November 22, 2007
Toquop EIS Draft Published

Photo by Dave Maxwell Dr. Bill Morrill speaking at the Toquop EIS Public Hearing in Caliente.

By Dave Maxwell

On November 5, the BLM Ely Field Office conducted a public meeting on the Toquop Energy Project at the Caliente Youth Center. Consulting Engineer, Dr. Bill Morrill, of SRK Consulting in Reno, was on hand along with a number of BLM employees, to inform people about the draft summary of the Environmental Impact Statement that has been done regarding the Toquop coal-fired power plant. .

The proposed plant is located on 640 acres currently managed by the BLM Ely Field Office. The site is in southeastern Lincoln County approximately 12 miles northwest of Mesquite, and 50 miles south-southeast of Caliente. A railroad line to carry the coal to the plant would depart from the main Union Pacific line and cross about 31 miles of BLM-administered land.

Toquop Energy Company had originally planned to construct and operate a 1,100-megawatt natural gas-fired electric power generation plant and associated facilities at the same location in 2003.

However, since 2003, the price of natural gas has increased substantially and natural-gas prices are projected to remain unstable due to increasing demand coupled with higher exploration and development costs. This, together with the fact that newer technology has improved the efficiency and environmental performance of modern coal-fired plants, has caused the proponent to reconsider the original proposal in favor of a new strategy that would offer greater economic stability by using coal instead of natural gas. In line with the project’s original aim to provide power at competitive prices, Toquop Energy Company, LLC, now proposes to construct a 750-megawatt coal-fired power plant.

The new coal-fired plant has a number of components that differ from the original natural-gas operated plant, and BLM determined that preparation of a new EIS was warranted. The coal-fired plant differs from the original gas-fired plant in the following key respects:
• Plant capacity would decrease from 1,100 to 750 MW.
• The plant site would require use of more surface area to accommodate the storage and handling of coal and the deposit of ash.
• A rail line to transport coal to the site would need to be constructed.

Dr. Morrill said the reason for the meeting in Caliente was to take public comment from the people. “We want to hear what you’ve got to say about the draft EIS. After reviewing the draft EIS, please identify specific information that you feel was left out. One comment can make a difference.”

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires the federal government to use all practical means to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony. Hence, the need for Environmental Impact Statements when accessing or considering federal action set forth in a particular process.

Morrill said there is a Proposed Action and a No-Action alternative in the EIS for the public to consider. The No-Action alternative reverts to the original 2003 plan for the 1,100-megawatt gas-fired plant. The Proposed Action Alternative is to go forward with construction and operation of the 750MW coal-fired plant.

The gas-fired plant would cover about 100 acres, whereas the coal-plant would involve 475 acres of the total 640-acre site.

The coal plant would take about twice as long to complete as the gas-fired plant, four and a half years, compared to about 26 months for the gas plant. A 31-mile railroad line coming off the main Union Pacific line to take the coal to the plant would also have to be constructed.

Once in operation, the coal plant would use up to 3.1 million tons annually. The plant would be run on natural gas supplied by the Kern River Gas Transmission Company line for the initial startup and for restarts during regular maintenance. Fuel oil would provide a backup source of startup power. The power plant would produce its own operating power and would not require nor use external sources of power supply. Low-sulfur coal, coming from the Power River Basin in northeast Wyoming, would be delivered by UPRR.

The draft EIS looks at both the no-action alternative and the proposed action. It covers such subjects as lands, grazing and rangelands, reorientation and access, wilderness and special management areas, visual resources, climate and air quality, noise, geology, soils and minerals, ground water resources, surface water resources, biological resources, archeology and historic preservation, socioeconomic resources, public safety, and hazardous materials and solid waste.

A copy of the complete Draft statement or an executive summary is also available at the BLM Caliente Field Station or in Ely.

Written comments about the EIS can be mailed to the BLM Caliente Field Station, P.O. Box 237, Caliente, NV. 89008, as well as to the Ely Field Office, P.O. Box 33500, Ely, NV. 89301. Comments must be postmarked by December 11, 2007.