[Federal Register: January 30, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 20)]
[Notices]               
[Page 4630-4631]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30ja98-53]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-5488-5]

 
Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared January 12, 1998 Through 
January 16, 1998 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 11, 1997 (62 
FR 16154).

Draft EISs

    ERP No. D-BLM-K65275-CA Rating EO2, Fourmile Hill Geothermal 
Development Project, Construction, Operation and Maintenance, 49.9 
megawatt (MW) Geothermal Power Plant, Federal Geothermal Leases CA-
21924 and CA-21926, Glass Mountain Known Geothermal Resource Area, 
Klamath and Modoc National Forests, Siskiyou and Modoc Counties, CA.
    Summary: EPA has expressed objections to the significance of 
potential environmental impacts to the freshwater system and indicated 
that insufficient data was provided regarding the applied conceptual 
hydrogeologic model. EPA also expressed objection because the proposed 
action could establish a precedent for future action with significant 
effects. EPA also recommended that a second proposed project be 
included in the same EIS because it is a similiar action. ERP No. D-
USA-B11022-MA Rating EU3, Massachusetts Military Reservation Facilities 
Upgrade, Implementation, 10 Projects, Towns of Bourne, Sandwich, 
Falmouth and Mashpee, Barnstable County, MA.
    Summaey: EPA deemed the draft EIS inadequate because it lacked 
essential information relating to the environmental impacts of past, 
current and future training activities at the training range and impact 
area at the military reservation. EPA commented that the most critical 
deficiency of the DEIS was its failure to address adequately the 
contamination of Cape Cod's sole source aquifer as the result of past 
military operations and the potential for future contamination from 
current and proposed training activities. EPA called for the 
substantial revision and reissuance of the DEIS as a SEIS in order to 
provide a basis for understanding the baseline environmental conditions 
and potential impacts of the expansion of the training ranges.
    ERP No. DS-FHW-B40071-CT Rating EC2, I-95 at New Haven Harbor 
Crossing (Quinnipac River Bridge) Updated Information for Seven 
Alternatives on (Q-Bridge) Study, Funding, COE Section 404 Permit, U.S. 
Coast Guard Bridge Permit, New Haven, East Haven, Branford, Madison and 
Clinton, CT.
    Summary: EPA commented that additional information with regard to 
wetland and air quality impacts should be provided to fully evaluate 
the environmental acceptability of various alternatives. EPA also 
indicated that it is crucial for the final EIS to demonstrate that 
funding can and will be secured for the transit features of the 
project. Additionally, EPA asked CTDOT/FHWA to demonstrate the 
affirmative and effective steps to assure that TSM and transit 
incentive components will be implementated for the project.

Final EISs

    ERP No. F-AFS-L65267-AK Helicopter Landings within Wilderness, 
Implementation, Tongass National Forest, Chatham, Stikine and Ketchikan 
Area, AK.
    Summary: Review of the final EIS has been completed and the project 
found to be satisfactory. No formal comment letter was sent to the 
preparing agency.
    ERP No. FA-DOE-A22076-NM Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal 
Phase, Updated Information, Disposal of Transuranic Waste, Carlsbad, 
NM.
    Summary: EPA has no further comment to offer on the NEPA process. 
Final approval for operation of the WIPP facility will be based upon 
EPA's completion of the certification process conducted by EPA's Office 
of Radiation and Indoor Air and the RCRA permit

[[Page 4631]]

review and approval process conducted by the New Mexico Environment 
Department.

    Dated: January 27, 1998.
William D. Dickerson,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 98-2376 Filed 1-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U