Keystone XL Project                                                                                                    Exe...
Keystone XL Project                                                                                        Executive Summa...
Keystone XL Project                                                                Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EI...
Keystone XL Project	                                                               Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EI...
Keystone XL Project	                                                                 Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental ...
Keystone XL Project                                                               Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EIS...
Keystone XL Project                                        Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EIS                      F...
Keystone XL Project                                                                 Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental E...
Keystone XL Project                                                           Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EIS    ...
Keystone XL Project	                                                               Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EI...
Keystone XL Project	                                                           Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EISfol...
Keystone XL Project                                                                 Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental E...
Keystone XL Project	                                                              Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EIS...
Keystone XL Project                                                               Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EIS...
Keystone XL Project                                                              Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EIST...
Keystone XL Project                                                             Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EISan...
Keystone XL Project	                                                                Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental E...
Keystone XL Project	                                                                       Executive Summary—Draft Supplem...
Keystone XL Project                                                                   Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental...
Draft Supplemental EIS for the Keystone XL Project
Draft Supplemental EIS for the Keystone XL Project
Draft Supplemental EIS for the Keystone XL Project
Draft Supplemental EIS for the Keystone XL Project
Draft Supplemental EIS for the Keystone XL Project
Draft Supplemental EIS for the Keystone XL Project
Draft Supplemental EIS for the Keystone XL Project
Draft Supplemental EIS for the Keystone XL Project
Draft Supplemental EIS for the Keystone XL Project
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Draft Supplemental EIS for the Keystone XL Project

593

Published on

March 1, 2013
Department of State

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
593
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Draft Supplemental EIS for the Keystone XL Project

  1. 1. Keystone XL Project Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EIS TABLE OF CONTENTS ES.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................1 ES.1.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................1 ES.1.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................................2 ES.1.3 Alternatives ....................................................................................................................................2 ES.1.4 Findings .........................................................................................................................................2 ES.2 Context ...................................................................................................................................................3 ES.2.1 Purpose and Need ..........................................................................................................................3 ES.2.2 Crude Oil Overview .......................................................................................................................3 ES.2.3 Market Overview............................................................................................................................3 ES.3 EIS Development Process .....................................................................................................................4 ES.3.1 Presidential Permitting Process ....................................................................................................4 ES.3.2 Supplemental EIS Process .............................................................................................................4 ES.4 Project Description .................................................................................................................................4 ES.4.1 Keystone XL Project ......................................................................................................................4 ES.4.2 Changes Since the Final EIS..........................................................................................................6 ES.4.3 Connected Actions .........................................................................................................................7 ES.5 Environmental Analysis ..........................................................................................................................8 ES.5.1 Soils ...............................................................................................................................................8 ES.5.2 Water Resources ............................................................................................................................9 ES.5.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................................... 11 ES.5.4 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ................................................................................ 13 ES.5.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change ........................................................................ 14 ES.5.6 Potential Releases ........................................................................................................................ 16 ES.5.7 Cumulative Effects ....................................................................................................................... 18 ES.5.8 Environmental Impacts in Canada .............................................................................................. 18 ES.6 Alternatives .......................................................................................................................................... 18 ES.6.1 Scenario Screening ...................................................................................................................... 18 ES.6.2 Market Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 19 ES.6.3 No Action Alternative................................................................................................................... 20 ES.6.4 Major Pipeline Route Alternatives ............................................................................................... 21 ES.6.5 Other Alternatives Considered .................................................................................................... 22 ES.7 Next Steps ............................................................................................................................................ 23 ES.8 Draft Supplemental EIS Contents......................................................................................................... 23Table of Contents i March 2013
