PROCEDURAL DEFICIENCIES OF SCOPING MEETINGS AND NOTICES

The Coalition has serious concerns about BLM policies regarding the notice of intent to prepare an EIS and the attendant public scoping meetings BLM conducted for the proposed EEC coal-fired power plant near Ely, Nevada.

The BLM's NOI lacks the requisite specificity to allow the public to submit sufficient comments on the scope of the project. For example, the NOI fails to describe with particularity the size of the ROWs needed for the facility. The NOI also fails to identify any possible alternatives to the project. The NOI also fails to identify any mitigation measures that could be employed to minimize impacts to the environment. For these reasons, the NOI should be re-published identifying with specificity all aspects of the project and all possible alternatives.

All of the public meetings, with the exception of the Las Vegas meeting, were conducted in an "open house" format. The "open house" format is an inadequate method of conducting meetings on the scope of the project. The "open house" format does not allow members of the public to communicate their concerns to other citizen participants. Further, there is no way to document oral public comments made by citizens. Thus, we object to the open house format of the public meetings and request that you conduct additional scoping meetings that allow a public dialog that is recorded. We request that you conduct such public meetings after re-issuing the NOI with more specific information on the project.

Future Procedures for this Project

The Coalition makes the following requests for future public involvement and other procedural issues for this project.

1. The Coalition requests mailings of all project design changes for this action as soon as they are known as per 40 CFR 1506.6(b)(1).

2. This Coalition deems any change in the project as substantial bearing on the impacts of the project. See 40 CFR 1501.7(c). Please conform to the requirements at 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1506.6(b)(3) after each design change.

3. Please ensure federal, state, and local permitting agencies hold open format public meetings or hearings and establish a basis for ongoing credible dialogue for each permit application.

4. Please include a peer oversight process of DEIS environmental reports independent of the Companies' funding.

5. Please require the applicant to swear under penalty of perjury that all information provided to the public is true, complete and accurate.

6. Please indicate in detail reasons for refusing each request included in these comments.

7. Please postpone full development and studies contributing to the DEIS until the Ely District (or other lead agency) has approved a new Resource Management Plan ("RMP") or other management plans for all federal lands that may be affected by the project.

SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS AS TO SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

First, the NOI fails to specify the purpose and need for 2,500 MW of new coal-fired electricity in Nevada. This quantity of coal fired power simply is not needed and any such need could be met by other significantly less harmful means—such as energy conservation, energy efficiency, and renewable energy sources. We ask that you reissue the NOI to specifically identify the purpose and need for this project and explain why any such need cannot be met by other alternatives.

BLM's EIS must also assess the impacts of the project proposed by the Companies and compare them to the impacts of each reasonable alternative to the project. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14, 1502.16. Specifically, the EIS must "present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in a comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public." Id. § 1502.14. In order to assess adequately the environmental impacts of the project as proposed by the Companies and of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project (including, but not limited to, the proposed project plus additional mitigation measures), BLM's EIS must assess the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that the proposed project and each alternative would have. In defining the scope of the EIS, BLM must, accordingly, identify each type of impact that will be assessed and each alternative that will be considered. Id. § 1508.25.

GENERAL COMMENTS

1. Even if not specifically stated in the comment, please make all information public as it becomes available, including hard copy(ies) to local and regional libraries and at the BLM field and state offices and in electronic format to a public website. Please create a public website or FTP site separate from the blm.gov system for this purpose. "As it/they become(s) available" means prior to publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS").

2. Please make all correspondence on all permits submitted to any local, state or federal agency public as the materials become available.

3. Unless otherwise stated, "project" means the coal-fired power plant, railroads, power line, transmission link, transmission upgrade, buffer zone lease area, water pipelines, evaporation pond, camp, access roads, waste fill site(s), and all other project facilities and components not listed here.

4. Please publicize the names, titles, addresses, phone numbers, and job descriptions of all employees, and outside consultants and contractors who are currently performing any work on the EEC coal plant project in Nevada or who are anticipated to perform such work throughout the development of the EIS.

5. Please make all studies and supporting documentation, including all third-party prepared environmental and cultural resources technical and evaluative reports available to all affected communities, including the Goshute Indian Reservation and Moapa River Indian Reservation, as they are completed and throughout the preparation of the DEIS and when the DEIS is published.

6. Please conduct an exhaustive analysis of the Companies' environmental compliance history, including all parent and sister companies.

7. Please consider whether the Companies have sufficient experience constructing and operating a coal-fired plant and make public the details of such experience.

8. Please consider all impacts relative to the maximum anticipated project life, e.g. if project were to operate at maximum capacity for 50+ years.

9. Please conduct at least a 0.25 mile survey corridor for all rights-of-way and a 0.25 mile radius survey beyond the main plant site for all environmental, natural resource, and cultural resource investigations.

A. TYPES OF IMPACT THAT THE EIS MUST ASSESS

BLM's EIS must assess direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. Id. § 1508.25(c). For example, the EIS must consider:

[E]nvironmental impacts of the alternatives including the proposed action, any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, the relationship between short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposal should it be implemented.

* * *

Possible conflicts between the proposed action and the objectives of Federal, regional, State, and local (and in the case of a reservation, Indian tribe) land use plans, policies and controls for the area concerned.

* * *

Energy requirements and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures.

Natural or depletable resource requirements and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures.

. . . [H]istoric and cultural resources, and the design of the built environment, including the reuse and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures.

Id. § 1502.16. BLM bears a heightened responsibility to assess environmental impacts in this case since the project at issue involves the use of public land. See id. § 2800.0-2 ("Protect the natural resources associated with the public lands and adjacent private or other lands administered by a government agency"; "Prevent unnecessary or undue environmental damage to the lands and resources.").

Accordingly, we request that the EIS (1) assess the degree to which the project envisioned by the Companies would have each of the following types of impact; (2) assess the degree to which each of the reasonable alternatives identified in the next section of these comments would have each of those types of impact; and (3) compare the impacts of the project envisioned by the Companies to the impacts of the alternatives:

WATER

10. Please model evapotranspiration ("ET") for both the steady state and developed conditions. It is not necessary for the water table to drop a certain level for effects to occur. The impacts occur even if just the gradient of the water table changes.

11. Please ensure the groundwater model developed for the basin adequately models the various fluxes such as spring flow and total ET loss from the basin. Please include at least two years of detailed study data.

