EPA Says State Department Still Flunks Keystone XL Environmental Review

This just in: Our friends at the Environmental Protection Agency have declared the State Department still hasn't done enough environmental homework to justify issuing a permit for the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline. In a letter issued yesterday, EPA assistant administrator Cynthia Giles raises a number of objections to State's draft environmental impact statement (EIS).

EPA's areas of concern:

1. Pipeline Safety/Oil Spill Risks: TransCanada's Keystone leaks (two last month!) have not inspired confidence. EPA wants, among other things, more information on the exact composition of the goop Keystone XL would transport, recipes TransCanada is striving mightily to keep secret.
2. Routing: EPA says State hasn't done enough to evaluate alternative routes to keep Keystone XL from harming sensitive areas like the Ogallala Aquifer. State says other routes aren't reasonable; EPA says prove it.
3. Environmental Justice: EPA says the draft EIS may lowball estimates of harm from the pipeline to tribal and low-income communities.
4. Impact on Refinery Neighbors: The draft EIS doesn't sufficiently address possible impacts of increased activity at Gulf Coast refineries processing the Keystone XL oil. EPA wants State to seek more public input from folks in that area.
5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Again, State may be lowballing impact (could this have anything to do with Secretary Clinton's old campaign aide Paul Elliott working as a lobbyist for TransCanada? Ya think?). EPA wants new calculations and more discussion of mitigation plans.
6. Wetlands: EPA looks at the aerial photos and finds Keystone XL crossing wetlands that, if crossed by utility lines, would require review by the Army Corps of Engineers. EPA says TransCanada needs to get a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit. They also want more analysis of impacts on bottomland hardwood wetlands in Texas and prairie pothole wetlands.
7. Migratory Birds: The draft EIS lacks discussion of impacts on specific and especially vulnerable species. Again, EPA wants more discussion of mitigation measures.

So just like last year, EPA tells State, "Back to the drawing board!" TransCanada throws all sorts of papers and money and pressure at Washington, but they still can't contribute to a proper and complete review of the environmental harms they will impose on the rest of us for their profits.

Are we ready to just say no yet?