  2. 2. Keystone XL Project Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EIS Figures Figure ES-1: Proposed Keystone XL Project .................................................................................................. 2 Figure ES-2: Proposed Project Overview ........................................................................................................ 5 Figure ES-3: Keystone XL, Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence ............................................................ 6 Figure ES-4: Sand Hills Grassland .................................................................................................................. 7 Figure ES-5: Comparison of Proposed Project Route to Previously Proposed Project Segment .................... 7 Figure ES-6: Cross Section of Horizontal Directional Drilling Method ......................................................... 9 Figure ES-7: Schematic Hydrogeologic Cross-Section along Proposed Pipeline Route ............................... 11 Figure ES-8: American Burying Beetle......................................................................................................... 12 Figure ES-9: Greater Sage-Grouse ................................................................................................................ 12 Figure ES-10: Western Prairie Fringed Orchid ............................................................................................. 13 Figure ES-11: Spill Volume Distribution by Pipeline Component ............................................................... 17 Figure ES-12: Typical Rail Loading Facility in North Dakota ..................................................................... 21 Tables Table ES-1: Effects of Potential Releases on Aquifers ................................................................................. 10 Table ES-2: Spill Scenarios Evaluated in Draft Supplemental EIS............................................................... 16 Table ES-3: Summary of PHMSA Database Incidents (January 2002 to July 2012).................................... 16 Table ES-4: Summary of No Action Alternative Scenarios .......................................................................... 20 Table ES-5: Summary of Major Pipeline Route Alternatives ....................................................................... 22Table of Contents ii March 2013
  3. 3. Keystone XL Project Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EIS did not allow sufficient time to prepare a thorough,ES.1 INTRODUCTION rigorous, and transparent review of an alternative route through Nebraska. As such, the PresidentialES.1.1 Overview Permit was denied.The proposed Keystone XL Pipeline is a new875-mile pipeline infrastructure project that would In February 2012, Keystone informed the Departmentallow delivery of up to 830,000 barrels per day (bpd) that it considered the Gulf Coast portion of theof crude oil from Alberta, Canada, and the Bakken previous pipeline project (from Cushing, Oklahoma,Shale Formation in the United States to Steele City, to the Gulf Coast area) to have independent economicNebraska for onward delivery to Cushing, Oklahoma, utility and indicated it intended to proceed withand refineries in the Gulf Coast area 1. TransCanada construction of that pipeline as a separate project, theKeystone Pipeline, LP (Keystone) has applied for a Gulf Coast Project. The Gulf Coast Project does notPresidential Permit which, if granted, would require a Presidential Permit because it does not crossauthorize the proposed pipeline to cross the United an international border. Construction on the GulfStates-Canadian border. Coast Project is underway.For proposed petroleum pipelines that cross On May 4, 2012, Keystone filed a Presidential Permitinternational borders of the United States, the application for a new Keystone XL Project. ThePresident, through Executive Order 13337, directs the proposed Project has a new route and a new statedSecretary of State to decide whether a project is in purpose. The route in Montana and South Dakotathe “national interest” before granting a Presidential would be largely unchanged from the route analyzedPermit. The national interest determination by the in August 2011. However, the newly proposed routeU.S. Department of State (the Department) involves not only avoids the NDEQ-identified Sand Hillsconsideration of many factors, including energy Region but also terminates at Steele City, Nebraska,security; environmental, cultural, and economic and thus is approximately half the length of theimpacts; foreign policy; and compliance with previously proposed project analyzed in 2011. Inrelevant federal regulations. Before making such a other words, the newly proposed Project is 509 milesdecision, the Department also asks for the views of shorter than the previously proposed project analyzedthe Departments of Energy, Defense, Transportation, in 2011.Homeland Security, Justice, Interior, and Commerce, About the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impactand the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. StatementBackground The Department has issued this draft SupplementalPreviously, Keystone submitted an application for the Environmental Impact Statement (draft Supplementalsame border crossing, but with a pipeline route in the EIS) that builds on the analysis completed in AugustUnited States that differed from the route that is 2011 (the Final Environmental Impact Statement orcurrently proposed. The biggest difference in the Final EIS). The analysis has been revised, expanded,previous route compared to the current one is that it and updated to include a comprehensive review ofwent through the Sand Hills Region of Nebraska as the new route in Nebraska as well as any significantidentified by the Nebraska Department of new circumstances or information that is nowEnvironmental Quality (NDEQ). A separate available on the largely unchanged route throughEnvironmental Impact Statement was issued in Montana and South Dakota.August 2011 for that route. In November 2011, the In completing the draft Supplemental EIS, theDepartment determined that additional information Department took into consideration the commentswas needed to fully evaluate the application, in contained in more than 400,000 e-mails, letters, andparticular, additional information about alternative other communications submitted throughout theroutes within Nebraska that would avoid the Sand scoping process by public citizens, governmentHills Region. In late December 2011, Congress agencies, Tribal governments, and interested non-adopted a provision of the Temporary Payroll Tax governmental organizations as well as over oneCut Continuation Act that sought to require the million e-mails, letters, and other communicationsPresident to make a decision on the Presidential submitted to the Department during its considerationPermit for that route within 60 days. That deadline of the previous Keystone XL application.1 The Gulf Coast area refers to the region from Houston,Texas, to Lake Charles, Louisiana.Executive Summary ES-1 March 2013
  4. 4. Keystone XL Project Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EISExpanded and new analyses include, among others:economic effects of the proposed project, impactsfrom potential releases or spills, impacts related toclimate change, and cumulative effects from theproposed project in combination with other projects.The Department re-examined and expanded theevaluation of project alternatives, including areasonable route alternative and other scenarios ofcrude oil transport, such as rail. The Department alsoupdated the analysis of the relationship of theproposed project to crude oil markets in light ofdevelopments since August 2011, which includes anupdate to the assessment of whether the proposedProject is likely to impact the extraction rate from theoil sands in Canada, and thus impact greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions associated with that extraction.The Executive Summary on the following pages Figure ES-1: Proposed Keystone XL Projectbriefly presents the contents of the draftSupplemental EIS, including the purpose and need of ES.1.3 Alternativesthe proposed Project, key potential impacts, measures In addition to minor route variations and pipelineto reduce or mitigate those impacts if a permit was design options, the draft Supplemental EIS considersgranted, and alternatives to the proposed Project. the following alternatives to the proposed Project.ES.1.2 Project Description • The No Action Alternative evaluates scenariosThe proposed Keystone XL Pipeline Project consists that are likely to occur if the proposed Project isof a 36-inch pipeline and related facilities that would not built, including rail and vessel-based optionsallow for transport of up to 830,000 bpd of crude oil for transporting WCSB and Bakken crude oil tofrom the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin the Gulf Coast.