12. Please model the actual points of recharge. Please evenly spread recharge across the basin or distribute according to the elevation zones from the Maxey-Eakin ("M-E") method. The M-E method does not consider the hydraulic conductivity of the lithology in each of the zones. Additionally, most recharge occurs at canyon mouths due to runoff and recharge into alluvial fans. Because the effects of this project will be concentrated, please consider localized effects.

13. Please impose the transient simulations of the project on the seasonal changes in the basin. Please consider seasonal water demand and recharge and seasonal head levels in boundaries. Because of the magnitude of this project and because drought will maximize the impacts, please consider multi-year dry periods in the modeling.

14. Please simulate groundwater flow and examine the fluxes against reality. Please consider flux from the rock to the basin fill aquifer both temporally and spatially.

15. Please provide a detailed map showing all points of study including, but not limited to, test holes, production wells, monitor wells/piezometers, ET measurement sites, stream/spring flow measurement locations, weather measurements, geophysical measurement locations, etc. as they become available.

16. Please consider any interbasin flow prior to completing the DEIS. If a connection is found or assumed, please consider changes that will lower the flow into or out of any basin.

17. Please determine whether development in the Butte Valley Well Field, Duck Creek basin, or Lages basin or alternative site will impact the water basin and adjacent bains.

18. Please reassess recharge accounting for losses to interbasin flow and evaporation from the riparian areas of some of the tributaries.

19. Please consider impacts of decreased recharge near the Butte Valley Well Field, Duck Creek basin, or Lages basin and assess whether flow will infiltrate as intended or whether proposed recovery, if any, of recharge water will actually pump groundwater.

20. Please consider the frequency, extent, and duration of flooding that could occur as a result of surface runoff and determine how that affects the estimated discharge from the groundwater.

21. Please consider whether the basins are at equilibrium or discharging remnant water from prehistoric lakes. The analysis should include a transient, unsaturated flow model using reasonable parameters and initial conditions of a just dried lake bed with saturated soil conditions.

22. Please determine the amount of drawdown that will occur beneath any dry lakes and determine whether the decreased capillary flow and exfiltration will cause more particulate air pollution from winds blowing across the dry lakes.

23. Please conduct an inventory of seeps and springs impacted or utilized by the proposed project. Please make public the permit/proof number or legal description of each POD to be used as the information becomes available. Please also consider any Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act funds for any impacted springs.

24. Because this project will take water from wetlands, springs, seeps and streams to use for power plant cooling, please analyze the impacts of losing these ecological resources. Please also go beyond determining the effects of development on flows, fluxes and water levels to translating these effects into declines to the biotic components in the environment.

25. Please consider the seasonal water demand of the project.

26. Please complete and make public comprehensive water resource stud(ies) for the project and associated facilities.

27. Please consider site-specific precipitation measurement modifications.

28. Please include simulated water level draw-down contour maps for the Butte Valley basin, Duck Creek basin, Lages basin, or any alternative basin at time steps of 6 months and years 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, project life in the EIS analysis. Please also include water level contour maps for these time steps and direction of ground water flow. Please make these maps public as they become available.

29. Please consider basin surface & ground water balance with respect to any proposed conjunctive use of surface/ground water.

30. Please analyze impacts to adjacent water basins, if water is overdrafted from the Butte Valley basin, Duck Creek basin, Lages basin, or any alternative basin.

31. Please consider the total water consumption for all units of the project including a break down of consumption by all individual uses including, but not limited to, cooling towers, blowdown water, and coal dust pile.

32. Please consider water demand as both annual average and peak day.

33. Please consider design conditions for the peak day, e.g., dry bulb and wet bulb temperature, humidity, and site elevation.

34. Please consider water consumption by individual source, e.g., evaporation at cooling tower, scrubber, makeup to boilers, dust control, sanitary uses, and all others not listed here.

35. Please consider the "plumbing" of EEC's proposed system, including well field locations, surface water POD's, location of spreading basins/injection wells, pipeline routing, etc.

36. Please consider proposed and alternative pumping rates for individual wells or well fields.

37. Please consider the amount and characteristics of any wastewater discharged from plant operation processes and during project construction. Please consider proposed and alternate discharge locations, e.g., evaporation pond, local creek, etc.

38. Please obtain all Clean Water Act discharge or fill permits and make public the nature of the discharge and/or fill and all permit applications as they become available.

39. Please consider all water quality impacts of the project.

40. Please consider the impacts of changing the period of use of the water rights which may decrease or eliminate the natural recovery period.

41. Please consider whether the combined use of surface and groundwater rights counts water twice. For example, groundwater rights are limited by the perennial yield but the perennial yield depends on recharge from stream flow that may not occur because of surface flow diversions.

42. Please make public the water EEC claims to hold under option for the proposed project, including the name of the current water user, the current water rights amounts, type of use, and place of use as they become available.

43. Please perform a detailed water right abstract of the Butte Valley basin, Duck Creek basin, Lages basin, or any alternative basin to identify the existing and supplemental nature of surface, groundwater, and spring water rights. Please validate any vested or BLM reserved claims through adjudication as it appears the vested acreages claimed in the Companies' applications filed to date with the State Engineer may exceed historically irrigated acreages.

44. Please consider whether the project is dependent upon acquisition of all existing water rights in the Butte Valley basin, Duck Creek basin, or Lages basin, and, if not, what percentage EEC will need to acquire.

45. Please analyze a detailed breakdown of the 16,000 acre-feet ("AF") water demand including how much will be used for each process of the project operation and construction and any proposed or anticipated AF demand changes throughout the course of plant operation and maintenance.

46. Please consider any anticipated changes to the 16,000 AF perennial yield. Please make any preliminary numbers public as they become available.

47. Please consider any applicant plans to capture water that is evapotranspired from dry lakes or phreatophytes by lowering the water table in those areas.

48. Please consider any plans to pipe water from any other basin to support the need for water for the project and make public all information regarding those plans as it becomes available.

AIR

49. For increased emissions of various air pollutants:
    1. Please assess the amount, in tons-per-year or pounds-per-year, by which each option would increase the emissions in White Pine County of each hazardous air pollutant, each criteria air pollutant, each criteria air pollutant precursor, and all greenhouse gases.

2. Please assess both the amount by which each option would directly increase those emissions in White Pine County, and the amount by which each option would indirectly increase those emissions in White Pine County. Ways in which an option may indirectly increase emissions include, but are not limited to, (1) necessitating the construction and operation of ancillary air pollution sources in White Pine County and (2) stimulating the construction and operation of new air pollution sources in White Pine County.

