by Sarah Miley

STAFF WRITER

Several miles of a proposed petroleum pipeline that would run through the Tooele Valley have been re-routed from the east bench to the center of the valley following public opposition to the initial route.

The 400-mile Utah-Nevada (UNEV) fuel pipeline -- with more than 60 miles running through Tooele County -- has met opposition from residents concerned about safety and environmental impacts. The pipeline is meant to provide growing southern Utah and southern Nevada with fuel.

At the Tooele County Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) meeting at the Tooele County Courthouse on Wednesday, Jim Townsend, vice president of Holly Corporation -- which is partnering with Sinclair Oil on the project -- outlined the new route. He said the change came after discussions with county officials and the public, who indicated it would be beneficial to steer the pipeline away from more populous areas in the valley, as well downstream from the majority of wells. The new route is 4 miles longer than the old route.

Wednesday was the first time Harry Shinton, chairman of the LEPC, had seen the new route.

"I was surprised at the re-routing," he said, "because initially they were coming right down the railroad tracks right next to the hospital, schools and residential areas."

The original preferred route traveled along the east side of the valley, before crossing SR-36 and veering west of Tooele. The new route travels southwest, north and west of Stansbury Park, and follows SR-138 until it joins Sheep Lane and passes Miller Motorsports Park. It then travels southeast before joining back up with the original route.

Cindy Gubler, UNEV communications consultant, said pipeline developers are continuing to work with landowners so there could still be additional changes with the newly proposed route.

The company's decision to propose this new route has given comfort to some people.

Shinton, also a lieutenant with the Tooele City Fire Department and deputy with the Tooele County Sheriff's Office, as well as a trainer and planner with the Hazardous Materials Division of the Sheriff's Office, said he prefers the new route to the old one.

However, he added, "Do I think Tooele is safer based on the relocation? Yes. Would it be safer without the pipeline? Yes."

Shinton said his biggest concern is people who, after the pipeline is built, are unaware of its existence.

"I'm concerned about that uninformed third person who may be doing something to cause damage to the pipeline or doing some illegal digging somewhere," he said, adding that could cause a leak or an accident.

David Gibby, a member of the LEPC, said he believes this new proposed route is much better than the original in terms of limiting risk to the valley's population.

"It does avoid the major population centers that exist right now, and it will certainly skirt some of the community, but it does have less of an influence on the whole in the county," he said, adding he still thinks it'd be preferable if the pipeline could run down Skull Valley to avoid population centers. "One of the primary concerns is risk to the aquifer and water table that the county relies on."

One of Gibby's other major concerns is that with the pipeline going through the county, much of the burden of responding to an emergency involving the pipeline will rest with the county.

"We seem to be bearing a significant amount of the risk as it goes across our community and through the water table, and as it stands right now there doesn't seem to be a benefit," he said.

The updated conditional use permit for the pipeline is on the Tooele County Planning Commission agenda for May 7 at 7 p.m.

swest@tooeletranscript.com