Neguse and Bennet urge the EPA to review Utah’s permits to expand oil production in Uinta Basin
Vail Daily archive
Sen. Michael Bennet and Rep. Joe Neguse this week urged the Environmental Protection Agency to “carefully examine” permits to expand three oil loading facilities in the Uinta Basin in eastern Utah.
The Members of Congress from Colorado argued that the expansions would significantly increase the oil transported through Colorado, risking the chance of spills. The oil would be shipped via rail, running more than 100 miles along the Colorado River headwaters.
“A train derailment that spills out in the Colorado River’s headwaters would be disastrous to our state’s water supplies, wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation assets,” they wrote in a joint letter to the agency.
Bennet and Neguse have also been vocal about their concerns over the proposed Uinta Basin Railway Project, an element of a larger project to connect Utah oil facilities to the Gulf Coast via rail. The proposed new 88-mile railroad would pass through Western Colorado.
Several groups, including Eagle County, sued over the project, claiming it violated the National Environmental Protection Act. In September, the U.S. Court of Appeals overruled an earlier approval of the project and soon after, the U.S. Forest Service withdrew its permits for the section.
Support Local Journalism
While the railway project is on pause, opponents view the court ruling and permit removal as temporary delays as proponents continue efforts to build the line.
The expansion of the facilities in eastern Utah would allow about 75% of the production and transportation that was proposed under the Uinta Basin Railway project.
The oil loading facilities are called the Wildcat Loadout, the Prince River Terminal and the Savage Energy Terminal. The Savage and Prince terminals are seeking new air quality permits from the State of Utah, which has already granted a permit to the Wildcat Loadout.
“We urge EPA to examine whether these applications or permits are based on erroneous assumptions about emission control effectiveness and enforcement,” according to the letter.
Bennet and Neguse argue that the permit granted and the pending applications are all based on the assumption there will be reduced emissions but don’t include requirements for monitoring to make those assurances.
