Home » News » Keystone concerns: EPA right to require attention to minority pollution problems in pipeline project
News
Keystone concerns: EPA right to require attention to minority pollution problems in pipeline project
News Articles | Houston Chronicle | August 18, 2010
Read the full article on the originating site
The proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, designed to bring crude oil extracted from tar sands in western Canada to refineries in Houston and Port Arthur, has recently attracted the attention and concern of the Environmental Protection Agency.
A high-level EPA official has communicated that the pipeline doesn’t adequately evaluate potential health impacts on minority communities near the Port Arthur refinery where some of the crude would be processed.
The agency’s interest in this topic should not come as a complete blind-side to the parties involved in the construction of the pipeline. They reflect frequently expressed views of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson that minorities and poor people have historically not had a say on decisions such as these that continue to have a direct impact on their health and quality of life. We share those concerns.
The situation in Port Arthur has drawn particular attention because of its large minority population living close by several refineries, chemical plants and a waste incinerator. Port Arthur was flagged as one of 10 sites with particular “environmental justice” issues, and received government grants in 2009 to help mitigate those effects.
The EPA comments build specifically on concerns expressed earlier by environmentalists about the tar-sands-based product being shipped in the pipeline.
Among several concerns, the EPA focused on potential clean-air risks to Port Arthur residents raised by the Canadian oil.
We share those concerns, too. In particular, we question whether the way forward toward a greener, cleaner energy future should be built on heavy, high-sulfur tar sands crude. That seems more like a step into the past than a cleaner future.
The issue raised by the Keystone Pipeline is being cast by some as a choice between starvation and pollution — between enjoying the benefits of the jobs the pipeline would bring but also suffering from the health consequences of pollution, or starving because the jobs go elsewhere.
It shouldn’t be. This is a false choice, as all involved should well recognize.
Equally false is the claim that since the Port Arthur refinery has been in place for more than 100 years, the risks of living nearby should be well known by those moving into the nearby neighborhoods.
This misses the obvious point that poor people and minorities historically were denied other choices and in most cases were forced to live in such locations.
We believe the concerns raised by the EPA are reasonable and important ones that deserve full and satisfactory answers as the permitting process for Keystone XL proceeds.
The best-case outcome would be placement of the pipeline and processing of its product in a way that would minimize the impact on residential areas nearby. No starvation. And an absolute minimum of pollution. That doesn’t seem like too much to hope for in this situation.
Tagged with: keystone xl, epa, pollution, environmental impact, port arthur