(WCSB) in Alberta, Canada, and from the Williston • Major Route Alternatives evaluate the impactsBasin (Bakken) region in Montana and North Dakota, of changing the route of the pipeline. Specificprimarily to refineries in the Gulf Coast area. There is alternatives include the route previouslyexisting demand for crude oil, particularly heavy proposed as well as a route that parallelscrude oil at refiners in the Gulf Coast area, but the Interstate 90 in South Dakota before joining theultimate disposition of crude oil transported by the right-of-way (ROW) of the existing Keystoneproposed Project, and any refined products produced pipeline.from that crude oil, would be determined by futuremarket forces. ES.1.4 FindingsThis draft Supplemental EIS evaluates the 875-mile Chapter 4 of the draft Supplemental EIS givespipeline that would stretch from the U.S.-Canadian detailed findings about the proposed Project’sborder near Morgan, Montana, to the existing impacts. Among these are resources where impactsKeystone pipeline in Steele City, Nebraska. As noted could potentially be substantial, or that have been theabove, the draft Supplemental EIS builds on and focus of significant public attention and comment.supplements the analysis completed in August in These key resource areas include:2011 by specifically addressing the new route in • Soils (including sandy and erodible soils);Nebraska as well as any significant new informationthat has since become available. • Groundwater, including aquifers such as the Ogallala Aquifer; • Surface water resources; • Socioeconomics, including the potential job and revenue benefits of the proposed Project, as well as concerns about environmental justice;Executive Summary ES-2 March 2013
  5. 5. Keystone XL Project Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EIS• Lifecycle GHG emissions associated with oil light crudes. The refineries in that region possess one sands development, refining, and consumption; of the highest concentrations of heavy-crude refining and capacity of any area in the world. Gulf Coast refiners use both domestic crude oil produced in the United• Potential releases or spills. States, and crude oil imported from foreign countries to create various petroleum products.ES.2 CONTEXT The crude oil from the WCSB is produced as aES.2.1 Purpose and Need viscous material, known as raw bitumen, that has theThe Department must determine if the proposed consistency of soft asphalt. Due to its viscosity,Project is in the national interest pursuant to bitumen cannot be transported by pipeline on its own.Executive Order 13337. The Department evaluates It first must be mixed with a petroleum-based productthe proposed Project’s purpose and need consistent (called a diluent), such as naphtha or natural gaswith the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). condensate, to make a less viscous liquid called dilbit; or it must be upgraded (partially refined) to aAccording to the application submitted by Keystone, medium weight crude oil called “synthetic crude oil.”the primary purpose of the proposed Project is to If diluents are not available, producers use syntheticprovide the infrastructure to transport heavy crude oil crude oil as the diluent to create a product calledfrom the border with Canada to delivery points in the synbit. The proposed Project is expected to carryUnited States by connecting to existing pipeline predominantly either dilbit, synbit, or both, as well asfacilities near Steele City, Nebraska. The proposed synthetic crude oil and light crude oil produced fromProject is meant to respond to the market demand of the Bakken.refineries for heavy crude oil. The proposed Projectwould also provide transportation for light crude oil ES.2.3 Market Overviewfrom the Bakken in North Dakota and Montana (as Refiners determine the optimal crudes to processwell as from Canada). similar to other manufacturing companies that selectThe proposed Project would have the capacity to the right raw materials to manufacture products.deliver up to 830,000 bpd. Keystone has represented Refining companies pay market prices for crude oil,that it has firm commitments to transport and measure their profitability based on selling theirapproximately 555,000 bpd of heavy crude oil from product into the wholesale market. They then use thatproducers in the WCSB. In addition, Keystone has margin (the difference between the price of crude andrepresented that it has firm commitments to transport the price of the refined products) to cover their65,000 bpd of crude oil from the Bakken of the expenses and generate profits. Refiners may select a100,000 bpd of capacity set aside on the proposed more expensive crude oil if that crude oil’s yieldProject for that purpose. The ultimate mixture and provides a greater margin than a cheaper crude oil.quantity of crude oils transported by the proposed The proposed Project seeks to capitalize on theProject over its lifetime would be determined by demands of refiners for a stable supply of both heavyfuture market forces. and light crude oil. Refineries in the Gulf Coast rely mostly on foreign imports, particularly fromES.2.2 Crude Oil Overview Venezuela and Mexico, as well as from otherOil producers send a variety of crude oils to refiners countries. However, the volume of crude exportsto produce consumer products such as gasoline, from Mexico is declining. The long-term contractsdiesel fuel for trucks, heating oil, and raw materials supporting the proposed Project indicate that refinersfor plastics and medicines. Each U.S. refinery has see economic advantages to processing heavy WCSBdifferent “hardware”— equipment and capacity, crude oil as well as the domestically producedmetallurgy, and treating processes—and different Bakken light crude oil, which are both growing inresulting mixes of finished products. supply and may be less expensive to transport to theThe proposed Project would primarily transport crude refinery than imported crude oils that are shipped byoil from the WCSB and Bakken regions. The tanker. A detailed analysis of the market is presentedmajority of the oil from WCSB sources is considered in the Supplemental EIS and discussed further in thea heavy crude oil, while Bakken crude is considered a Market Analysis section of this Executive Summary.light crude oil. In general, refineries in the Gulf Coastarea are designed to process a mixture of heavy andExecutive Summary ES-3 March 2013
  6. 6. Keystone XL Project Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EISES.3 EIS DEVELOPMENT PROCESS occurred over a 5-month period and included consultation with ERM, cooperating agencies,ES.3.1 Presidential Permitting Process scientists, and engineers with expertise in key areasFor proposed petroleum pipelines that cross of concern related to the proposed Project.international borders of the United States, the This draft Supplemental EIS describes potentialPresident, through Executive Order 13337, directs the impacts of the proposed Project and alternatives,Secretary of State to decide whether a project is in including direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. Itthe national interest. If the proposed Project is builds on the work done in the 2011 Final EIS,determined to be in the national interest, it is granted including references to that document throughout thea Presidential Permit that authorizes the construction, text where appropriate. The Supplemental EISoperation, and maintenance of the facilities at the includes an analysis of the modified route inborder between the United States and Canada. The Nebraska, as well as analysis of any significant newDepartment’s jurisdiction does not extend to cover circumstances or information that has becomeselection of pipeline routes within the United States. available since the August 2011 publication of theThe draft Supplemental EIS was produced consistent Final EIS for the previously proposed project. Thiswith NEPA and will help inform that determination. draft Supplemental EIS also relies, whereThe National Interest Determination (or NID) appropriate, on the data presented and the analysesinvolves consideration of many factors, including done in the Final EIS for the previously proposedenergy security; environmental, cultural, and project, because much of the proposed pipeline routeeconomic impacts; foreign policy; and compliance remains unchanged from its August 2011 publication.with relevant federal regulations. Before making such Finally, the draft Supplemental EIS also includes thea decision, the Department seeks the views of the latest available information on the proposed Projecteight federal agencies identified in Executive Order resulting from ongoing discussions with federal,13337: the Departments of Energy, Defense, state, and local agencies.Transportation, Homeland Security, Justice, Interior,and Commerce, and the U.S. Environmental ES.