Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments, 22307-22308 [05-8612]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 82 / Friday, April 29, 2005 / Notices
(San Joaquin and Alameda counties).
The Livermore Site is the primary site
and is located approximately 40 miles
east of San Francisco in the Livermore
Valley on the east side of the city of
Livermore. Site 300 is located 15 miles
southeast of the city of Livermore
between Livermore and Tracy.
The alternatives evaluated in the
Final LLNL SW/SPEIS represent a range
of operation from the minimum level
that maintains core capabilities
(Reduced Operation Alternative) to the
highest reasonable activity levels that
could be supported by current facilities,
and the potential expansion and
construction of new facilities for
identified future actions (Proposed
Action). The No Action Alternative
would continue operation of current
LLNL programs in support of assigned
missions and includes approved interim
actions; facility construction, expansion,
or modification; and decontamination
and decommissioning projects for
which NEPA analysis and
documentation already exist. The
Proposed Action includes operations
discussed under the No Action
Alternative and the construction of new
facilities and expanded operations in
support of future mission requirements.
Specifically, the Proposed Action
includes increasing the administrative
and material-at-risk limits for plutonium
and tritium, and the use of nuclear
materials (plutonium, other fissile
materials, fissionable materials, and
lithium hydride) at the National Ignition
Facility. The Reduced Operation
Alternative represents a thirty percent
reduction of the Stockpile Stewardship
Program compared to the No Action
Alternative. The Reduced Operation
Alternative maintains full operational
readiness for NNSA facilities and
operations, but does not represent the
level of operation required to fulfill the
missions of the Stockpile Stewardship
Program assigned to LLNL. The NNSA
has identified the Proposed Action as its
preferred alternative in the Final LLNL
SW/SPEIS.
The Final LLNL SW/SPEIS contains
responses to comments received during
the public comment period, as well as
changes that were made to the Draft
LLNL SW/SPEIS in response to these
comments. The NNSA will consider the
analyses in the Final LLNL SW/SPEIS,
along with other information, in making
its decision regarding future operations
at LLNL.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:04 Apr 28, 2005
Jkt 205001
Issued in Washington, DC, this 10th day of
March 2005.
Linton F. Brooks,
Administrator, National Nuclear Security
Administration.
[FR Doc. 05–8600 Filed 4–28–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[ER–FRL–6662–9]
Environmental Impact Statements and
Regulations; Availability of EPA
Comments
Availability of EPA comments
prepared 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 the Federal Register dated April 1,
2005 (70 FR 16815).
Draft EISs
EIS No. 20050006, ERP No. D1–FHW–
H40397–MO, Interstate 70 Corridor
Improvements, Section of
Independent Utility #4, from Missouri
Route BB Interchange to Eastern
Columbia, Funding, Boone County,
MO.
Summary: EPA has no objections to
the proposed project.
Rating LO
EIS No. 20040520, ERP No. D–DOE–
J39033–UT, Moab Uranium Mill
Trailings Remediation, Proposal To
Clean Up Surface Contamination and
Implement a Ground Water Strategy,
Grand and San Juan Counties, UT.
Summary: EPA rated the on-site
alternative environmentally
unsatisfactory because it would result in
continuing exceedances of water quality
criteria and it may not provide longterm pile stability. EPA has
environmental objections to the White
Mesa Mill site based on potential
inconsistency with Utah’s ground water
protection standards. EPA has
environmental concerns for the two
other alternatives regarding
transportation of the tailings to the site
and cap design.
Rating EU2
EIS No. 20040569, ERP No. D–NRC–
D03004–VA, Early Site Permit (ESP at
the North Anna Power Station ESP
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22307
Site (TAC No. MC1128), Construction
and Operation, NUREG–1811, Louisa
County, VA.
Summary: EPA has environmental
concerns based on the lack of
information on wetland and stream
impacts, the impact on the water
resource and the affects on the
downstream communities.
Rating EC2
EIS No. 20050018, ERP No. D–FAA–
F51050–IL, O’Hare Modernization
Program, Proposes Major
Development, Chicago O’Hare
International Airport, Airport Layout
Plan (ALP), Federal Funding, U.S.
Army COE Section 404 Permit, City of
Chicago, IL.
Summary: EPA expressed concerns
related to air quality (criteria pollutants
and hazardous air pollutants), wetlands,
stormwater, noise, and environmental
justice. EPA recommended additional
analysis for air (general conformity and
fine particulate matter (PM2.5)), noise
mitigation options, and environmental
justice. EPA recommended that the final
EIS contain mitigation commitments for:
increased mitigation ratios for wooded
wetlands, noise mitigation, specific air
mitigation measures targeting diesel
emissions during construction and
operation and hazardous air pollutants
associated with aircraft idling and
taxiing.
