental re leases, we appreciate your agreement to provi deaddi tio nal infonnat ion in the Final EIS on the number and locat ion of th e valves that will beinstalled and to eva lu ate the fe asibility of increasing the number of valves in more vulnerableareas. Fo r example, it may be appropriate to increase th e number of valves where the water tableis shallow, or where an aqui fe r is overlain by hi ghly penneable so ils, such as the Ogallalaaquifer. We also recommend consideration o f ex ternal pipe leak detection systems in th ese areasto improve the abili ty to detect pinh ole (and greater) leaks th at cou ld be substantial, ye t belo wthe se ns it iv ity of the current ly proposed leak detec tion systems. In addition, while weund erstand that va lves are not proposed to be located at water crossin gs that are less than 100feet wide, we recommend that the Fi nal EIS nevertheless consid er the potential bene fits ofinsta lling va lves at water cross in gs less than 100 feet wide where there are sensiti ve aquaticresources.

Pred icting th e fat e and transport of spilled oil is al so im portant to establish pote ntialim pacts and develop response strategies. Wh ile the SDEIS provides additional infonnationabout the di fferent cl asses of crude oils that may transported, we recommend the Final EISevaluate each class of crude that will be transported, how it will behave in th e enviro nment, andquali tatively discuss the potential issues associat ed with responding to a sp ill given differenttypes of crud e oils and diluents used.

Wi th regard to the chemi cal nature of the dil uen ts that are added to reduce the viscosityof bitum en, the SDEIS sLates "the exact compos ition may vary between shippe rs and isconside red proprietary infonnation" (S DElS, pg. 3-104). We be lieve an analysis of potent ialdiluents is important to estab lish the potent ia l health and environm ental impacts of any spilledoi l, and responder/worke r safety, and to develop response strateg ies. In the recent Enbridge o ilspill in Mi chi gan, for example, benzene was a component of the diluent used to reduce theviscosity of the oil sand s crude so that it could be transported thro ugh a pipeli ne. Be nzene is avolatile organ ic compound, and following the spi ll in Michigan, hi gh benzene level s in the airprompted the iss uance of volun tary evacuat ion notices to res idents in the area by the local countyhealth department. Sim ilarly, a lthough the SDEIS provides add iti onal inform ation on thepoten tia l impac t of spi lls on ground water, we recommend that the Final EIS improve the riskassessment by in cluding speci fi c information 0 11 the groundwater recharge areas along thepi pe line rOllte, recogni zi ng th at th ese areas are more susceptible to groundwater contaminationfrom oi l spill s.

We appreciate that the SDEIS prov ides add it io nal in format ion about the feasibili ty ofaltern at ive pipeline rouLes that would reduce the risk of adverse impacts to the Ogallala aquifer,by re -ro uting the pipe line so it does not cross the aquifer. Many commenters, includ ing EPA,expressed concerns over the potential impacts to this impo rtant resource duri ng the review of theDEIS. If a spill did occur, the potent ial for oil to reach groundwater in these areas is re lat ivelyhi gh given shallow water table depths and the hi gh pe nneab il ity of the soils ove rl yi ng theaq ui fer. In addit ion, we are conce rned that crude o il can remain in the subsurface for decades,despite efforts to remove the o il and natural microbial remediation.

