Idaho Regulators Raise Concerns Over Fuel Pipeline State Asks Feds To Take A Look At Yellowstone Pipeline

Idaho regulators want federal safety officials to take a hard look at the Yellowstone pipeline.

Two disastrous pipeline explosions - one in New Mexico this year, the other in Western Washington last year - have brought new scrutiny to the safety of often aging fuel pathways that thread the country.

Now state officials wonder if the Yellowstone Pipe Line Co. is flirting with disaster.

The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality sent a letter Wednesday asking the federal Office of Pipeline Safety to weigh in.

The Yellowstone pipeline carries jet fuel, gasoline and diesel from Billings refineries to Moses Lake, Wash. In Idaho, the pipeline follows - and repeatedly crosses - the North Fork of the Coeur d’Alene River, prized among anglers and river runners.

Pipeline officials say they are working hard to limit environmental risk.

State regulators say they want to work with the company to resolve any problems, but felt compelled to raise the safety questions.

“We have a huge safety concern, a huge environmental concern,” said June Bergquist, a state water quality compliance officer. “We’d rather fault on the side of safety here.”

State regulators are worried that the Yellowstone Pipe Line Co. is replacing routine maintenance with last-minute emergency repairs.

Without regular work, segments of the pipeline can pose a risk of rupture and spill, says the letter signed by Bergquist: “In light of recent pipeline ruptures in Washington and New Mexico and their tragic consequences, we are concerned that YPL is mobilizing only when a pipeline is in danger of rupturing.”

A spokesman for the pipeline characterized the letter - faxed to him by a reporter - as simply an information request.

“She’s using the feds as a resource,” said John Bennitt, spokesman for Conoco, one of three petroleum shippers to use the pipeline. “We would like to think she would feel comfortable using us as a resource also.”

Bennitt added that the pipeline explosions in Bellingham, Wash., and Carlsbad, N.M., did not involve exposed pipelines, which is the concern that regulators are raising.

State regulators say they aren’t necessarily challenging Yellowstone Pipe Line at this point.

Rather, they hope that the Office of Pipeline Safety will let them know whether their concerns are justified.

The concerns include:

Yellowstone is relying too much on a process called an “emergency declaration.”

The company can bypass water quality permits by contending the pipeline is in danger of being exposed by flooding.

The pipeline isn’t buried deep enough, increasing the risk of flooding or spring runoff exposing sections. Shallow or exposed pipelines are more vulnerable to damage that could lead to hazardous spills.

The pipeline is supposed to be buried eight feet below the stream bed of the North Fork, according to DEQ’s letter. But only two of the pipeline’s 23 river crossings meet that condition, the letter says.

Pipe Line officials say they are addressing the problems.

Yellowstone Pipe Line wants permission to remove five existing stream crossings on the North Fork and build one new crossing.

Officials with the DEQ and Corps of Engineers earlier denied a water quality permit for the work, citing sediment problems and the availability of alternative measures.

Bennitt, the Conoco spokesman, said the pipeline company is trying to address the volatile nature of flows on the North Fork.

“Warm weather, quick runoff, heavy rains,” he said. “These rivers rise and move very quickly, which is why we want to move our pipe.”

Yellowstone also voluntarily removed several stream crossings near Pinehurst last summer.

The Lolo National Forest is in the process of renewing the permit that gives Yellowstone Pipe Line the right to cross public lands from Thompson Falls, Mont., to Kingston.

The agency wants the company to move the pipeline away from sensitive reaches along Prospect Creek and the Clark Fork River in Montana.

In Idaho, however, the Forest Service can’t require such sweeping environmental protections because the pipeline crosses mostly private land.

The private property issue may even preclude federal safety authorities from having a say, officials say.

Water quality permits from the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are one of few ways the government can require environmental protections.

That’s why Bergquist is being so cautious, she said.

“The buck stops here.”