50. For increased concentrations of various air pollutants:
    1. Please assess the amount by which each option would directly or indirectly increase the concentration, in the ambient air, of each hazardous air pollutant, each criteria air pollutant (including the impact of criteria air pollutant precursors) in (1) each county in Nevada, (2) each nonattainment, maintenance, or unclassifiable area in the Western half of the United States, and (3) each Class I area in the Western half of the United States.

2. Please perform an additional, cumulative version of this assessment that accounts for the emissions increases that would result directly or indirectly from the other new fossil fuel-fired power plants currently proposed for construction in the Western half of the United States.

51. For increased deposition of various pollutants:
    1. Please assess the amount, in tons-per-year or pounds-per-year, by which each option would directly or indirectly increase the deposition - on (1) the soils, waters, and vegetation of White Pine County, (2) each Class I area in the Western half of the United States, (3) each highly agricultural region in the Western half of the United States, and (4) the habitats of threatened or endangered species - of each chemical, including but not limited to mercury and dioxin, known to harm soil, vegetation, or animals.

2. Please perform an additional, cumulative version of this assessment that accounts for the emissions increases that would result directly or indirectly from the other new fossil fuel-fired power plants currently proposed for construction in the Western half of the United States.

52. For increased incidence of human disease and other impairment:
    1. Please assess the number-per-year by which air pollutant emissions resulting directly or indirectly from each option would increase the incidence of negative human health impacts - including asthma attacks, missed school or work days, emergency room visits, hospital admissions, cancer cases, heart attacks, lung disease, and premature deaths - within (1) five miles of the facility, (2) fifty miles of the facility, (3) 100 miles of the facility, and (4) 500 miles of the facility.

2. Please provide separate counts for (1) all humans, (2) children, and (3) humans aged sixty-five years and over.

3. Please perform an additional, cumulative version of this assessment that accounts for the emissions increases that would result directly or indirectly from the other new fossil fuel-fired power plants currently proposed for construction in the Western half of the United States.

53. For harm to crops and to threatened or endangered species:
    1. Please assess the harm, in terms of the aggregate of lost value-per-year and remediation cost-per-year, that air pollutant emissions resulting directly or indirectly from each option would inflict or cause to be inflicted on crops and cultivated soil within 500 miles of the facility.

2. Please also assess the harm that air pollutant emissions resulting directly and indirectly from each option would inflict or cause to be inflicted on any populations of any threatened or endangered species of plant or animal.

3. Please perform additional, cumulative versions of these assessments that account for the emissions increases that would result directly or indirectly from the other new fossil fuel-fired power plants currently proposed for construction in the Western half of the United States.

54. For increased toxicity of fish eaten by humans:
    1. Please assess the amount by which air pollutant emissions resulting directly or indirectly from each option would directly or indirectly increase the concentrations of various toxic chemicals, including mercury and dioxin, in the flesh of freshwater fish caught and eaten by humans within 500 miles of the facility.

2. Please compare the resulting toxicity levels with the levels identified in federal and state health advisories.

3. Please perform an additional, cumulative version of this assessment that accounts for the emissions increases that would result directly or indirectly from the other new fossil fuel-fired power plants currently proposed for construction in the Western half of the United States.

55. For decreased visibility in scenic areas:
    1. Please assess the ten highest hourly visibility degradations, the ten highest daily visibility degradations, and the average annual visibility degradation that pollutant emissions resulting directly or indirectly from each option would cause (1) within a ten-mile radius of the facility, (2) in each Class I area containing land that lies within 300 kilometers of the facility, and (3) in each Class II area containing land that lies within 300 kilometers of the facility.

2. Please perform an additional, cumulative version of this assessment that accounts for the emissions increases that would result directly or indirectly from the other new fossil fuel-fired power plants currently proposed for construction in the Western half of the United States.

56. For consumption of air quality increments:
    1. Please assess the amount of any Class II PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) increment and the amount of any Class I increment - for any pollutant and for any area - that emissions resulting directly or indirectly from each option would consume.

2. Please perform an additional, cumulative version of this assessment that accounts for the existing emissions and the emissions increases that would result directly or indirectly from the other new fossil fuel-fired power plants currently proposed for construction in the Western half of the United States.

57. Please include in the cumulative PSD increment analyses all increment consuming emissions, which would include all increases in emissions at existing major stationary sources since the PSD major source baseline date, all increases in emissions at other existing sources since the applicable PSD minor source baseline date, and all new sources of emissions that came into existence after the applicable minor source baseline date (including area and mobile sources) as well as reasonably foreseeable sources not yet in operation.

58. For interference with attainment or maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards:
    1. Please assess - notwithstanding the assessment of PSD increment consumption - the extent to which emissions resulting directly or indirectly from each option would interfere with any area's maintenance of - or progress toward attaining - any national ambient air quality standard.

2. Please perform an additional, cumulative version of this assessment that accounts for the emissions increases that would result directly or indirectly from the other new fossil fuel-fired power plants currently proposed for construction in the Western half of the United States.

59. For standards for all air quality impact assessments, please ensure that all air quality impact assessments have professional and scientific integrity as required by 40 C.F.R. §1502.24. Thus, please make all analyses of impacts to Class I air quality related values consistent with the Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG) Phase I Report, December 2000. Further, please ensure all modeling assessments are based on common practice and procedure for proper air quality analyses as detailed in EPA's Guidelines on Air Quality Modeling in 40 C.F.R. part 51, appendix W. These standards include the following:
    1. The modeling of maximum emission rates (i.e., potential to emit considering federally enforceable controls) of each pollutant to be emitted by the power plant and associated emission sources, as well as from other reasonably foreseeable sources, that could occur over the averaging time of the standard with which compliance is being assessed. For visibility modeling, please model the maximum hourly average emissions and maximum 24-hour average emissions. Further, please model existing sources at the maximum actual emission rates occurring over the averaging time of the standard with which compliance is being assessed. See section 9.1.2. of 40 C.F.R. part 51, appendix W.

2. Please ensure the analyses are based on an adequate and thorough meteorological record pursuant to 40 C.F.R. part 51, appendix W, section 9.3.1. If available, please use one year of on-site meteorological data in any near-field analysis. Please base any on-site meteorological data on monitoring that is consistent with EPA requirements discussed in section 9.3.3. of 40 C.F.R. part 51, appendix W for proper location and operation of the meteorological monitoring system. If adequate on-site meteorological data is not available, then five years of National Weather Service data should be used. (See section 9.3.1.2 of 40 C.F.R. part 51, appendix W). For far-field assessments, at least three years of mesoscale meteorological data or at least five years of National Weather Service data should be used. (See section 9.3.1.2.d. of 40 C.F.R. part 51, appendix W). It is imperative that an adequate record of meteorological data be used to represent worst case meteorological conditions. EPA's guidance indicates that the variability in the model estimates due to meteorology is adequately reduced if at least five years of meteorological data are used. (Section 9.3.1.1. of appendix W, 40 C.F.R. part 51).

