Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments

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