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONProtection Agency. The Department is also solicitingpublic input on the draft Supplemental EIS. ES.4.1 Keystone XL Project The proposed Project consists of a crude oil pipelineES.3.2 Supplemental EIS Process and related facilities to transport WCSB crude oilIn September 2012, Keystone submitted an from an oil supply hub near Hardisty, Alberta,Environmental Report in support of its Presidential Canada, to existing pipeline facilities near SteelePermit application providing an update of the impacts City, Nebraska, for onward delivery to Cushing,of the proposed Project and describing several Oklahoma, and the Gulf Coast area. The proposedmodifications to the originally proposed pipeline Project would also transport domestically producedroute to reduce environmental impacts, improve Bakken crude oil from a terminal near Baker,constructability, and in response to agency and public Montana, to the existing Keystone Pipeline system atcomments. Steele City, Nebraska.To assist in preparing the draft Supplemental EIS, the The Steele City delivery point provides access to theDepartment retained an environmental consulting existing Keystone Cushing Extension pipeline, whichfirm, Environmental Resources Management, Inc. delivers crude oil to Cushing, Oklahoma, where there(ERM). ERM was selected pursuant to the is access to other pipeline systems and terminals,Department’s interim guidance on the selection of including those serving the Gulf Coast area. Theindependent third-party contractors. ERM works at proposed Project would consist of approximatelythe sole and exclusive instruction of the Department 875 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline acrossand is not permitted to communicate with Keystone portions of Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraskaunless specifically directed to do so by Department (an additional 329 miles of pipeline in Canada wereofficials. Preparation of the draft Supplemental EIS evaluated by the Canadian government). Figure ES-2 depicts the proposed Project in the United States.Executive Summary ES-4 March 2013
  7. 7. Keystone XL Project Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EIS Figure ES-2: Proposed Project OverviewExecutive Summary ES-5 March 2013
  8. 8. Keystone XL Project Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EIS Figure ES-3: Keystone XL, Typical Pipeline Construction SequenceConstruction of the proposed Project would generallyrequire a 110-foot-wide, temporary ROW, and a ES.4.2 Changes Since the Final EIS The proposed pipeline route in the United States thatvariety of aboveground ancillary facilities. Figure is the subject of this draft Supplemental EIS is similarES-3 illustrates the construction sequence that would to part of the previous project evaluated in the Augustbe followed for the proposed Project. 2011 Final EIS. The newly proposed route inIf permitted, when in operation, the proposed Project Montana and South Dakota would be largelywould maintain a 50-foot, permanent easement over unchanged, except for minor modifications Keystonethe pipeline. Keystone would have access to property made to improve constructability and in response towithin the easement, but property owners would comments, such as landowner requests to adjust theretain the ability to farm and conduct other activities. route across their property. The new proposed routeThe remaining aboveground ancillary facilities would is 509 miles shorter than the previously proposedinclude 20 electrically operated pump stations (two of route; however, it would be approximately 21 mileswhich would be built along existing sections of the longer in Nebraska to avoid sensitive areas includingKeystone Cushing Extension pipeline in Kansas), the NDEQ-identified Sand Hills Region. Thus, the44 mainline valves, and 38 permanent access roads. 2 newly proposed route is substantially different from the previous route analyzed in August 2011 in twoThe overall proposed Project is estimated to cost significant ways: it avoids the NDEQ-identified Sandapproximately $3.3 billion in the United States. If Hills Region and it terminates at Steele City,permitted, it would begin operation in 2015, with the Nebraska.actual date dependent on the necessary permits,approvals, and authorizations.2 Locations for access roads in Nebraska have not yet beendetermined and are not included in this total.Executive Summary ES-6 March 2013
  9. 9. Keystone XL Project Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EIS In addition to the NDEQ-identified Sand Hills Region, the proposed Project route would avoid areas in Keya Paha County identified by the NDEQ that have soil and topographic characteristics similar to the Sand Hills Region, and it avoids or moves further away from wellhead protection areas for the Villages of Clarks and Western. ES.4.3 Connected Actions Connected actions are projects that would not be constructed or operated in the absence of the proposed Project. The three connected actions associated with the proposed Project are described below. While these projects would be reviewed and Figure ES-4: Sand Hills Grassland acted on by other agencies as needed, the draftAs shown in Figure ES-5, the proposed Project route Supplemental EIS also evaluates the impacts of thesein Nebraska is substantially different from the connected actions.previously proposed route analyzed in the 2011 FinalEIS. ES.4.3.1 The Bakken Marketlink Project Keystone Marketlink, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of TransCanada Pipelines Limited, would construct and operate the Bakken Marketlink Project. This project would include a 5-mile pipeline, pumps, meters, and storage tanks to supply Bakken crude oil to the proposed pipeline from the proposed Bakken Marketlink pipeline system in North Dakota and Montana. Three crude oil storage tanks would be built near Baker, Montana, as part of this project. This proposed project can deliver up to 100,000 bpd of crude oil, and has commitments for approximately 65,000 bpd. ES.4.3.2 Big Bend to Witten 230-kV Electrical Transmission Line The Western Area Power Administration (Western) has determined that providing reliable electricity for operation of the proposed Project requires the construction of a new 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, originating at the Fort Thompson/Big Bend Dam area in South Dakota and extending south to the existing Witten Substation. To meet these demands, Western would repurpose existing transmission infrastructure and construct new infrastructure between the Dam and a proposed Big Bend Substation. The Basin Electric Power Cooperative would construct a new 76-mile, 230-kV transmission line from the Big Bend Substation to the existing Figure ES-5: Comparison of Proposed Project Witten Substation, and would operate both the Route to Previously Proposed Project Segment transmission line and the Big Bend Substation.Executive Summary ES-7 March 2013
  10. 10. Keystone XL Project Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EISES.4.3.3 Electrical Distribution Lines and • Soil erosion; SubstationsElectrical power for the proposed Project would be • Loss of topsoil;obtained from local power providers. These power • Soil compaction;providers would construct the necessary substations • Changes in soil composition (increasedand transformers and would either use existing proportion of large rocks in the topsoil);service lines or construct new service lines to deliverelectrical power to the specified point of use (e.g., • Soil mixing; andpump stations and mainline valves), which would be • Soil contamination.located at intervals along the proposed Project route. Nearly half of the proposed Project route would cross soils characterized as highly erodible to either windES.5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS or water, and comments on the 2011 Final EISConstruction of the proposed Project would disturb expressed concern about the proposed Project’sapproximately 15,493 acres of land. After effects on erodible soils. Many of the stages ofconstruction, approximately 5,584 acres would be construction—notably clearing, trenching, and spoilretained for operation of the proposed Project; this storage—could potentially increase soil erosion. Suchincludes the pipeline ROW and aboveground erosion, in turn, could result in loss of valuablefacilities. Construction and operation of the proposed topsoil from its original