Technology
interior nears decision on Alaska pipeline Final environmental impact statement says some impacts of hot-oil pipeline are unavoidable and many will be adverse Climaxing three years of study and controversy, the Interior Department late last month released the final environmental impact statement on the proposed trans-Alaska pipeline. The six-volume report offers arguments for and against the pipeline, but does not take a stand on whether a permit should be granted to Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. to construct a 48-inch hotoil pipeline between Prudhoe Bay on the North Slope and Port Valdez on the south coast. However, an additional three-volume analysis of the economic and national security aspects of the pipeline does conclude that "early completion of the Alaska pipeline must be considered an important national security objective." A decision will not be made on the permit by Secretary of Interior Rogers C. B. Morton until at least the first week in May. He has the option to grant, deny, or defer the permit. Even as Interior was holding a press conference on its statement, three environmental groups—the Wilderness Society, Friends of the Earth, and Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.—asked President Nixon to call public hearings. Interior undersecretary William T. Pecora, who supervised preparation of the $9 million study, told the press conference that Secretary Morton believes further public hearings at this time would be a "circus" and would "interfere with the thoughtful and substantive views" likely to be submitted to the Council on Environmental Quality. The three environmental groups are plaintiffs in a 1970 suit against Interior that resulted in an injunction barring Interior from issuing a permit to Alyeska to build a construction road until a proper environmental impact statement could be filed. Technically, this injunction and another injunction
filed by several villages in Alaska will have to be lifted in the courts before Interior can grant a permit. Construction. The proposed pipeline is intended ultimately to transport 2 million barrels per day of crude oil along a 789-mile route to Valdez, where the oil would be transferred to oceangoing tankers. The pipeline would be elevated along about half the route and buried along the other half, with special burial in places to protect against thawing of the permafrost. Interior's statement notes that environmental impact would result from construction, operation, and maintenance of the oil pipeline system and of a gas transportation system of some kind, from oil field development, and from operation of the tanker system. Some impacts, like those associated with wilderness intrusion and public access north of the Yukon River, could be considered either beneficial or adverse, depending on the value framework used. Some effects would occur on socioeconomic parts of the environment which many people would classify as beneficial, the report says. Most of the remaining impact effects on both natural physical systems and socioeconomic systems would in some way be adverse. For example, the pipeline system with its road network, support facilities, and subsequent developments would cause a number of unavoidable adverse effects on the unique and rich biotic resources of Alaska, including a "reduction in fish and wildlife values and biotic characteristics associated with wilderness and semiwilderness conditions." The most significant potential impact of the proposed pipeline upon fishery resources would be an oil spill, especially if oil were discharged under the ice, since there is no known way to effectively clean up such a spill. The report also states that any point along the southern two thirds of the proposed pipeline route could be subjected to a large-magnitude earthquake (greater than 7.0 on the Richter scale) and it is almost a certainty that one or more large-magnitude earthquakes would occur in the vicinity of this portion of the proposed route during the lifetime of the pipeline.
Counters Alyeska, a consortium of seven oil companies: "Many of the adverse effects described in the impact statement would occur only if the line were built without proper consideration of the hazards. Those hazards can be not only properly considered but effectively minimized with the modern engineering practices and advanced technology that have been brought to this project." Alternative. The impact statement discusses more than a dozen alternative ways to get Alaskan crude oil to market by 1980, including the transAlaska-Canada route. This route has been touted by conservationists as safer than the all-Alaskan route because it would avoid the threat of earthquakes. Interior's report states that "No single generalized route appears to be superior in all respects to any other." But it notes that the trans-Alaska route would have less environmental impact than the transCanada route in terms of construction material extraction, water and air quality, and vegetation, wildlife, and terrain disruption. On the other hand, an overland system through Canada would avoid earthquake regions and is the only way to avoid anticipated harm to sea birds and marine life from unavoidable oil spills that could occur at Valdez and in transporting the crude by tanker to U.S. ports. Analyzing the economic and security aspects of the pipeline, Interior's Dr. William A. Vogely asserts that a pipeline through Canada's Mackenzie Valley would be as efficient as the Alaska route. From a national security standpoint, the Secretary of Defense finds no distinct preference for any particular route. But the report notes that a Canada route would take longer to build and delay delivery of Alaska oil. And according to Alyeska president Edward L. Patton, construction of the pipeline through Canada would cost about twice as much as through Alaska. Construction of the transAlaska pipeline would cost about $3 billion, he estimates. Meanwhile, last week a Canadian cabinet member met with Secretary Morton to discuss the possibility of arctic gas and oil pipelines through Canada. APRIL 3, 1972 C&EN
17