3. Please add representative background concentrations to the modeling results in NAAQS analyses. See section 9.2. of 40 C.F.R. part 51, appendix W. Please base any on-site monitoring data used for background concentration on properly sited ambient monitoring systems (pursuant to 40 C.F.R. §58.12) and complete, quality-assured monitoring data (pursuant to 40 C.F.R. §52.21(m)(3) and part 58, appendix B).

60. Please analyze the dust producing capabilities in the Butte Valley basin, Duck Creek basin, Lages basin, or any alternative basin if the groundwater table is lowered and determine the salt and heavy metal content of that dust. Please compare with Owens Valley/Mono Lake conditions resulting from groundwater loss.

61. Please provide an electronic copy of all of the meteorology and ambient air quality monitoring data collected thus far, and please provide all future air quality monitoring data. Please include data from the site and any other monitoring stations in the area.

62. Please consider the source and the amount of lime, limestone, or other sorbent to be used in the SO₂ scrubber.

63. Please ascertain the SO₂ to SO₃ conversion rate of the SCR catalyst.

64. Please consider estimated construction emissions and operational emissions for all criteria pollutants, hazardous air pollutants ("HAPs"), criteria precursor pollutants and all greenhouse gases from all sources and project components including the pulverized coal ("PC") boilers, emergency generator, fire water pump, auxiliary boiler, material handling equipment, storage piles, and ancillary linear water or electrical transmission / interconnect lines.

65. Please consider emissions during startup and shutdown. Please identify the control equipment that will not be operational during startup and the load at which it becomes 100% effective.

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON CLIMATE

66. Please consider the climate impact of the Companies' proposed coal plant. Under Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, the Department of Interior issued an order which is still in effect directing DOI bureaus to evaluate climate change impacts on management planning. See, http://elips.doi.gov/app_so/act_getfiles.cfm?order_number=3226. Moreover, Federal law commits the United States government to return anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to 1990 levels. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Art. 4, Para. 2, Cls. (a), (b); 138 Cong. Rec. 33521-27 (Oct. 7, 1992) (Senate ratification). President Bush has reaffirmed the federal government's commitment to "stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate." Address by President George W. Bush to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Feb. 14, 2002).

67. Please consider that peer-reviewed studies indicate that in order for greenhouse gas concentrations to stabilize soon enough to prevent dangerous climate change, "as much as 98% of the capital stock of U.S. fossil power plants would need to be replaced with state-of-the-art carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS)-enabled power plants by the year 2050." J.J. Dooley, et al., Accelerated Adoption of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Within the United States Electric Utility Industry: The Impact of Stabilizing at 450 PPMV and 550 PPMV, Seventh International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies ("GHGT7") (Dec. 3, 2004) at 1.

68. Please consider that the operational life of a coal-fueled power plant is fifty to sixty years long. Therefore, federal action on the new coal-fueled plants currently being proposed without CCS (and without technologies that facilitate implementation of CCS) will have a significant impact on the ability of the federal government to meet its stabilization commitment. Federal law requires the United States government, as a partial means of meeting that commitment, to "[t]ake climate change considerations into account" in its "social, economic and environmental policies and actions." UNFCCC, Art. 4, Para. 1, Cl. (f). As an organ of the federal government, BLM is therefore obligated to factor climate change considerations into its EIS for the EEC Project.

69. Please consider the amount of greenhouse gases such as methane, nitrous oxide, and CO₂ that will be released from the plant, and how will it affect global warming.

70. Please analyze the impacts of atmospheric sulphur dioxide producing sulphuric acid and the resultant formation of atmospheric fog/haze during time of winter air inversions in the regional valleys. Please determine the impacts of long-term haze/fog to the regional climate.

PLANT AND WILDLIFE

71. Please consider all impacts on vegetation, including locally grown alfalfa and native vegetation from all plant operations and project construction.

72. Please consider threatened & endangered species on and around the plant site and all related project components, including but not limited to the Bonneville cut-throat trout.

73. Please analyze the impacts to air quality as will be caused by the drawdown of the aquifer and subsequent die-off of phreatophyte (groundwater dependent) plant life in the Butte Valley basin, Duck Creek basin, or Lages basin. Please analyze this impact in terms of downwind populations, wildlife, etc.

74. Please consider the metal uptake by plants from emissions from the plant, specifically B, F, As, and Se. Please consider the translocation to mammals.

75. Please consider revegetation, dust control, and weed infestation of stripped agricultural lands due to decreased water availability and air emissions impacts.

76. Please consider impacts to wetland and riparian vegetation in the Butte Valley basin, Duck Creek basin, or Lages basin from decreased water and increased air emissions.

77. Please analyze impacts to existing wilderness study areas.

78. Please analyze effects to endangered, threatened and state sensitive species caused because of habitat fragmentation as a result of the rights of ways.

TRIBAL CONSULTATION AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

79. Please consider the number of significant historic properties identified in the project area.

80. Please consult with all Native American groups claiming historic and traditional affiliation with the region on all project components in addition to identifying Traditional Cultural Places ("TCPs").

OTHER HUMAN HEALTH CONCERNS

81. Please perform a human health and ecological risk assessment to evaluate the impacts of the project on residents and wildlife including diesel exhaust from trucks, trains, and on-site mobile equipment and all criteria pollutants, hazardous air pollutants, and precursor air pollutants.

82. Please account for the lack of sufficient local medical facilities to address health impacts to workers and local residents.

83. Please consider the cancer and noncancer health impacts from emissions and discharge.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

84. Please make a factual finding that the following communities do or do not fit the definition of an environmental justice community:
    1. Ely;
    2. McGill;
    3. Currie;
    4. Shafter;
    5. Preston;
    6. Lund;
    7. the Goshute Indian Reservation and all associated communities;
    8. the Moapa River Indian Reservation and all associated communities; and any other affected community not listed here.

85. Please make a factual finding that the EEC power plant and project will or will not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low income populations.

86. Please address future projects in the area and the effect the EEC project may or may not have on those developments including but not limited to wilderness study areas and other BLM proposed activities.

87. Please conduct and make public a detailed report of environmental and cultural impacts from the point of view of the communities in the immediate vicinity and within an 80 mile radius of the proposed plant location.

88. Please make independent experts available to the communities and other interested entities for review of permit applications, technical reports, and other project requirements and components.

