|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|||
 |
|||
|
Pipeline fuels controversy
Environmentalists lose Longhorn battle by Erika McDonald After battling environmentalists for years, the Longhorn Partners are now free to resurrect a 50-year-old pipeline to transport refined fuels including gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel 700 miles from Houston to El Paso. After postponing an October 1 start-up date, Longhorn officials are unsure when the line will begin pumping.
In Austin the pipeline crosses the Colorado River, the city’s main source of drinking water, and a section of the sensitive Edward’s Aquifer that feeds Barton Springs. In Houston, the pipeline runs through populous communities, in some places fewer than 25 feet from schools and playgrounds and directly under homes. The Houston neighborhoods most affected by the pipeline are predominantly black or Hispanic and low income. When the pipeline was originally used to transport crude oil from West Texas, it flowed downhill into Houston. For the refined fuels to be piped from Houston, they must be pumped in a pressurized line. Longhorn opponents argue that greater stress will be placed on the pipeline when pumping fuels in the opposite direction than originally intended. They are also concerned that gasoline, which is lighter and thinner than oil, will be harder to contain once leaked. The condition of the line is another source of heated debate. Don Deaver, of Houston, is a former Exxon pipeline engineer of 33 years who now works as a consultant on national pipeline safety boards. Before Longhorn bought the pipeline in 1995, it was owned by Exxon, which inspected the line that year. According to Deaver, the inspection revealed about 4,500 pipe joints (more than 10 percent of the total number of pipe joints on the line) with at least one area of missing metal that had been completely corroded. Some areas of corrosion were as long as 10-15 feet. Of the 4,500 corroded joints, fewer than 200 were unearthed and repaired. He said that because the pipe has gotten older since 1995 there is no doubt that even more corrosion has occurred. An Environmental Protection Agency assessment completed in 2000 yielded a finding of no significant impact. The EPA concluded that the odds of a spill of 5,000 barrels or more occurring were one in 16,200 per year. They determined that even such a “worst case scenario” would likely have insignificant environmental consequences. The decision was bitterly disputed by environmentalists who had filed suit against Longhorn, the EPA and the Department of Transportation. Deaver called the EPA findings “fictitious,” claiming that the assessment yielded flawed estimates of probability based on data from individual areas of the pipeline rather than considering the age and condition of the entire line. The EPA noted that from 1950 to 1995, the pipeline logged 60 spills of 50 barrels or more. The overall spill frequency was greater than the national average for hazardous liquid pipeline operators. In fact, a portion of the pipeline in east Houston exploded while it was being tested in 1998, causing the evacuation of more than 100 homes. No injuries were reported. Another problem with the assessment was that it was paid for by Longhorn. The contractors who completed the analysis were not hired by the EPA or DOT but by Longhorn, which Deaver said allowed the company to control the scope of the assessment. He suggested that because the federal agencies and Longhorn were defendants in the same lawsuit, the regulatory role of the agencies was compromised. “The agencies and the industry aren’t supposed to be on the same team,” Deaver said. “Usually one side wears white shirts and the other side wears black shirts-this time they were both wearing grey.” The city of Austin and the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Conservation District sought a court order to stop the pipeline until the completion of an environmental impact statement, which they said would require a more extensive examination than the assessment. In July, District Judge Sam Sparks ruled against plaintiffs, saying he did not have the legal authority to stop the line or force an EIS. His decision cleared the way for Longhorn to begin pumping. In a 40-page ruling, Sparks expressed his reluctance at allowing the pipeline operators to continue with their plans saying that, had he been granted more discretion, he would have ordered Longhorn to replace the aging line. “Time will only tell if the mitigation measures will be sufficient to contain the dangers inherent in this decrepit line,” he wrote, “and the people and critters in its threatening shadow can only hope and pray that they will.”
|
|||
|
