Pipeline companies, opponents argue over safety materials

DES MOINES -- Iowa regulators should be barred from requiring safety-related documents from a company seeking to build a carbon dioxide sequestration pipeline in the state, a lawyer for Summit Carbon Solutions argued Tuesday.

Summit, as well as representatives for CO2 pipeline companies Wolf Carbon Solutions and Navigator CO2 ventures, argued the materials, which the Iowa Utilities Board requested in July, were preempted by federal law. The federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, a division of the U.S. Department of Transportation, sets safety standards for pipelines.

The state board in July ordered Summit Carbon Solutions to provide three documents to supplement its application for a CO2 pipeline: A risk assessment, a plume model in the event of a rupture and an emergency response plan.

After Summit challenged the order, the board set a hearing Tuesday for arguments.

Summit is proposing a pipeline that will run through four states, moving carbon dioxide from 31 ethanol plants to a sequestration site in North Dakota. The project proposal includes 681 miles in Iowa.

The request for the documents came initially from the Office of the Consumer Advocate, a division of the Iowa Attorney General’s office.

The arguments Tuesday hinged on whether the information requested by the board constituted a safety standard, which federal law vests with the PHMSA. Both the pipeline companies and the consumer advocate’s office agreed the state could not set safety regulations for CO2 pipelines.

Bret Dublinske, Summit’s attorney, argued using safety considerations to make a decision about approving a pipeline at all is preempted by federal law.

“If the board considers safety and makes a decision that a pipeline that is otherwise compliant with PHMSA is not safe enough, you have de facto created a standard,” he said. “And in some ways, it's actually worse because you haven't said exactly what that standard is. But what you said is the PHMSA standard is not good enough.”

The Office of the Consumer Advocate argued the requested documents are a piece of information the board should consider when deciding the pipeline’s route and location. Anna Ryon, an attorney with the Office of the Consumer Advocate, said the office is not asking the board to make a safety determination. She argued the documents would be relevant to making decisions about routing and siting.

The information would give interested parties — counties, cities, landowners — a better understanding of the risks in their vicinity, Ryon said.

“For example, it will help counties with their planning and zoning as they look at how they want to expand populations in the county,” she said.

Jessica Mazour, conservation program coordinator with the Iowa chapter of the Sierra Club, said the board should require as much safety information as possible.

“We deserve to be able to be safe in our homes, on the road, in our schools, in our workplaces,” she said. “We shouldn’t have to worry if there’s a pipeline nearby that’s going to kill us, going to harm our communities.”

The Iowa Utilities Board will issue an order at a later date.