89. Please provide public training on the permitting and NEPA process to all communities designated as environmental justice communities.

90. Please conduct epidemiological and clinical studies and other environmental human health analyses related to cumulative and synergistic exposure to all hazardous and criteria pollutants emitted from the plant.

91. Please assess the economic burden of medical costs and lost productivity on the members of all impacted communities.

92. Please use health-based statistics in permit evaluation.

93. Please consider traditional and historic land use patterns. Will this substantively change the rural character of the area? How many residents and jobs will be added? How many services, jobs, people and acres of development will be required to support those new jobs and residents? Will all of the impacts of additional jobs and people be positive impacts?

94. Please collect and consider all information related to consumption patterns of fish and wildlife within the impact zone(s) of the project.

OTHER WASTE DISPOSAL

95. Please consider the amount of scrubber wastes, proposed disposal site(s) and modes of transportation to the sites. If waste is to be transported to the disposal site(s) by truck, please consider how many trucks per day will be required to transport material from the plant.

96. Please consider the amount of ash, proposed disposal site(s) and modes of transportation to the sites. If waste is to be transported to the disposal site(s) by truck, please consider how many trucks per day will be required to transport material from the plant.

97. Please make all information on the selection of waste disposal sites and alternative sites public as the material becomes available.

NOISE AND LIGHT

98. Please consider the projected peak and 1-hour average and maximum noise levels at the fence line in noise analyses.

99. Please consider noise levels of steam blows and proposed and alternative noise reduction control measures.

100. Please conduct baseline noise monitoring through a permanent noise monitoring station that continuously collects and records noise data.

101. Light pollution and proliferation. How will lighted facilities change the nightscapes for people, plants and animals? How will summer and winter hibernators be disturbed? How will night pollinators be affected? How will night predators be affected?

OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

102. Please identify all hazardous materials that will be used at the site, the amount that is used and stored, and the mode of transport to the site.

103. Please consider how the ammonia will be transported to the site. If it is transported by truck, please consider the number of trucks per day that will be required to transport the ammonia to site and consider precautions to be taken to protect neighbors from accidental releases during transport, unloading, storage and use.

104. Please consider the amount of ammonia that will be stored at the site and the proposed and alternate storage locations.

105. Please consider acid deposition, especially H₂SO₄, HCI, and HF.

OTHER TRANSPORTATION

106. Please consider the number of coal cars needed daily to haul coal to the plant and the impacts of those cars on all communities along their route.

107. Please consider whether those coal cars will pass through Ely, either inbound or outbound to the plant, or both and the impacts of those trips.

108. Please consider the number of daily truck trips required for both project construction and operation including a break down of that traffic by number and types of vehicles per day, including large trucks, buses, and automobiles and the impacts of those trips.

109. Other than coal cars, please consider the number of daily train trips, if any, required for both project construction and operation and the impacts of those trips?

PLANT SPECIFICATIONS / ENERGY REQUIREMENTS

110. For each unit of the plant, please ensure, consider the impacts of, and make the information public regarding:
     1. the megawatt size of each unit;
     2. the number of units to be constructed;
     3. the summer and winter megawatt rating of each;
     4. the type of burner technology to be used in each unit; and
     5. the type of emission controls to be used by each unit.

111. Please consider the quantity and source of energy needed to construct the project including specific details of how this energy will be obtained and all associated environmental impacts.

112. Please consider the projected average plant capacity factor.

113. Please consider number, duration, and type of startups (hot, cold, warm) to occur each year.

114. Please consider all mobile equipment that will be used on site, e.g., cranes, dozers, front-end loads and annual fuel use for each and make that information public as it becomes available.

115. Please consider the anticipated frequency of soot blowing to keep boiler tubes clean and to keep selective catalytic reduction ("SCR") catalyst clean.

116. Please consider the percent of the feed coal sulfur that is: (1) removed in feed preparation prior to the boilers and (2) removed with the ash.

COAL CONSUMPTION AND AVAILABILITY

117. For the coal that will be burned at the plant, please ensure data collection and consideration of each of the following and make the information public as it becomes available:
     
     
     1. tons of coal burned annually by each unit of the plant;
     2. type of coal to be burned;
     3. heat rate of the coal burned;
     4. mercury content of the coal;
     5. ash content of the coal;
     6. sulfur content of the coal; and
     7. content of other impurities including chlorine, fluorine, selenium, and arsenic.

118. Please consider the mercury and other impurities content at maximum value.

119. Please consider impacts to specific mines in the Powder River Basin ("PRB") that would supply the coal. Please consider also contractual and supply stability by including in the EIS specific mines from which coal is to be acquired and completed contracts for coal acquisition.

120. Please consider the number, location, and purpose of any coal or other material storage piles including precise dimensions and the amount of material that will be stored.

CAPACITY/ ECONOMICS/ VIABILITY

121. Please consider plans to construct AC lines from the plant to interconnection with Sierra Pacific or other lines, including all studies regarding the route of such line(s) and the proposed construction plans.

122. Please consider the quantity of renewable energy to be developed by the Companies including the megawatts, megawatts hours, and the types of renewables, construction dates, locations, and operational timelines.

123. Please ensure EEC has filed and has obtained approval for all requisite FERC certificate(s) for this tap facility, if any.

124. Please consider public necessity of the plant through an analysis of all entities contracted to purchase power from the EEC plant.

125. Please include any plans for construction and operator work force housing and any permit applications necessary.

126. Please determine what plans, if any, exist for subdivisions in and around the EEC (or designed to serve the EEC) and make copies of those plans public as they become available and include in the EIS scope.

127. Please conduct economic and/or socio-economic studies regarding the project and provide those studies as they become available.

128. Please ensure the Companies have or will have committed sufficient capital expenditures over the next 5 to 7 years to construct the project.

129. Please consider any and all applicant plans to build and construct with union labor.

130. Please consider impacts to local and regional recreation.

IMPACTS TO FEDERAL LANDS

131. Please consider and itemize any and all impacts to the Humboldt National Forest, Steptoe Wildlife Management Area, Great Basin National Park, Kirch Wildlife Management Area, Lake Mead National Park, Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuge, Overton National Wildlife Refuge, Moapa Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Desert National Wildlife Refuge, all wilderness study areas, wilderness areas, and all areas of critical environmental concern.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF OTHER PROPOSED POWER PLANTS

132. Please assess and itemize the cumulative impact of the ECC when combined with other proposed power plants on climate, air emissions, water impacts, wildlife, and plants. These other proposed power plants include, but are not limited to: Toquop Power Plant (Mesquite, Nevada); White Pine Associates Power Plant (Ely, Nevada); Desert Rock Power Plant (near Grants, New Mexico); Mustang Power Plant, (near Grants, New Mexico); Intermountain Power Plant Unit 3 (Delta, Utah); Bonanza Power Plant (Bonanza, Utah) and Nevco Power Plant (Sigurd, Utah).

B. ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION MEASURES THAT THE EIS MUST CONSIDER

An EIS must "inform decision makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment." 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1. To that end, the range of alternatives considered in an EIS must include (1) no action, (2) all other reasonable courses of action, and (3) mitigation measures. Id. § 1508.25(b). BLM must "rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives." Id. § 1502.14(a) (emphasis added). It therefore must "[i]nclude reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency" as well as "appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or alternatives." Id. § 1502.14(c), (f).

Accordingly, we request that the EIS consider each of the following reasonable alternatives and appropriate mitigation measures and, for each of the options, please assess direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.

i. No action.

The Companies should produce firm power purchase contracts for the economic life of the plant to demonstrate both a need and market for the proposed electricity. If unable to do so, there will be no basis in the administrative record for concluding the project's impacts are appropriate or necessary. As such, not constructing the plant would therefore represent the least harmful alternative. Consequently, please conduct the requisite analyses and consider the no action alternative in the EIS.

The Companies should provide analyses that prove conclusively that power loads cannot be solved in any other way other than coal power plants. They would have to show that demand side management and renewables are inadequate to the requirement.

The Companies should also show that within the 50-60 year life span of the plants, that they do not become obsolete and antiquated. Their usefulness is being judged over a half century, and there must be a guarantee that they will indeed be needed for that time span.

2. An Alternative to Constructing any Large New Fossil Fuel-Powered Generating Station in White Pine County: Develop Renewable Sources of Energy for Electricity Generation in Nevada and California, Combined With More Efficient Electricity Use in Nevada and California

The Center for Resource Solutions under contract to the City of San Francisco's Hetch Hetchy Water and Power Division is completing work on a Public Interest Energy Research ("PIER") grant received from the California Energy Commission ("CEC"). Part of the work of that grant was to study the technical and economic feasibility of developing sufficient wind and geothermal resources in Northern Nevada. The results of that study concluded that sufficient economically developable renewable resources do exist in Northern Nevada.

Data from the study show that over 800 megawatts of geothermal resources and over 1000 megawatts for wind resources are economically developable in Northern Nevada. Please rigorously explore and objectively evaluate this and other reasonable and viable renewable alternatives to the EEC project. And if the EEC project is built, determine if it will strand these renewable resources thereby blocking the means to market this clean renewable power.

To the extent additional generating capacity is a definite need for the identified end-users, the demand can also be partially met by implementing energy efficiency programs in the contracted markets for this electricity. The California Public Utilities Commission in September 2004 committed to expanding investments in programs that assist customers in the efficient use of energy. SDG&E and other California utilities have plans to supplant 10 large power plants through energy efficiency programs, with expected peak savings reaching an estimated 5000MW by 2010. Additionally, energy efficiency has minimal additional environmental impacts. A specific demand analysis incorporating end-use energy efficiency improvements should be conducted in those markets where the power is to be sold.

The 2010 Imperative and the 2030 Challenge are programs generated from within the architectural arena. They have data that shows that relatively simple building techniques can significantly reduce energy requirements almost overnight. Simply building more efficient buildings can save 50% of building energy by 2010, and harvesting distributed energy supplies huge returns. This data needs to be considered when accounting for adjustments to demand side management.

iii. An Alternative to Constructing any New Coal-Powered Generating Station in White Pine County: Increased Generation of Electricity from Natural Gas in California or Nevada

The Department of Energy indicates that 900 of the next 1000 power plants will use natural gas readily available to end-users through the existing utility infrastructure. See <http://www.doe.gov/engine/content.do?BT_CODE=NATURALGAS>. Through LNG imports and other relatively abundant local reserves, the world availability of natural gas in 2003 was approximately 60 times the volume of gas consumed in the same year. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), Natural Gas Facts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory.

Natural gas is clean burning, emitting fewer pollutants than other fossil fuels, especially coal. According to the Energy Information Administration of the Department of Energy, natural gas power generation provides emissions at approximately 50% the level of coal for carbon dioxide, 20% for both carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides, 0.03% for sulfur dioxide, and 0.25% for particulates. Similarly, natural gas emits negligible quantities of mercury compared to coal usage. Natural Gas 1998: Issues and Trends, April 1999, Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, U.S. Department of Energy. Interest in limiting carbon emissions may further shift focus onto natural gas. The Energy Information Administration identified natural gas as "projected to play a large role in meeting targets associated with the reduction of greenhouse gases." Id. at 2.

The increase in use of natural gas in the electric utility sector is attributed largely to lower capital costs and shorter construction lead times than conventional coal-fired plants. Id. Similarly, the natural gas production, transmission, and distribution network provides quality and flexibility of service. Id. Recent booms in pipeline expansion continue to increase the interconnectivity of the grid, and companies continue to file applications for pipeline expansions with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with at least six new LNG or pipeline expansion projects in California, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah alone presently in various stages of certification. See Projects Near You available at <http://www.ferc.gov/for-citizens/projectsearch/SearchProjects.aspx?Region=Southwest>.

BLM should evaluate existing, proposed, and possible gas-fired electric generating plants contracted to take capacity from these and other pipes in the western states in analyzing this alternative. Please rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all other reasonable and viable natural gas alternatives to the EEC project.

iv. An Alternative to Constructing any New Coal-Powered Generating Station in White Pine County: Construction, in a Western State, of an Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle Generating Station With Carbon Dioxide Capture for Advanced Oil Recovery

In light of the climate impact discussed above, we request that BLM include the following two alternatives among those considered in the EIS: (1) a coal-fueled, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant with CCS in a Western State not White Pine County, and (2) a coal-fueled IGCC power plant without CCS in a Western State not White Pine County. An IGCC plant with CCS would emit none of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, and would stimulate the use of IGCC and CCS at other new coal-fueled power plants. An IGCC plant without CCS at least could be retrofit with CCS later at much lower cost than a conventional coal combustion plant could, and it would stimulate the use of IGCC at other new coal-fueled plants.

