[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 48 (Friday, March 12, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Page 12317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6185]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-6240-7]


Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared February 15, 1999 Through 
February 19, 1999 pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), 
under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(c) of the 
National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of 
EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at 
(202) 564-7167.
    An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental 
impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 10, 1998 (63 
FR 17856).

Draft EISs

    ERP No. D-BOP-D81030-WV Rating EC1, Ohio and Tyler Counties Federal 
Correctional Facility, Construction and Operation, ThreePossible Sites: 
Wheeling-Ohio County Airport Industrial Park, Fort Henry and Iver 
Flats, Ohio and Tyler Counties, WV.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concern regarding wetland 
impacts and requested that mitigation measures will be required for 
wetland impacts that cannot be avoided.
    ERP No. D-DOE-K08021-CA Rating EO2, Sutter Power Plant Project, 
Operation and Maintains of a High-Voltage Electric Transmission, 500 
megawatt (MW) Gas Fueled, Sutter County, Ca.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections to the proposed 
project based on the potential for significant environmental 
degradation that could be corrected by project modification or other 
feasible alternatives. EPA also questioned whether the proposed project 
would be consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act and 
Clean Water Act. EPA requested additional information and clarification 
on alternatives analysis, construction related air impacts, potential 
impacts to wetlands and flood plains, cumulative impacts and various 
other requirements of NEPA.
    ERP No. D-DOE-K08022-AZ Rating EO2, Griffith Energy Project, 
Construction and Operation, 520-Megawatt (MW) Natural Gas-Fired and 
Combined Cycle Power Plant, Right-of-Way Grant, Operating Permit and 
COE Section 404 Permit, Kingman, AZ.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections to the proposed 
project based on the potential for significant environmental 
degradation that could be corrected by project modification or other 
feasible alternatives. EPA asked for additional information and 
clarification on the purpose and need statement and alternatives 
analysis, permitting, water-related impacts, and cumulative impacts. 
EPA also noted that proceeding with the proposed action, as described 
and analyzed in the EIS, could set a precedent for future actions that 
collectively could result in significant environmental impacts.
    ERP No. DR-USN-K11083-CA Rating EO2, Hunters Point (Former) Naval 
Shipyard Disposal and Reuse, Implementation, Revised Information, City 
of San Francisco, San Francisco County, CA.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections due to increased 
environmental impacts of the revised project. Additional information on 
the proposed alternatives and their air, traffic, and hazardous 
materials impacts is required for EPA to assess potential significant 
environmental impacts.
    ERP No. DS-TVA-E07013-TN Rating EC2, Kingston Fossil Plant 
Alternative Coal Receiving Systems, New Rail Spur Construction near the 
Cities of Kingston and Harriman, Roane County, TN.
    Summary: EPA raised concerns over traffic delays and noise impacts 
associated with coal rail delivery and increased plant air emissions 
for important air parameters, such as, CO and VOC's.

Final EISs

    ERP No. FS-JUS-K80035-CA Service Processing Center (SPC) for 
Detainees, Construction and Operation, Possible Sites, Stockton and 
Tracy Sites, San Joaquin Counties, CA.
    Summary: EPA believes additional detail should have been provided 
under architectural and spacial design, however we have no objection to 
the project as proposed.

Other

    ERP No. LD-UAF-K11095-AZ Rating EO2, Barry M. Goldwater Ranger 
(BMGR), Renewal of the Military Land Withdrawal, Yuma, Pima and 
Maricopa Counties, AZ.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections with the proposed 
action because an indefinite land withdrawal, for purpose such as those 
described, without rigorous and periodic environmental reviews could 
result in significant environmental degradation. EPA stressed the need 
for regularly reoccurring public involvement in the environmental 
management of military range lands and recommended that a shorter-term 
withdrawal period be fully evaluated and considered.
    ERP No. LD-USA-G11037-NM Rating EC2, McGregor Range Military Land 
Withdrawal Renewal, Fort Bliss, Otera County, NM and TX.
    Summary: EPA has requested an alternative for renewal for a shorter 
time period.

    Dated: March 9, 1999.
William D. Dickerson,
Director, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 99-6185 Filed 3-11-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P