location. The proposedProject would result in numerous impacts to the Project avoids the NDEQ-identified Sand Hillsenvironment. The Department evaluated the impacts region, as well as areas in Keya Paha County,of the proposed Project and alternatives associated Nebraska, defined by NDEQ as having Sand Hills-with the following types of resources and like soils.consequences: These potential impacts would be mitigated through a• Geology • Soils variety of measures. Keystone’s proposed• Wetlands • Terrestrial vegetation construction methods (Appendix G, CMRP) incorporate measures to reduce soil erosion,• Fisheries • Threatened and including the use of sediment barriers, trench plugs, endangered species• Recreation temporary slope breakers, drainage channels or• Cultural resources • Visual resources ditches, mulching, and inspection of these control methods. Specific additional methods and measures,• Climate change • Air quality such as the following would apply in areas of fragile• Water resources • Noise soils (i.e., where the soil exhibits conditions typical• Land use • Wildlife of the NDEQ-identified Sand Hills Region and is very susceptible to wind erosion):• • Socioeconomics Pipeline releases • Use of photodegradable matting, sediment logs, or straw wattles rather than terraces (slopeThe proposed Project Construction, Mitigation, and breakers) in steep slope or erosion-prone areas;Reclamation Plan (CMRP) (see Appendix G)includes procedures that Keystone would follow to • Use of native seed mixes (developed with localreduce the likelihood and severity of, or avoid Natural Resource Conservation Service officesimpacts from the proposed Project. and used in coordination with landowners);The discussion below summarizes the findings of the • Use of trench-line or blade-width strippinganalysis related to selected resources and procedures where practicable to reduce the widthconsequences. These resources would either be of disturbance; andsubstantially impacted by the proposed Project, or • Minor route realignments.have been the focus of particular public attention and Approximately 4,715 acres of prime farmland soilcomment. would be directly impacted by construction of the proposed pipeline. To avoid permanent impacts toES.5.1 Soils these soils, topsoil in non-forested agricultural areasConstruction of the proposed Project and its would be removed and stockpiled at the edge of theconnected actions could affect soil resources. ROW during excavation activities and returnedPotential impacts could include, to varying degrees:Executive Summary ES-8 March 2013
  11. 11. Keystone XL Project Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EISfollowing completion of construction and subsurface • Temporarily reduced flow in streams; andsoil preparation. Salvage depths would vary from4 inches in shallow soils to 12 inches in highly • Potential impacts associated with spills.productive soils. Operation of the proposed Project Open-cut methods would be used at most waterbodywould have minor, localized impacts on soils. crossings. However, impacts to surface waterbodies would be mitigated through various means.ES.5.2 Water Resources Horizontal directional drilling (HDD) would be usedIn response to public scoping comments for the at 14 major and sensitive waterbody crossings (seeproposed Project, the draft Supplemental EIS Figure ES-6). Waterbody banks would be restored toincludes a detailed assessment of impacts on preconstruction contours or to a stable slope.groundwater and surface water, including shallow Seeding, erosion control fabric, and other erosiongroundwater associated with the Ogallala Aquifer control measures would be installed, as specified inand the NDEQ-identified Sand Hills Region. the CMRP (Appendix G), and permit documents. Operations PhaseES.5.2.1 Surface WaterThe proposed Project would impact waterbodies Surface water impacts associated with potentialacross the states of Montana, South Dakota, and releases of crude oil and other hazardous liquid spillsNebraska. The proposed Project route would avoid are addressed later in this Executive Summary. Othersurface water whenever possible; however, the potential impacts during the operations phase wouldproposed Project route would still cross include:approximately 1,073 waterbodies, including • Channel migration or streambed degradation that56 perennial rivers and streams, as well as exposes the pipeline;approximately 25 miles of mapped floodplains. • Channel incision that increases bank heights toConstruction Phase the point where slopes are destabilized,Construction of the proposed Project could result in ultimately widening the stream; andtemporary and permanent impacts such as: • Sedimentation within a channel that triggers lateral bank erosion, such as the expansion of a• Stream sedimentation; channel meander (curve) opposite a point bar.• Changes in stream channel morphology (shape) Mitigation measures to address these impacts would and stability; include those specified in the CMRP (Appendix G). Crossings would be at least 5 feet below the bottom of all waterbodies, and would have a horizontal buffer of at least 15 feet from either waterbody edge. Figure ES-6: Cross Section of Horizontal Directional Drilling MethodExecutive Summary ES-9 March 2013
  12. 12. Keystone XL Project Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EISWhere an HDD method is used, the crossing depth Figure ES-7 provides a schematic view of thesewould be up to 50 feet below the stream bed. groundwater resources.Potential bank protection measures could includeinstalling rock, wood, or other materials keyed into Hydrostatic Testingthe bank to provide protection from further erosion, Water hydrostatic testing is performed to exposeor regrading the banks to reduce the bank slope. defective materials or welds that have missed prior detection, expose possible leaks, and serve as a finalES.5.2.2 Groundwater validation of the integrity of the constructed system.The primary source of groundwater impacts from the Water is pumped into the sealed pipe section,proposed Project would be potential releases of typically to a pressure greater that the specified pipepetroleum during pipeline operation and, to a lesser strength, and the pressurized segment is monitoredextent, from fuel spills from equipment. The risks for failure.and impacts of these effects are discussed later in this Following the test, the water is removed from theExecutive Summary. Any petroleum releases from pipe and returned to the natural environment orconstruction or operation could potentially impact disposed of in a regulated fashion. Water used forgroundwater where the overlying soils are permeable hydrostatic testing would be obtained from nearbyand the depth to groundwater is shallow. Table ES-1 surface water resources, groundwater, or municipalsummarizes the anticipated effects of potential sources. Approximately 50 potential surface waterreleases from the proposed Project on the aquifers sources have been identified along the proposedand aquifer groups along the proposed Project route. Project route. Discharged water would be tested for water quality prior to release to ensure that it meets applicable water quality standards.Table ES-1: Effects of Potential Releases on AquifersAquifer EffectsAlluvial Aquifers Aquifer conditions in the NHPAQ in the proposed Project area indicate that shallow groundwaterand Northern generally discharges to local surface waterbodies, and typically does not flow downward inHigh Plains significant amounts or flow horizontally over long distances. Analysis of historic spills andAquifer groundwater modeling indicate that contaminant plumes from a large-scale release that reaches(NHPAQ), groundwater in the NHPAQ and alluvial aquifers could be expected to affect groundwaterincluding the quality up to approximately 1,000 feet downgradient of the release source. This localized effectOgallala Aquifer indicates that petroleum releases from the proposed Project would not extensively affect water quality in this aquifer group.Great Plains Across most of the proposed pipeline area where the GPA is present, it is very unlikely that anyAquifer (GPA) releases from the proposed pipeline would affect groundwater quality in the aquifer, because the aquifer is typically deeply buried beneath younger, water-bearing sediments and/or aquitard units. The exception is in southern Nebraska, where the aquifer is closer to the surface. Water quality in the GPA could be affected by releases in this area, but groundwater flow patterns in the vicinity of the proposed Project route make such effects unlikely. Overall, it is very unlikely that the proposed pipeline area would affect water quality in the GPA due to weak downward gradients (downward groundwater flows) in the aquifers overlying the GPA.Western Interior The depth to this aquifer is several hundred feet in the proposed Project area; therefore, there isPlains Aquifer an extremely low probability that a petroleum release from the proposed Project would affect water quality in this aquifer.Northern Great As with the GPA, petroleum releases from the proposed Project would only affect water qualityPlains Aquifer in portions of the NGPAS near the ground surface. In the case of a large-scale release, theseSystem impacts would typically be limited to within several hundred feet of the release source, and(NGPAS) would not affect groundwater within areas that provide groundwater recharge to large portions of the NGPAS.Shallow There are 2,537 wells within 1 mile of the proposed Project, including 39 public water supplyGroundwater and wells and 20 private wells within 100 feet of the pipeline ROW. The vast majority of these wellsWater Wells are in Nebraska. Those wells that were in the vicinity may be affected by a petroleum release from the proposed Project.Executive Summary ES-10 March 2013