Reports prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) indicate that a new coal-fueled IGCC power plant with CCS could well be feasible and profitable in the region and market that includes the proposed site of the ECC power station. See, e.g., Albert A. Herman, Jr., et al., Power Generation for California with CO₂ Removed for Use in Enhanced Oil Recovery, Parsons Report No. EJ-2002-10 (Oct. 2002) (prepared for DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory); Patricia A. Rawls, et al., The Financial Prospects for a Coal-Based IGCC Plant with Carbon Capture Serving California, Paper 4A6 of the Third Annual DOE-NETL Carbon Capture and Sequestration Confab (May 2004). The largest producer of coal-generated electricity in the United States, American Electric Power (AEP), recently testified that the net costs of an IGCC plant are "similar to a pulverized coal unit" when the option value of carbon capture and sequestration is factored in. Direct Testimony of Michael J. Mudd, AEP Program Manager of Technology Development (May 5, 2005), Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Case No. 05-376-EL-UNC at 20. AEP further testified that IGCC is the "superior choice" from an economic standpoint when one considers "fuel flexibility, by-products and product flexibility, as well as furthering the commercialization and lowering the long run costs of the technology for future IGCC applications." Id. at 22.

The air agencies of at least eleven states have concluded that IGCC is an available method for controlling air pollution from coal-fueled power plants. Letter from the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) to Mustang Energy Corporation (Aug. 29, 2003); Letter from NMED to Mustang Energy Corporation (Dec. 23, 2002); Amicus Brief of Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (Nov. 30, 2004); Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order in the Matter of the Air Quality Permit for the Roundup Power Project, Case No. 2003-04 AQ, Board of Environmental Review of the State of Montana (issued June 11, 2003 and approved June 23, 2003); Letter from Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 (Mar. 19, 2003); Letter from Illinois Division of Air Pollution Control to Indeck-Elwood, LLC (Mar. 8, 2003); Letter from NMED to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 (Oct. 8, 2004) at 1.

Even the National Coal Council, a federal advisory committee reporting to the U.S. Secretary of Energy, agrees that IGCC "has become a viable, commercially available technology." National Coal Council, Increasing Electricity Availability from Coal-Fired Generation in the Near Term (May 2001)at 27. Moreover, two of the largest power producers in the United States have announced that they will begin operating new coal-fueled IGCC power plants in the United States by the time the Companies could begin operating a power station in White Pine County. Kate McCann, "AEP Plans to Build ‘Clean Coal' Plant," Associated Press (Sept. 1, 2004); CINERGY, Air Issues Report to Stakeholders (Dec. 1. 2004), at 2 (available at http://www.cinergy.com/pdfs/AIRS_12012004_final.pdf). These authorities are more than adequate to demonstrate that a coal-fueled IGCC power plant with CCS and a coal-fueled IGCC plant without CCS in other portions of the West are "reasonable courses of actions" that must be considered in the EIS for its proposed project. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(b)(2).

5. An Alternative to Constructing any New Coal-Powered Generating Station in White Pine County: Construction of a hybrid system that uses existing technologies to integrate concentrated solar and waste heat recovery with pulverized coal.

We would like to request that the group consider proposing another alternative (in addition to IGCC) to be evaluated within the EIS for the EEC. That alternative would be a hybrid system that uses existing technologies to integrate concentrated solar and waste heat recovery with pulverized coal in a way that improves plant efficiency, significantly reduces mercury and CO2 emissions, and eliminates most other emissions as well as water consumption associated with conventional cooling.

The following description was provided by Dan Stinger, CEO of WOW Energies:

Off-the-shelf technologies exist to improve the efficiency and reduce the emission profile of existing coal fired power plants, including removal of CO2 greenhouse gases.  The Organic Rankin Cycle (ORC) technology exist that can be integrated with existing or new PC power plants to increase efficiency through waste heat recovery.  When combined with a multi-pollutant reduction technology near zero emission PC power plants are a reality.  Recent testing, verified by independent testing agencies, demonstrated the removal of nearly all the NOx, SOx, particulates, heavy metals and 85% of the Mercury in a flue gas while simultaneously removing over 35% of the CO2.  The alternative ORC systems and verified flue gas cleaning technologies can also be integrated with solar energy to further increase the output/efficiency of zero emission PC power plants. Please consider this alternative.   

vi. Appropriate Mitigation Measures The Companies Have Failed to Include in its Proposal for a New, Conventional Coal-Powered Generating Station in White Pine County.

1. Please consider impacts to existing wells, springs, wetlands, wildlife, etc., including a detailed mitigation plan that includes avoidance as a mitigation strategy. Please make that information public as it becomes available.

2. Please define goals for the Steptoe Valley. This project takes a significant amount of the water projected to recharge in the basin. Eventually, steady state will be re-achieved and there will be no evapotranspiration from the basin. From an ecological perspective, it is not a sustainable situation. Please evaluate BLM's definition of sustainable groundwater development in this basin even without consideration of a proposed project.

3. Please consider proposed and alternative water consumption rates and amounts and include an analysis of proposed and alternative recycling methods.

4. Please include measures to keep wildlife away from waste ponds, disposal sites, other relevant plant operation facilities, and throughout all project construction activities.

5. Please develop measures to prevent bird collisions with transmission lines.

6. Please develop precautionary measures to keep birds safe from the evaporation pond(s) and all other facilities.

7. Please consider measures for protecting water at the source for use by wildlife.

8. Please consider whether any pre-treatment of water will be required before it is used at the plant.

9. Please consider proposed and alternate plans to prevent interference with wildlife migration routes.

10. Please consider the impacts cause by habitat fragmentation to endangered, threatened and state sensitive species, both plant and animal species, caused by the power plant footprint and the rights of way.

11. Please develop plans to manage wilderness study areas so as to ensure they retain wilderness characteristics.

12. Please develop specific measures to minimize Legionella outbreaks from cooling tower emissions.

13. Please develop detailed traffic control plans on local roads during construction and operation of the project. Please consider requiring the applicant to carry all cost of any local infrastructure development related to the project, e.g., curb upgrades, additional parking, additional traffic controls, additional sidewalks, and additional lanes.

14. Please consider requiring the applicant to guarantee maintenance schedules of the additional infrastructure requirements through commitment to a mitigation fund for resurfacing and repair of local roads from damage by heavy vehicles serving the project.

15. Please consider requiring the construction of an overpass of the rail tracks to allow local traffic to pass when trains are on the track.

16. Please develop a detailed maintenance schedule for the project and associated facilities.

17. Please require site fencing and make public the plot plan showing the fenced boundary as it becomes available.

18. Please consider EEC's proposed methods that will be used to control dust from storage piles, conveyors, crushers, pulverizers, and storage bins and their control efficiency.

