skip to main content

→ Top Stories:
Fracking
Safe Chemicals
Defending the Clean Air Act

Anthony Swift’s Blog

State's failure to provide critical documents for Keystone XL review is major obstacle to transparent public process

Anthony Swift

Posted April 19, 2013 in Moving Beyond Oil, Solving Global Warming, U.S. Law and Policy

Tags:
, , , , , , , ,
Share | | |

Today, the State Department made a wrong decision on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. It refused to grant needed additional time for the American public to analyze and comment on the Department’s 3,500-page draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Keystone XL pipeline. State has also failed to provide many of the critical documents the Department cited in its review available to the public. Already, many flaws in its analysis have been identified. By shutting down the public, the State Department raises doubts whether it will provide a fair, sound and accurate recommendation on TransCanada’s application for a permit to build the pipeline. While Secretary Kerry has indicated his intent to stay out of the environmental review process for Keystone XL, he might make an exception to ensure that State’s decision now doesn’t cast a shadow on the Department’s ongoing review of Keystone XL.

State’s failure to provide its sources creates an enormous obstacle to providing a meaningful review of its analysis and violates the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires that documents supporting a draft EIS be made available to the public. These documents provide the analytical basis for State’s finding that the tar sands pipeline would have little impact on tar sands production – a finding that is contrary to the general consensus amount industry, financial analysts – and are critical to evaluate and intelligently comment on State’s environmental review of the project. This is particularly troubling after Reuters broke a story showing that State misunderstood and mischaracterized several of the sources they cited to – and that’s according to the sources themselves. 

There is a copious record showing a substantial effort by the public to be given access to the supporting materials upon which State based its conclusions:  

  • March 20, 2013: Sierra Club made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for number of documents which State relied on for its major conclusions in the draft SEIS for Keystone XL. State denied expedited processing of this request despite only provide a 45 day comment period. The Natural Resources Defense Council and the National Wildlife Community made additional requests for these critical documents.
  • March 27, 2013: The environmental community noted that because the draft SEIS was 3,500 pages in length and coincided with a public comment period for the proposed expansion of Enbridge’s Alberta Clipper tar sands pipeline, the minimum 45 day public comment period was insufficient for meaningful public input.
  • April 8, 2013: The environmental community again asked for an extension of the public comment period because of emerging details from the Pegasus tar sands pipeline spill in Arkansas and because State has failed to provide critical supporting documents.
  • April 12, 2013: Environmental organizations submitted a third letter to the State Department noting that it has failed to respond to requests for documents supporting its draft EIS.

 Providing supporting documents for an environmental review is not meant to be optional according to the National Energy Policy Act (NEPA). The State Department is required by law to disclose documents underlying environmental impacts statements. Council of Environmental Quality regulations require that agencies, like State Department:

[m]ake environmental impact statements, the comments received, and any underlying documents available to the public pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), without regard to the exclusion for interagency memoranda where such memoranda transmit comments of Federal agencies on the environmental impact of the proposed action. 40 C.F.R. § 1506.6(f) (emphasis added).

Simply stated, the State Department has failed to provide sufficient information in the draft SEIS to facilitate a meaningful review of some of its key conclusions. There is no question that publicly available information largely refutes much of the information provided in the SEIS market analysis section which argues that Keystone XL would have little impact on climate emissions. Yesterday’s Reuters exposé underlines that point – showing that when asked, even State’s sources don’t support its conclusions.

While State's commitment to allow a public comment period during the National Interest Determination process is a positive step, it does not mitigate State's failure to provide the information necessary for the public to effectively and intelligently comment on the Department's analysis.   

State has an opportunity to correct many of the errors which cast a pall on its previous environmental review processes for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and preside over a transparent public review process. State’s decision to provide the shortest possible comment period without making the critical documents it relied on available to the public in a timely manner is a sign that the department’s commitment to transparency may have a shorter time limit than its comment period. 

Share | | |

Comments

Diane GillerApr 22 2013 12:26 PM

Anything that will promote Big Oil, fracking, coal, etc. instead of curtailing them, is completely INSANE.

Bernard Carvalho Jr.Apr 22 2013 08:17 PM

Our President said he was going to go to solar and wind , new jobs and training for that industry , he keeps on flipping and now social security , if he caves in on the Keystone issue, send him some PEACHES INSTEAD OF TOMATOES

feoliocifoicoApr 23 2013 12:29 AM

I am sorry to disagree with you. But in the case of national security we need this pipeline. not only that the expense of going green , with our economy the way it is now and the national debt, is absolutely ludicrous. The change to solar, wind, and etc. will take quite a while. 'As far as big oil as you say ' the oil companies are made up of farmers,ranchers, people that own other land property and investors, only make 7% profit on their oil. The food markets, clothing , all other necessary items, cafes, fast food places, auto parts, and every other product make anywhere from 15 to 30%. Oil companies pay billions exploring , billions in taxes, leases, plus when obama shut down the oil production in the Gulf the first 6 months it cost the government 6 Billion in revenue. Then only 1 permit in six months it cost billions more. ' the American oil companies have the safest record in the Gulf. Obama punished our oil companies for a oil spill that someone else did. Smart President,He does not want oil drilling in the U.S. , Obama would rather completely destroy our country going green for his Ideology . Fracking , if the process and the drilling companies follow the cementing rules, there is no way the sand, co2, acid , can reach the surface, Sorry but i drilled for oil my whole life, Fracking does not cause Earth Quakes, the fracking material does not and cannot get to the surface if the casing is cemented right. Not only that fracking only goes a few feet.into the sand formation. For your knowledge -- the sand is pumped into the formation under pressure to hold the oil sand open so that oil can flow. The President , instead of forming a committee of college professors to tell him what caused the oil spill in the Gulf, that took 6 months, could have asked any roughneck or driller and they could have told him what happened in about 5 minutes. Some much for i am not asking the oil people what happened. There is a ton of knowledge that you need to know if your going to drill for oil
feoliocifoico

Comments are closed for this post.

About

Switchboard is the staff blog of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the nation’s most effective environmental group. For more about our work, including in-depth policy documents, action alerts and ways you can contribute, visit NRDC.org.

Feeds: Anthony Swift’s blog

Feeds: Stay Plugged In