  13. 13. Keystone XL Project Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EIS Figure ES-7: Schematic Hydrogeologic Cross-Section along Proposed Pipeline Route consideration for federal protection under ESA. InES.5.2.3 Floodplains consultation with the USFWS, the DepartmentThe proposed pipeline would cross mapped and prepared a Biological Assessment (BA) to evaluateunmapped floodplains in Montana, South Dakota, the proposed Project’s potential impacts to federallyand Nebraska. In floodplain areas adjacent to protected and candidate species and their federallywaterbody crossings, contours would be restored to designated critical habitat (Appendix H). In addition,as close to previously existing contours as practical 13 state-listed species that are not also federally listedand the disturbed area would be revegetated during species and one species under consideration forconstruction of the ROW in accordance with the federal protection under the ESA could be impactedCMRP (Appendix G). After construction, the by the proposed Project.proposed pipeline would not obstruct flows overdesignated floodplains, and any changes to Types of potential impacts to threatened andtopography would be minimal and thus would not endangered species include:affect local flood dynamics or flood elevations. • Habitat loss, alteration, and fragmentation;ES.5.3 Threatened and Endangered Species • Direct mortality during construction andConsultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service operation, including collision with power lines;(USFWS) identified 13 federally protected or • Indirect mortality due to stress or avoidance ofcandidate species that could be impacted by the feeding, and/or reduced breeding success due toproposed Project: eleven federally-listed threatened exposure to noise and/or increased humanor endangered species, as defined under the activity; andEndangered Species Act (ESA), and two candidatespecies for listing as threatened or endangered. In • Reduced survival or reproduction due toaddition, this draft Supplemental EIS also evaluated decreased abundance of food or reduced cover.the potential Project impacts on one species underExecutive Summary ES-11 March 2013
  14. 14. Keystone XL Project Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EISThe subsections below provide additional detail onspecies that could potentially be affected by the ES.5.3.2 Whooping Crane The whooping crane (Grus Americana) is federallyproposed Project, or species that are frequent topics protected and is also protected under the Migratoryof concern for projects similar to or in the same Bird Treaty Act. Whooping cranes could be impactedgeographic region as the Project. Monitoring and by collisions with power lines associated with themitigation measures that address these impacts are proposed Project. The majority of the proposeddiscussed thoroughly in the draft Supplemental EIS. Project route crosses the central flyway whooping crane migration corridor in South Dakota andES.5.3.1 American Burying Beetle Nebraska, and the Rainwater Basin in south centralOf the 13 federally protected or candidate species, the Nebraska provides whooping crane migration habitat.American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) With avoidance, minimization, and conservationwas the only species determined to be potentially measures, such as following the Whooping Craneadversely affected by the proposed Project. Survey Protocol previously developed by the USFWS and Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, the proposed Project is unlikely to adversely affect whooping cranes, based on the low likelihood of the species occurring near the proposed Project route during construction and operations activities and implementation of USFWS recommended mitigation measures. ES.5.3.3 Greater Sage-Grouse The greater sage-grouse (Centrocerus urophasianus) is a federal candidate species under the ESA, a Bureau of Land Management sensitive species, and a species of conservation concern in Montana and Figure ES-8: American Burying Beetle South Dakota. Approximately 190 miles of theApproximately 50 miles of the proposed Project proposed Project route would cross areas with greaterRoute in Nebraska would affect American burying sage-grouse habitat in Montana, of which 94 milesbeetle habitat; approximately 43 miles in South are classified as moderate to high-quality habitat forDakota would affect suitable habitat for the species. greater sage-grouse.Consultation between the Department and USFWSresulted in development of conservation measuresand compensatory mitigation, such as trapping andrelocating beetles, special lighting restrictions (thebeetles are attracted to light), and establishment of ahabitat conservation trust.Even with these measures, the proposed Project couldaffect, and would be likely to adversely affect theAmerican burying beetle, resulting in incidental takes(unintended death of individual beetles) duringconstruction or operations. Keystone continues towork with USFWS to refine conservation measuresfor minimizing incidental take and to quantifyestimated incidental take and development ofcompensatory mitigation through the formalSection 7 ESA consultation process for the Americanburying beetle. Figure ES-9: Greater Sage-GrouseExecutive Summary ES-12 March 2013
  15. 15. Keystone XL Project Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EISThe most substantial potential effects of the proposed Keystone would implement conservation measuresProject on the greater sage grouse would be included in the BA (Appendix H) and would avoiddisturbance of habitat, including sagebrush, which known western prairie fringed orchid populations;can take up to 20 years to regenerate to therefore, the proposed Project would not be likely topre-construction cover levels, and disturbance of adversely affect the western prairie fringed orchid.mating and breeding behavior.The BA (Appendix H) and greater sage-grouse ES.5.3.5 Small White Lady’s Slipper The small white lady’s slipper (Cypripediummitigation plans for Montana and South Dakota candidum), a type of perennial orchid, is a threateneddescribe conservation measures that Keystone would species under Nebraska state law. This species mayimplement to address potential impacts. After potentially occur within suitable habitat along theimplementation of these measures, the proposed proposed Project route in Nebraska. If this plant wereProject would not likely affect greater sage-grouse to be observed within the proposed Project route inmating behavior, and would likely result in a low Nebraska, appropriate mitigation measures would beimpact on nesting greater sage-grouse. Construction developed and implemented in consultation with statewould likely result in an incremental loss of agencies.sagebrush habitat.ES.5.3.4 Western Prairie Fringed Orchid ES.5.4 Socioeconomics and EnvironmentalThe western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera Justiceleucophaea) is federally listed as threatened, state- The draft Supplemental EIS updates the economiclisted as threatened in Nebraska, and is a species of data contained in the Final EIS and re-evaluates theconservation concern in South Dakota. The proposed economic impacts of the proposed Project. InProject would pass near known populations of particular, and in response to public comments, thewestern prairie