3


4/9

However, the SOEIS concludes that the a lternative routes that avo id the Oga llala aquiferare not reasonable, and consequently does no t provide a detai led evaluation of the environmentalimpacts of routes other than the app licant's proposed route. The SOE lS indicates that no otheralternati ves are considered in detail because, in part, they do not offer an overall environmentaladvantage compared to other routes. In support of this conclusion the SOElS presents a limitedanalysis of the potent ial environmental impacts of the alternati ve routes and offers qualitat ivejudgments about the relati ve severity of impacts to different resources, e.g., considering potentialimpacts from spi lls to the Ogallala aquifer less important than impacts to surface waters from aspill assoc iated with an additional crossing of the Missouri Ri ver. We think this limited analysisdoes not fully meet the objectives ofNEPA and CEQ's NEPA regulations, which provide thatagencies r igorously explo re and objectively evaluate reasonable alternatives. CEQ guidancestates that reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feas ible from the technicaland economic standpoint and using common sense. Recogni zing the regional significance ofthese groundwater resources, we recommend that the State Department re-eva luate the feasibilityof these alternative routes and more clearly out line the environmemal, technical and economicreasons for not cons idering other alternative routes in more detail as part of the NEPA analysis.Oil Spill Im pacts on Affected Communities and Env ironmental Justice Concerns

The communities fac ing the greatest potential impact from spills are of cour se thecommunities along the pipe line route. We are concerned that the SOElS does not adequatelyrecogn ize that some of these communities may have limited eme rgency response capabilities andconsequentl y may be more vu lnerable to im pacts from spills, accidents and other releases. Thisis particularly likely to be true of minority, low-income and Tribal commun ities or populationsalong the pipeline ro ute. We appreciate your agreement to address this issue in the Final ElS byclarifying the emergency response capability of each county along the pipeline route using theplans produced by Loca l Emergency Planning Committees. We also appreciate your agreementto identi fy potential mitigation measures in the Final EIS based on this infomlatio n. We lookforward to work ing with yo ur staff to identify data sources and approaches for addressing theseIss ues.

As part of this anal ysis, we are concerned that the SDEIS may have underestimated theextent to which there are communities along the pi pe line with less capacity to respond to spillsand potentially assoc iated health issues, particularly minori ty, low-income or T ribalcommunities. We appreciate yo ur agreement to re -eva luate in the Final EIS which communi tiesmay have such capac ity issue s by adopting the more commonly-used threshold of20% higherlow-income, minority or Tribal population compared to the general population, in stead of the50% used in the SDEIS.

With respect to data on access to health care, we are encouraged that the SDEIS providedcritically important information on medically underserved areas and on health professionalshortage areas. We will provide recommendations on methods to present this data to make it

I 40 CFR 1502.1 4; "Fony Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Ac tRegulations ," 46 FR 18026 (1981) - Quest ion 2a: Alternatives Outside the Capability of Applicant or Ju risd ict ion ofAgency.

4


5/9

more meaningful to reviewers and wi ll work with your staff as you move towards publishing aFina l ElS.The SDEIS does recognize that minority, low-income or Tribal populations may be morevulnerable to health impacts from an o il spill, and we appreciate the appl icant's commitment to

provide an alte rnat ive water supply "i f an accidental release from the proposed Project that isattributable to Keystone 's actions contaminates groundwater or surface wa te r used as a source ofpotable water or for irrigation or industrial purposes .." (SDEIS, pg. 3-1 54). Further, the SDEISstates that impacts wou ld be mitigated by the applicant' s liability for costs associated withcleanup, restoration and compensa tion for any release that could affect surface wate r (SDEIS, pg.3- 154). We believe that thi s mitigation measure should also apply for releases that could affectgroundwater. Finally, we recomm end that the Final EIS evaluate additional mitigation measuresthat wo uld avoid and min im ize potential im pacts through all media (i.e. , surface and groundwater, soil, and air) to minority, low-income and Tribal populations rather than rely so lely onafter-the-fact com pensat ion measures. Some examples of additiona l mitigation includedeveloping a contingency plan before operations commence for emergency response andremedial efforts to control the contamination. This would also include providing notification toindividuals affected by so il or groundwater contamination, ensuring the public is knowledgeableand aware of emergency procedures and contingency plans (including posting procedures in hightraffic visibility areas), and providing additional monitoring of air emissions and conductingmedical monitoring and/or treatment responses where necessary.Environmental and Health Impacts to Commun ities Adjacent to RefineriesWe are also concerned with the conclusion that there are no expected disproportionate

