EPA is raising concerns about the environmental impact of tar sands and oil shale development, a move that is likely to add controversy to the already contentious congressional debate about whether to encourage development of the alternative fuels as a way to boost fuel supplies.
Region VIII in recent comments to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) says the extraction processes may harm air quality, surface water and groundwater and would be unlikely to win EPA approval under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
In addition, the region says in separate comments on an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a proposed natural gas project in Utah that the projected environmental impacts of oil shale extraction, combined with existing air quality problems, may force tighter emissions controls on pending natural gas facilities to offset cumulative emission increases.
Despite Region VIII's concerns, environmentalists doubt that it will have much influence during the Bush administration on BLM's policy regarding oil shale and tar sand leasing, citing BLM's past actions approving energy projects despite EPA warnings over their environmental impacts.
In addition, BLM July 22 issued draft regulations for oil shale extraction, which a key GOP lawmaker calls "a major step toward opening this important energy resource for domestic use." President Bush has also backed development of the resource, saying it could be a significant source of domestic oil.
Critics of oil shale and tar sands projects say the process -- which involves extracting fuel from sand or rock -- can be energy-intensive and can produce more emissions because tar sands must be heavily refined and oil shale must be heated to high temperatures in order to releases its oil-like substance.
In December, BLM released a draft programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) for oil shale development. The draft statement helps BLM develop a land-use plan for administering public lands, and Congress directed the bureau to develop the PEIS in the 2005 energy law.
Region VIII in April 17 comments on the draft statement raises a host of concerns, for example, saying that future NEPA analysis will need to consider cumulative and indirect environmental impacts of oil shale development, including impacts of new coal-fired or nuclear power plants that may be built to supply additional energy for extraction. NEPA requires agencies to conduct an EIS of major federal actions that are expected to significantly affect the quality of the environment.
On water impacts, EPA in its comments urged BLM to weigh whether the regions with oil shale had enough water to support development when combined with the water supply impacts of future growth, drought and climate change. The agency also expressed concerns about the fate and transport of salts, selenium, arsenic and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in groundwater, the comments say.
Regarding air quality impacts, the comments add, "EPA believes that the oil shale and tar sands development process may have significant, adverse impacts to air quality, in particular by increasing levels of ozone and nitrogen deposition and impairing visibility on a regional level."
In light of these potential adverse environmental impacts, EPA would likely find it difficult to approve of the environmental impacts of oil shale development, the comments say. "Given the sensitive resources and the potential for impacts to air quality and water quality, EPA believes that it may be difficult to support a [finding of no significant impact] in the subsequent NEPA analysis," the comments say.
A finding of no significant impact is important because it signifies a green light regarding the environmental impacts of a given project. Without such a finding, BLM must prepare an EIS for each project, and the EIS may include requirements to mitigate the environmental impacts of the project.
Some lawmakers are pushing the projects to reduce dependence on foreign oil. For example, House Natural Resources Committee ranking member Don Young (R-AK) recently praised BLM's July 22 draft regulation for oil shale extraction, calling it "a major step toward opening this important energy resource for domestic use."
But other lawmakers are trying to block commercialization of the process, with Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) and Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) inserting language in BLM's fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill prohibiting the bureau from using any funds to finalize its proposed regulations. One Republican source says the stalled House version of BLM's FY09 appropriations bill contains a similar provision to last year's legislation.
Environmental groups oppose the oil shale and tar sands projects because, they say, the developments will require more water than is available in the region where oil shale is located and it will require the construction of coal-fired power plants that will increase emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants.
A National Oil Shale Association source downplays the environmental concerns, saying projects must satisfy environmental laws. "If it is going to be done, it will meet the environmental regulations," the source says.
Region VIII's concerns about oil shale and tar sands may also impact the boom in natural gas projects in the West, including in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming -- three states where there is abundant natural gas.
For example, in Feb. 8 comments on an EIS for a proposed natural gas development in Utah's Chapita Wells-Stagecoach area, Region VIII raises concerns about increases in fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone pollution as a result of the project. In particular, EPA has concerns about high PM2.5 readings at a monitor in Vernal, UT, in 2007. Given the high readings, EPA says BLM should include the cumulative air quality impacts of future tar sands and oil shale development when considering the air quality impacts of the natural gas project.
"BLM has an obligation under NEPA to take a close hard look at the reasonably foreseeable developments, including proposed tar sands and oil shale activities that are likely in the next several decades, as well as the expansion of existing oil and gas operations regardless of whether or not an application for drilling has been submitted to your office," the Region VIII comments say.
The likely air quality impacts of, among other things, future oil shale and tar sands development means that BLM may have to implement new mitigation measures, EPA says.
One environmentalist says that air emissions from oil shale development could be a significant factor in a cumulative air quality analysis for the natural gas facility. "Oil shale certainly would be a very large contributer to whatever air quality concerns EPA is asking BLM to consider," the source says.
However, a second environmentalist says that BLM is unlikely to heed EPA advice on mitigating environmental impacts from oil shale, tar sands and other energy developments during the Bush Administration. The source points out that BLM did not substantially change the requirements for a large natural gas development in Wyoming, despite strong concerns and a poor environmental rating from Region VIII. --Environmental Policy Alert