19. With respect to the coal that will be burned at the plant, if it is to be Powder River Basin coal, as has been represented by the Companies, then:

1. Please indicate what specific dust control measures will be used to account for the high friability of this coal;
2. Please consider whether the project will conduct dust control audit(s) to assess the performance of dust collection and provide the designs for the dust control audit(s) as they become available;
3. Please consider whether the project will develop measures to prevent explosions and fires as have been experienced by other plants using PRB coal such as the explosion at the Sooner Power Plant on 2/16/04;
4. Please consider whether the project will include a permanent wash down system in the plant design and make public that design and the amount of water the system will use annually;
5. Please evaluate the number of access ports contained in the applicant's present design plan and the levels at which these access ports will be installed;
6. Please consider whether the plant's coal handling facilities will use CO, Thermal and Infrared scanning monitoring equipment and provide the plans for such monitoring equipment;
7. Please evaluate Fire Hazard Mitigation systems inside bunkers or silos, and provide the plans for such systems.

20. Please consider alternative sites and/or energy generation options and provide all documentation of BLM consideration of those alternatives in the EIS.

21. Please provide plans to assist local agencies with infrastructure issues related to the work force of the project construction and plant operation, e.g., water, sewerage, fire fighting, hospitals, schools, roads, etc. Please include cost estimates associated with these infrastructure additions or estimates of those infrastructure addition requirements.

22. Please develop extensive and detailed emergency management plan(s) including the amount of fuel that will be used for emergency engines, e.g., fire water pumps, emergency generators, and fuel sulfur content and any requisite air emission permits for those sources. Please include responsibility assignments for clean up efforts and inspection and oversight.

23. Please require the development of a Risk Management Plan evaluated worst case scenarios and response for environmental accidents and make that information public as soon as it becomes available.

24. Please consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer and any Indian Tribe ascribing historic and traditional affiliation to the region regarding mitigation of impacts to significant historic properties.

25. Please consider alternative disposal site(s) for scrubber wastes and alternative modes of transportation to the disposal site(s).

26. Please consider alternative disposal site(s) for ash and alternative modes of transportation to the disposal site(s).

27. Please analyze any proposed use of Adaptive Resource Management (ARM).

28. Please provide for a staffed complaint hotline to address neighborhood problems, e.g., noise, odor, dust, traffic, vibration, light pollution and a plan to resolve any identified problem. Please require subordination agreement(s) with White Pine County regarding any senior ground water applications in the Steptoe Valley for each new appropriation of surface and ground water to support the project.

29. Please make all water rights filings with the State Engineer public as they are filed, including all supporting data submitted under NRC 533.372.

30. Please require adjudication of all water rights prior to issuance of DEIS.

31. Please consider alternate transportation routes for all hazardous materials to avoid populated areas.

32. Please develop plans to control the cancer and noncancer health impacts from emissions and discharge.

33. Please attach environmental health funds to permits and/or otherwise make funding available to all communities.

34. Neither the BLM's January 27, 2007 "Notice of Intent" nor the materials made available at the public scoping meetings identified all air pollution control measures that the Companies have committed to implement at its proposed power station in White Pine County. It is thus impossible, at this stage, for any member of the public to identify the appropriate air pollution mitigation measures that are "not already included in the proposed action." 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(f). To the extent, however, that the Companies do not propose to implement the following mitigation measures, all of which are feasible at a 2,500 MW power station fueled with subbituminous coal from the Powder River Basin, we request that BLM include them as "appropriate mitigation measures" in the EIS:

    
    
    1. continuous operation, all year, of those add-on pollution control devices that the Companies do propose to implement;
    2. activated carbon injection, operated continuously and all year to remove mercury emissions to the maximum extent possible;
    3. fabric filters with FGD control, operated continuously and all year to remove particulate matter emissions to the maximum extent possible;
    4. circulating dry scrubbers, operated continuously and all year to remove SO2 emissions to the maximum extent possible;
    5. selective catalytic reduction, operated continuously and all year to remove Nox emissions to the maximum extent possible; and
    6. circulating fluidized bed technology.

35. Please consider the pollution controls that would be used at the plant and their inlet and outlet emission levels in lb/hr or lb/MMBtu for each pollution control device.

36. Please determine by what percentage mercury is to be controlled, including the basis for this value (i.e., pollution control train proposed for criteria pollutants, or are you adding carbon injections or other mercury specific control). Please specify all mercury control.

37. Please ascertain whether any mercury control credits under the new EPA mercury rule will be used as an alternative to controlling mercury emissions. If yes, please consider the level of credits to be purchased.

38. Please consider the proposed BACT limits for NOx, SO2, PM/PM10, sulfuric acid mist, and fluorides for the PC boilers including the proposed emission rates and the associated averaging time, e.g., 0.06 lb/MMBtu NOx based on a 24-hour average.

39. Please ascertain whether the Companies are willing to accept the same BACT limits proposed for the Desert Rock, NM coal plant project.

40. Please consider the type of drift eliminators on cooling towers that will be used and evaluate their drift efficiency.

41. Please consider whether the proposed control equipment design includes bypasses of the pollution control system, and, if so, under what conditions bypass will occur.

42. Please determine whether the project will require emission offsets for criteria pollutant for which the area is in non-attainment. If offsets are required, please determine the source of the offsets.

43. Please consider the use of coal washing to minimize SO2, PM/PM10 emissions, and HAP emissions.

44. Please require an air quality permit to construct and a permit to operate from NDEP and/or U.S. EPA.

45. Please develop plans to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in the vicinity of the plant.

46. Please consider the applicant's proposed mercury emission control technology to be used in the plant and all viable alternative mercury emission control technologies.

47. Please consider the amount of mercury per year to be emitted into the air and the amount of mercury to remain as residual in fly ash or other plant waste material. Please consider the applicant's proposed disposal method and all viable alternative disposal methods. Please consider the applicant's proposed disposal location(s) and alternative location(s).

48. Please determine whether the project trigger MACT. If so, please determine which constituents and what MACT controls apply. If not, please analyze and provide the supporting HAP emission calculations.

49. Please provide all supporting documentation to substantiate the Companies' claim that the ECC coal plant will use state-of-the-art emission control technologies.

Thank you for considering these comments.


Signed by the following organizations:

Western Resource Advocates
Sierra Club, including the Toiyabe Chapter (NV and eastern California) and Utah Chapter
Grand Canyon Trust
Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada
Citizen Alert
Nevada Conservation League
Post Carbon Salt Lake
Wasatch Clean Air Coalition
Sevier Citizens for Clean Air and Water
Bear River Watershed Council