adverse impacts to minority or low-income po pulations located near refineries that are expectedto receive the oil sand s crude, particularly because many of these communities are alreadyburdened with large numbers of high emitting sources of air poll utants. It is not self-evident thatthe addition of an 830,000 barrels per day capacity p ipeline from Canada to refineries in the Gul fCoast will have no effect on emi ssions from refineries in th at area. We recomm end that the FinalEIS re-examine the potential likel ihood of increased refin ery emi ssions, and provide a cleareranalys is of potential environmental and health impacts to communities from refinery airemissions and other environmental stressors. As part of this re-eva luation, we encourage theState Department to provide more opportunities fo r people in these potentia lly affectedcommunities to have meaningful engagement , including add itional public meetings, particularlyin Port Arthur, Texas, before publication of the Final EIS. Public meetings in these potentiallyaffected communities provide an opportunity for ci tizens to present their concerns, and also forthe State Department to clearl y explain its analysis of potential im pacts associated with theproposed project to the people potentially affected .Lifecycle GHG Emiss ionsWe appreciate the State Department' s efforts to improve the characterization of lifecycleGHG emissions associated with Canadian oil sand s crude. The S DEIS confimls, for example,that Canadian o il sand s crude are GHG-intensive relative to other types of crude oil, due

primarily to increased emi ssions associated with ex traction and refi ning.

5


6/9

The SDEIS also includes an important di scussion of lifecycle GHG emi ssions associatedwith oil sands crude and provides quantitative estimates of potential incremental impactsassociated with the proposed Project. For example, the SDEIS (pg. 3-198) states that under atleast one scenario, additional annuallifecycle GHG emissions associated with oil sands crudecompared to Middle East Sour crude are 12 to 23 million metric tons of CO2 equi va lent (C02-e)at the proposed Project pipeline's full capacity (roughl y the equivalent of annual emi ssions from2 to 4 coal-fired power plants).2 While we appreciate the inclusion of such estimates, EPAbelieves that the me thodology used by the State Department and its contractors to calculate thoseestimates may underestimate the values at the hi gh-end of the ranges cited in the li fecycle GHGemi ss ions discussion by approximately 20 percent. We will continue to work with your staff toaddress thi s concern as you move towards publishing a Final EIS.

Further, in di scuss ing these lifecycle G HG emissions, the SDElS concludes "on a globalscale, emi ssions are not likely to change" (S DEIS, pg. 3- 197). We recommend against comparingGHG emissions associated with a s in gle proj ect to global GHG emi ssion levels. As recognizedin CEQ's draft guidance concern ing the considera tion ofGHG emi ssions in NEPA analyses," [T]he global climate change problem is mu ch more the result of numerous and varied sources,each of which mi ght seem to make a relatively small addition to global atmospheric GHGconcent rations.")Moreover, recogni zing the proposed Project 's li fe time is expected to be at least fiftyyears, we be lieve it is important to be clear that under at least one scenario , the extra GHGemissions associated with this proposed Project may range from 600 mi llion to 1.15 bil lion tonsCO2-e, assuming the lifecycle analys is hold s over time (and using the SDE IS ' quantitativeestimates as a basis). In add ition, we recommend that the Fi nal EIS explore other means tocharacte rize the impact of the GHG emissions, includ ing an estimate of the "social cost ofcarbon" associated with po tential increases ofGHG emi ssions.4 The social cost of carbonincludes, but is not limi ted to, climate damages due to changes in net agri cultural productiv ity,human health , property damages from flood risk, and ecosystem services due to climate change.