fringed orchid in Nebraska, and draft Supplemental EIS addresses local economicthrough land where the orchid may potentially occur impacts and Environmental Justice.in South Dakota. Clearing and grading of landassociated with construction of the proposed Project ES.5.4.1 Tribal Consultation(including pipeline and ancillary facilities) may Government-to-government consultation is underwaypotentially disturb western prairie fringed orchids, for the current Supplemental EIS process for theand may introduce or expand invasive species that proposed Project, and tribal meetings were held inalready contribute to the orchid’s decline. October 2012 in Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska. As the lead federal agency for the proposed Project, the Department is continuing throughout the Supplemental EIS process to engage in consultation on the Supplemental EIS, the proposed Project generally, and on cultural resources consistent with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1986 with identified consulting parties, including federal agencies, state agencies, State Historic Preservation Offices, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and interested federally recognized Native American tribes in the vicinity of the proposed Project. ES.5.4.2 Socioeconomics Construction Construction of the proposed Project would generate temporary, positive socioeconomic impacts as a result of local employment, taxes, spending by construction workers, and spending on construction goods and services. Including direct, indirect, and Figure ES-10: Western Prairie Fringed Orchid induced effects, the proposed Project would potentially support approximately 42,100 averageExecutive Summary ES-13 March 2013
  16. 16. Keystone XL Project Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EISannual jobs across the United States over a 1- to 2- low-income populations, specifically as part of ayear construction period (of which, approximately NEPA process. Within the socioeconomic analysis3,900 would be directly employed in construction area, 16 block groups contain minority populationsactivities). This employment would potentially that were meaningfully greater than the surroundingtranslate to approximately $2.05 billion in earnings. state or county (reference areas), and five censusDirect expenditures such as construction and tracts had larger low-income populations than theirmaterials costs (including construction camps) would respective reference areas. Four of these areastotal approximately $3.3 billion. Short-term revenues contained both types of “meaningfully greater”from sources such as sales and use taxes would total populations.approximately $65 million in states that levy such a Impacts to minority and low-income populationstax. Yields from fuel and other taxes could not be during construction may include exposure tocalculated, but would provide some additional construction dust and noise, disruption to trafficeconomic benefit to host counties and states. patterns, and increased competition for medical orThe proposed Project area does not have sufficient health services in underserved populations. Suchtemporary housing for the anticipated construction impacts would generally be small and short-term.workforce. Keystone proposes to meet the housing Typical operation of the proposed Project is unlikelyneed through a combination of local housing and to disproportionately adversely impact theeight construction camps. Property taxes on these Environmental Justice populations discussed in thiscamps would potentially generate the equivalent of section. Because the risk of a potential release isone full year of property tax revenue for seven host roughly equal at all points along the pipeline, thecounties, totaling approximately $2 million. risks associated with such releases would not beOther construction-phase socioeconomic impacts disproportionately borne by minority or low-incomewould include minor increases in demand for utilities populations.and public services (such as police, fire, andemergency medical services), and temporary traffic ES.5.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions anddelays at public road crossings. The construction Climate Changecamps would provide utilities and other services for The draft Supplemental EIS evaluates the GHGworkers, reducing demands on existing communities. emissions associated with the proposed Project fromOperations Phase several distinct perspectives. The construction and operation of the proposed Project and its connectedGenerally, the largest economic impacts of pipelines actions (the pipeline, pump stations, electricaloccur during construction rather than operations. transmission lines, etc.) would generate GHGOnce in place, the labor requirements for pipeline emissions. In addition, concerns have been raised thatoperations are relatively minor. Operation of the extracting the crude oil that would be transported byproposed Project would generate 35 permanent and the proposed Project produces more GHG emissions15 temporary jobs, primarily for routine inspections, compared to other types of crude oil. Finally, climatemaintenance, and repairs. Based on this estimate, change considerations—which are influenced byroutine operation of the proposed Pipeline would GHG emissions—could affect the construction andhave negligible socioeconomic impacts. operation of the proposed Project. GHG and climate change issues were the subject of many commentsES.5.4.3 Environmental Justice received during the public scoping process for theAs defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection proposed Project.Agency, “Environmental Justice” refers to the “fairtreatment and meaningful involvement of all people ES.5.5.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissionsregardless of race, color, national origin, or income Construction and operation of the proposed Projectwith respect to the development, implementation, and would generate GHG emissions from several sourcesenforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and or activities, as described below.policies.” Executive Order 12898 further directsfederal agencies to identify and address, asappropriate, disproportionately high and adversehealth or environmental effects of their programs,policies, and activities on minority populations andExecutive Summary ES-14 March 2013
  17. 17. Keystone XL Project Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EISConstruction-Phase Sources Project is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands, or on the amount• Clearing of land in the proposed ROW via open of heavy crude oil refined in the Gulf Coast area. burning; As discussed in the market analysis, if the proposed• Electricity usage and emergency generators at Project were denied but other proposed new and construction camps; and expanded pipelines go forward, production could• Construction vehicles, worker transports, and decrease by approximately 0.4 to 0.6 percent of total other mobile sources. WCSB production by 2030. If all pipeline capacity were restricted, oil sands production could decreaseOperations-Phase Sources by approximately 2 to 4 percent by 2030.• Fugitive methane emissions at connections; The incremental indirect life-cycle emissions• Maintenance vehicles (two or more times per associated with those decreases in oil sands year); production are estimated to be in the range of 0.07 to 0.83 million metric tons CO2 equivalent (MMTCO2e)• Aircraft used for aerial inspection (biweekly); annually if the proposed Project were not built, and in and the range of 0.35 to 5.3 MMTCO2e annually if all• Electrical generation for pump station power. pipeline projects were denied.During the construction period, GHG emissions from As WCSB and Bakken crudes replace crudes fromthese sources and activities would be approximately other sources—independent of whether the proposed240,423 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents Project exists—the life-cycle GHG emissions(CO2e). Emissions during operation of the proposed associated with transportation fuels produced in U.S.Project would be approximately 3.19 million metric refineries would likely increase. The GHG intensitytons of CO2e per year, almost entirely due to of reference crudes may also increase in the future aselectrical generation needed to power the proposed more of the world crude supply requires extraction byProject’s pump stations. increasingly energy-intensive techniques, such asThe annual CO2e emissions from the proposed those used to extract oil-sands crude, althoughProject is equivalent to CO2e emissions