Home » News » Expert: Protect soil in pipeline work
News
Expert: Protect soil in pipeline work
News Articles | The Daily Republic| Bob Mercer | November 04, 2009
Read the full article on the originating site
ames Arndt of Minneapolis made his remarks during the second day of the state Public Utilities Commission’s hearing on the project’s permit application. He is under contract with the PUC staff to review TransCanada’s plans.
Arndt said that if the PUC grants the permit, there should be a condition requiring the company to consult with the state or area office of the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service.
He said the purpose would be “to identify soils for which alternative handling methods in agricultural lands would be appropriate, develop construction procedures to minimize impacts on such soils, and potentially make those alternative soil handling methods available to landowners to maintain soil productivity in agricultural lands.”
The proposed route across South Dakota would run from Montana to Nebraska through Harding, Perkins, Pennington, Meade, Haakon, Jones, Lyman and Tripp counties. The complete project reaches from Alberta to Texas.
Arndt said soil work along pipeline routes has improved significantly in the past 30 years because of better techniques, such as topsoil stripping, soil segregation and decompaction methods.
One example of the suggestions he offered regarding the XL project is to avoid mixing salty subsoil with topsoil that would lead to problems growing vegetation.
Under cross-examination, Arndt acknowledged that he didn’t confer with landowners along the proposed route.
“I had no opportunity to talk to landowners,” he said.
TransCanada presented all but one of its roster of witnesses on the hearing’s first day Monday.
The company’s final witness, state Education Secretary Tom Oster, testified Tuesday morning about the tax-revenue benefits public schools would receive as a result of the project.
The only intervening party in the case is Dakota Rural Action, whose lawyer, Paul Blackburn, chose to present no witnesses in the case. He delivered a surprise Tuesday morning when he submitted for the first time a list of documents he wants to introduce as evidence.
Blackburn gave the various sides and the commission only a list. He didn’t bring paper or electronic copies. He was told to submit electronic copies to all sides before the end of the hearing, which at this time is scheduled to run through Friday.
One of the legal-procedure issues raised was whether documents can be submitted without a witness to testify about each document, and the related issue of other parties being unable to cross-examine those witnesses about the documents.
Blackburn said he didn’t want to submit “a foot and a half” of paper if it wouldn’t be allowed. He said the documents focused on pipeline abandonment, setbacks from buildings and livestock operations and impact zones in case of an accident.
Through a question, commission chairman Dusty Johnson suggested that the PUC staff could have contracted for a witness on abandonment if Blackburn had made his concerns known earlier.
“I was not aware the commission staff would be willing to look into this kind of thing,” Blackburn replied. “I understand this is coming a bit late. We don’t have the resources to do a full review on abandonment.”
Hearing officer John Smith allowed one item from the Blackburn list to be submitted because it was the pre-filed testimony of a TransCanada witness. Smith deferred action on the rest of the list until the documents could be seen and read.
“It’s very hard to admit evidence that isn’t present,” Smith said.
“Let’s get it and the commission can make its ruling,” Chairman Johnson said.
Tagged with: keystone xl, transcanada, south dakota, public utilities commission