Federal agencies use the social cost of carbon to incorporate the social benefits of reducing CO2emi ss ions into analyses of regulatory actions that have a marginal impact on cumulative globalemi ssions; the social cost of carbon is also used to calculate the negative impacts of regulatoryactions that increase CO2 emissions.Finally, we continue to be concerned that the SDEIS does not di scuss opportunities to

mi tigate the entire suite ofGHG emissions assoc iated with constructing th e proposed Project.We appreciate your agreement to identi fy pract icable mitigation measures in the Final EIS for,- http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calcu lator.htmI3 "Draft NEPA Guidance on Cons ideration of the Effects of Cl im ate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions,"(February 18.2010)4 "Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866;" Interagency WorkingGroup on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government, February 2010. Presents four estimates of estimatedmo netized damages associated with a IOn of COl released in 20 10 ($5, S2 1, $35, $65) ($2007); these estimates growover time and are associated with difTerent discount rates.

6
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.htm


7/9

GHG em issions associated with operation of the pipeline in the United States. As part of thatanalysis. we recommend co nsideration of opportunities for energy efficiency and utilization ofgreen power for pipeline operations. In add ition, We recommend a discuss ion ofmitigalionapproaches for GHG em issions from extraction act ivities that are either currently or cou ld beemployed to help lower li fecycle GHG emissions to level s closer to those of conventional crudeo il supplies. We recommend that this di scussion include a detailed desc ription of effortsongoing and under consideration by producers, as well as the government of Alberta, to reduceGI-IG emiss ions from oil sands production_Wetlands Impacts

EPA co-administers the Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory program, whichregulates th e di schar ge of dredged or fill material into waters of th e United States, includingwe tlands . Whil e we appreciate that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is re spon si ble for day-today process ing ofpcrmit applications , our review or aer ial photography recently posted on theProject's webs ite ind icates th at the DEIS may have underestima ted the ex tent of ecologicallyvaluab le bottomland hardwood wet lands in Texas. We appreciate your ag reement to e valuatethese wetland estimates in th e Final ElS and 10 display the location of the bottomland hardwoodwe tlands with maps and aerial photography . Given their ecological im portance, we recommcndthe same evaluation be done for prairie pothole wetlands that may be impacted by the proposedProject. EPA al so recommends that the Final E1S discuss whether it is possible to make furtherpipel ine route variations to avoid both bottomland hardwood and prairie potho le wetlands.

Our review of the aerial photography also indicates that there may be numerous wetlandcrossings that would impact more than 0. 5 acres of wetlands, whi ch is the upper threshold forimpacts under the US Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) nationwide general pennit for utilityline crossings in waters of the United States. In that light, and recognizing that there will beseveral hundred acres of wet lands afTected along th e entire pipeline route, we recommend th atthe Corps review the proposed wetland impacts as a single project requiring an individual CleanWater Act Section 404 penn it. Consolidating each of these crossings into one individual pennitreview would also prov ide for more transparency as to the project impacts and allow for moreef fective mitiga tion planning. as well as comp liance monitoring of th e entire projec t.

Fi nall y, we appreciate your agreement to prov ide a discussion of potential mitigationmeasures fo r project act ivities tha t permanently convert forested we tlands to herbaceouswetlands. We continue to recommend provid ing a conceptual wetland mitigation plan in theFi nal EIS, including a moni toring component that would, for a spec ified period of time, directfield eva luations of those we tlands crossed by the pipeline (and mitiga tion sites) to ensurewe tland function s and va lues are recovering. We also recommend that the Final EIS evaluate thefeas ibility of using approved mitigation banks to compensate for wetlands impacts.Migratory Birds

The SDEIS inc ludes a summary of reg ulato ry and other programs a im ed at protectingmigratory bird pop ulat ions that may be affected by oil sands extract ion activi ties in Canada.However. we recommend that the Final EIS provide additional information that would address

7


8/9

potential impacts to specific migratory species, with an emphasis on already-vulnerable species,and we appreciate your agreement to provide that information in the Final EIS. Data found inthe North American Breeding Bird Survey (a partnership betwe en the U.S. Geological Survey'sPatuxent Wildlife Re search Center and the Canadian Wildlife Service s Nationa l WildlifeResearch Center), which monitors bird populations and provides population trend estimates,should be helpful. We also recommend that the Final EIS discuss mitigation me asure s that areeither currently or cou ld be employed for identified impacts.Conclusion