from regulatory pressures and technological advancesapproximately 626,000 passenger vehicles operating could counter this trend.for one year or 398,000 homes using electricity forone year. ES.5.5.3 Climate Change Effects on the ProjectES.5.5.2 Life Cycle Analysis Changes in climate have been observed both globallyCombustion of fossil fuels, including petroleum- and within the proposed Project study area over thebased products such as crude oil, is a major source of past century. These changes include direct effects,global GHG emissions, which contribute to human- such as increases and decreases in temperature andinduced climate change. WCSB crudes are more precipitation, and indirect effects, such as increases inGHG-intensive than the other heavy crudes they freeze-thaw cycles, increased occurrences of floodingwould replace or displace in U.S. refineries, and emit and drought, and wind erosion of soil, and resultantan estimated 17 percent more GHGs on a life-cycle changes to the natural environment, such asbasis than the average barrel of crude oil refined in vegetation changes.the United States in 2005. If the proposed Project As part of the preparation of this draft Supplementalwere to induce growth in the rate of extraction in the EIS, an analysis was performed to evaluate theoil sands, then it could cause GHG emissions greater potential impacts of climate change on the proposedthan just its direct emissions. Project construction and operations. Using futureBased on information and analysis about the North climate scenarios developed by theAmerican crude transport infrastructure (particularly Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change andthe proven ability of rail to transport substantial peer-reviewed downscaled models, the draftquantities of crude oil profitably under current market Supplemental EIS evaluates the range of impacts thatconditions, and to add capacity relatively rapidly) and climate change could have on the proposed Project.the global crude oil market, the draft SupplementalEIS concludes that approval or denial of the proposedExecutive Summary ES-15 March 2013
  18. 18. Keystone XL Project Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EISAssuming construction of the proposed Project leak that escapes any containment system and entersbegins as planned in 2015, climate conditions during the environment. This section describes the releasethe 1- to 2-year construction period would not differ and spill analyses included in the draft Supplementalsubstantially from current conditions. During the EIS, including potential impacts on waterbodies andoperations period, climate change projections suggest mitigation measures, as identified in public scopingthe following changes: comments.• Warmer winter temperatures; ES.5.6.1 Spill Scenarios• A shorter cool season; The Potential Releases section of the draft Supplemental EIS addresses the risks and potential• A longer duration of frost-free periods; impacts of crude oil releases and spills during• More freeze-thaw cycles per year (which could construction and operation of the proposed Project. lead to an increased number of episodes of soil This risk assessment addresses both the potential contraction and expansion); frequency of operational pipeline releases and the• Warmer summer temperatures; potential crude oil spill volumes associated with the releases, using three hypothetical spill volumes to• Increased number of hot days and consecutive represent the range of reported spills in the Pipeline hot days; and and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration• Longer summers (which could lead to impacts (PHMSA) database. These spill volumes and the associated with heat stress and wildfire risks). probabilities of such volumes are shown in TableThe pipeline would be buried deep enough to avoid ES-2. Screening-level (i.e., general) models weresurface impacts of climate changes (freeze-thaw used to estimate the distance oil could move overcycles, fires, and temperature extremes). land or migrate in groundwater. Table ES-3 summarizes hazardous liquid pipelineES.5.6 Potential Releases incidents reported to PHMSA from January 2002The terms “release,” “leak,” and “spill” are used through July 2012 and shows the breakdown ofthroughout this section. These are distinct terms. A incidents by pipeline component. Figure ES-11release is a loss of integrity of a pipeline (including summarizes the spill scenarios reported to PHMSA,the mainline and other components); a leak is a by pipeline elements.release over time; and a spill is the liquid volume of aTable ES-2: Spill Scenarios Evaluated in Draft Supplemental EISSpill Volume Scenario FrequencyaSmall: Less than 50 barrels (bbl) (2,100 gallons) 79%Medium: 50–1,000 bbl (2,100–42,000 gallons) 17%Large: 1,000–20,000 bbl (42,000–840,000 gallons) 4%a Indicates the share of all releases reported in the PHMSA database that fit each spill volume scenario.Table ES-3: Summary of PHMSA Database Incidents (January 2002 to July 2012)Incident Category Incidents Incident Sub-Category Incidents Crude oil mainline pipe incidents 321Crude oil pipeline 1,692 Crude oil pipeline, equipment incidents (not mainline pipe) 1,027 Crude oil pipeline system, unspecified elements 344 16-inch or greater diameter 71Crude oil mainline 8-inch or 15-inch diameter 154 321pipe Less than 8-inch diameter 52 Diameter not provided 44Crude oil pipeline, Tanks 93equipment (not 1,027 Valves 25mainline pipe) Other discrete elements (pumps, fittings, etc.) 909Executive Summary ES-16 March 2013
  19. 19. Keystone XL Project Executive Summary—Draft Supplemental EIS Spill Scenarios Pipeline, All Elements 79% 17% 4% Mainline Pipe 56% 35% 9% Mainline Pipe, Diameter 16"+ 38% 36% 26% Pipeline System, Tanks 51% 30% 17% Pipeline System, Mainline Valves 89% 11% Pipeline System, Other Discrete Elements 81% 16% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 – 50 bbl 50 – 1,000 bbl 1,000 – 20,000 bblSource: PHMSA Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Incident Data 2002–2012, and PHMSA Liquid Annual Pipeline Data. 2004–2011 Figure ES-11: Spill Volume Distribution by Pipeline Component tend to pool in low areas and potentially infiltrateES.5.6.2 Oil Movement back into the soil and to groundwater depending onSmall and Medium Spills the depth to groundwater. Potential behavior in shallow groundwater is the same as small spills thatThe potential impacts from small leaks of oil would reach groundwater; the spill could migrate away fromtypically be confined to soil immediately surrounding the release site. Because of the increased volume ofthe leak, and would have little effect on nearby oil released from the pipeline when compared to anatural resources. These types of spills would small release, it is also possible that oil could pool ongenerally be detected by maintenance or operations groundwater.personnel and addressed through repair of the leakand removal and remediation of impacted soil. A Large Spillsslow subsurface leak, characterized as a slow drip With a large spill, the majority of the spill volume(e.g., gallons per year as opposed to gallons per would migrate away from the release site. Theminute), would infiltrate into soil and could potential impacts from a large spill would be similarpotentially reach a groundwater resource. If the spill to the impacts from the medium-sized spill, but on arate is faster than the soil can absorb, the oil may much larger scale. Once the spill reaches the surface,surface and potentially flow away from the release the oil would flow following topographic gradient orsite, affecting nearby vegetation or other resources. lows (e.g., gullies, roadside drainage ditches,With medium spills, a release can occur as a culverts, and storm sewers) and eventually to surfacesubsurface or surface event depending upon the water features. If the release enters flowing water orcause. Similar to a small spill, a slow subsurface other surface water feature, the extent of the releaserelease could potentially reach a groundwater could become very large, potentially affecting soilresource, and if the rate of the spill is faster than the and vegetation along miles of river and shoreline.soil can absorb, the oil may surface. Once the Sinking oil can be deposited in river or streammigrating oil leaves the release site, impacts to soil, bottoms and become a continual source of oil asvegetation, and surface water along the flow path changing water flows release the deposited oil.might occur. Depending on how quickly it isremediated, some of this volume of material mightExecutive Summary ES-17 March 2013

×