Two Colorado lawmakers are pressuring the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to scrutinize existing and proposed pollution permits for three oil-transportation facilities in Utah, where they worry the expansion could endanger residents and wildlife across state lines.
The expansion of Wildcat Loadout, Price River Terminal and Savage Energy Terminal will increase oil export capacity in Utah’s Uinta Basin from the current 110,000 barrels per day to 260,000 barrels per day, which will be shipped by rail through the Centennial State.
The waxy oil would snake more than 100 miles along the headwaters of the Colorado River, Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Ill.) and Rep. Joe Negus (D-Ill.), said in a statement.Tuesday’s Letter“It is a critical water resource for approximately 40 million Americans and 30 tribal nations.”
“Increased oil transportation by rail increases the risk of spills and other accidents,” the lawmakers wrote to EPA Administrator Michael Regan.
“A train derailment spilling oil into the headwaters of the Colorado River would have devastating effects on the state’s water resources, wildlife habitat, outdoor recreational facilities, and the entire Colorado River basin,” they added.
Bennett and Negoose expressed similar concerns last year about the proposed Uinta Basin Railroad, an 88-mile project that would connect loading facilities to the national rail system.
Last summer, the federal courtRejectedIt revoked the Surface Transportation Board’s (STB) approval of the project and required a new environmental review of the proposal.
Shortly after the ruling, lawmakers called on the Bureau of Land Management to conduct a “full and thorough” environmental assessment that considers “all risks posed to Colorado.”
The rail project remains on hold, but Bennett and Negoose remain concerned about the expansion because it would mean more oil shipments.
At the same time, Savage Terminal and Price River Terminal have applied for new air quality permits from the state of Utah to facilitate their expansion, and Wildcat Loadout recently received a similar permit, lawmakers noted.
Bennett and Negoose expressed uncertainty about whether the applications and permits adequately considered resulting pollution and called on the EPA to evaluate whether the documents were “based on incorrect assumptions about the effectiveness and enforcement of emission controls.”
The report’s authors explained that they assumed that all three facilities would reduce emissions by more than 95 percent through flaring and the use of steam-balancing control systems, but the lawmakers said the report contained no requirements for monitoring, testing or maintenance procedures to ensure such reductions were occurring.
“We urge EPA to review these load expansion proposals and ensure that the permits are enforceable and will effectively limit harmful emissions,” they concluded.
Asked whether the EPA would comment on Bennett and Negoose’s request, an EPA spokesman said, “The agency will review the letter and respond through appropriate channels.”