Based on our review, we have rated the SDEIS as "Environmental Objeetions Insufficient Information (EO-2)" (see enclosed "S ummary of Rating Definitions and Follow-upActions"). As explained in this leLter, we have a number of concern s regarding the potentialenvironmental impacts of the proposed Project, as well as the level of analysis and informationprovided concerning those impacts. Our concerns include the potential impacts to groundwaterresources from spills, as well as effects on emi ss ion levels at refin eries in the Gu lf Coast. Inaddition. we are concerned about levels ofGHG em issions associated with the proposed Project,and whether appropriate mitigation measures to reduce these emissions are being considered.Moreover, the SDEIS does not contain sufficien t in formation to fu lly assess the environmentalimpacts of the proposed Project, including potential impac ts to groundwater resources andcommunities that could be affected by potential increases in refinery emi ssions.

We look forward to cont inuing to work with you to strengthen the environmental analys isof thi s project and to provide any assistance you may need to prepare the Final EIS . In addition,we wi ll be carefully reviewing the Final ElS to determine ifit full y reflects our agreements andthat measures to mi tigate adverse environmental impacts are fu lly eva luated. We look forwardas we ll to working with you as yo u consider the deternlination as lO whether approving theproposed project would be in the national interest und er the provisions of Executive Order\ 3337.Please feel free to contact me at (202) 564-2400, or have yo ur staff contac t SusanBromm, Director, Office of Federal Activities , at (202) 564-5400, if you have any questions orwould like to discuss our comments.

Enclosure

8


9/9

Summary of Rating Definilions and F o l l o w ~ u r ActionEnvironmental Impact of the Action LO-Lack of Objections The EP A review has nOI identified any potential environmental impacts requiring substantive changes to the proposal. 111e review may have disclosed opponunities for application of mitigation measures that could be accomplished wit h no more than minor changes to the proposaL EC-[n\'irolllllental Concerns The EPA review has identified environmental impacts thaI should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment. Corrective measures ma y require changes to th e preferred alternative or application of mitigation measures that can reduce the envi ronmental impact. EPA would like to wo rk wiTh the lead agency to reduce these impacts. E O ~ ~ E I I " i r o l l m e n t a l Objections The EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that must be avoided in order to provide adequate protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to th e preferred alternative or consideration of some other project alternative (including the no action alternative or a new alternative). EPA intends to work with th e lead agency to reduce th ese impacts. U 11\'i rOlllllenla lIy U Ilsa t is(acto ry The EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they are unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce the se impacts. tfthe potentially un satisfactory impacts arc not corrected allhe final EIS stage. lh is proposal will be recomm ended for referral to th e CEQ. Adequacy of the Impact Statement Ca tegory 1 ~ ~ A d e C ( u a t e EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alternative and those of the alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis or data co llect ion is necessary, but the reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or infonnation . Ca tegory 2-lnsuflicient Informalion Th : draft EIS does not contain sufficient infonnation for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect Ihe envirolUnent, or the EPA reviewer has idelltified new reasonably available alternatives that are within the spectnml of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional infonnation, data, analyses, or disc uss ion should be included in the final EIS. Category 3-lnadequale EPA does not believe Ihat the draft EIS adequately assesses potentia lly significant environmental im pacts of the action, or the EPA reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives thaI are outsi de of the speclmm of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional inforn13tion, data, analyses, or disc ussions arc of such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage. EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is adequate for th e purposes of the NEPA and/or Section 309 review, and thus should be fonnally revised and made available for pub lic comment in a suppJcmemal or revised draft EI S. On the ba sis of the potential significant impacts involved, thi s proposal could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ.

Keystone Xl Project Epa Comment Letter 20110125

Documents

Transcript of Keystone Xl Project Epa Comment Letter 20110125