Rating EC2
EIS No. 20050021, ERP No. D–NRC–
F06025–WI, GENERIC—License
Renewal for Point Beach Nuclear
Plant, Units 1 and 2, Supplement 23
to NUREG–1437 (TAC Nos. MC2049
and MC2050), Lake
Michigan,Manitowoc County, WI.
Summary: EPA has environmental
concerns regarding the adequacy and
presentation of the radiological impacts
and risk estimates and entrainment of
fish and shellfish. In addition, impacts
to ground water, especially with respect
to on-site drinking water wells, are not
discussed.
Rating EC2
EIS No. 20050050, ERP No. D–COE–
D39028–00, TIER 1-DEIS Baltimore
Harbor and Channel Dredged Material
Management Plan (DMMP), To
Analyze Dredged Material Placement,
Port of Baltimore, Chesapeake Bay,
MD, PA, DE, WV, VA, DC, and NY.
Summary: EPA had no objections to
the ‘‘no action’’ alternative (i.e., the
continued use of Open Water Placement
in Virginia and the optimized use of
existing dredged material management
sites) and the new Alternative proposing
E:\FR\FM\29APN1.SGM
29APN1
22308
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 82 / Friday, April 29, 2005 / Notices
beneficial uses of dredged materials
(i.e., wetlands restoration in Dorchester
County, MD). EPA expressed
environmental concerns over the
remaining three alternatives (i.e., the
proposed multiple new Confined
Disposal Facilities in the Patapsco
River, the Poplar Island Environmental
Restoration Project expansion and the
Large Island Restoration Middle Bay).
EPA recommended that continued use
of Open Water Placement in Virginia
include the already designated
NorfolkOcean Disposal Site given its
available capacity.
Rating EC1
EIS No. 20050053, ERP No. D–CGD–
E03013–00, Compass Port and
Deepwater Port License Application,
To Construct a Liquefied Natural Gas
(LNG) Receiving, Storage and
Regasification Facility, Proposed
Offshore Pipeline and Fabrication
Site, NPDES Permit, U.S. Army COE
Section 10 and 404 Permits, Mobile
County, AL and San Patricio and
Nueces County, TX.
Summary: EPA expressed objections
to the open loop re-gasification system
due to immediate and cumulative
adverse impacts to eastern Gulf waters
and habitat. EPA requested additional
information that is necessary for the
federal Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permits
required for this Deep Water Port.
Rating EC2.Final EISs
EIS No. 20050071, ERP No. F–FHW–
F40394–MI, I–94/Rehabilitation
Project, Transportation Improvements
to a 6.7 mile portion of I–94 from east
I–96 west and to Conner Avenue on
the east end, Funding and NPDES
Permit, City of Detroit, Wayne
County, MI.
Summary: EPA has no objections to
the preferred alternative.
EIS No. 20050085, ERP No. F–FRC–
K05060–CA, Stanislaus Rivers
Projects, Relicensing of Hydroelectric
Projects: Spring Gap-Stanislaus FERC
No. 2130; Beardsley/Donnells FERC
No. 2005; Tulloch FERC No. 2067;
and Donnells-Curtis Transmission
Line FERC No. 2118, Tuolumne and
Calaveras Counties, CA.
Summary: EPA has no objections to
the project as proposed. In response to
comments from EPA, FERC clarified and
provided additional information on
impacts to water and air quality, efforts
to involve tribal governments, and
evaluation of environmental justice
issues.
Dated: April 26, 2005.
Ken Mittelholtz,
Environmental Protection Specialist, Office
of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 05–8612 Filed 4–28–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Rating EO2
EIS No. 20050082, ERP No. D–FRC–
J03001–CO, Entrega Pipeline Project,
Construction and Operation New
Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline
System, Right-of-Way Grant Issue by
BLM, Meeker Hub and Cheyenne
Hub, Rio Blanco and Weld Counties,
CO, and Sweetwater County, WY.
Summary: EPA expressed concerns
regarding the environmental impacts of
additional natural gas development in
the Piceance and Uinta basins to
wildlife, water and air quality. EPA also
recommended that other connected
actions to the project and other projects
that will be induced by the new
pipeline be reviewed in the EIS.
Rating EC2
EIS No. 20050091, ERP No. D–FRC–
G03026–00, Golden Pass Liquefied
Natural Gas (LNG) Import Terminal
and Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities,
Construction and Operation, Jefferson,
Orange, Newton Counties, TX and
Calcasieu Parish, LA.
Summary: EPA expressed
environmental concerns and requested
VerDate jul<14>2003
additional information regarding
alternatives, invasive species, air quality
impacts and Clean Air Act conformity.
16:04 Apr 28, 2005
Jkt 205001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[ER–FRL–6662–8]
Environmental Impact Statements;
Notice of Availability
Responsible Agency: Office of Federal
Activities, General Information (202)
564–7167 or https://www.epa.gov/
compliance/nepa/.
Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact
Statements filed April 18, 2005
through April 22, 2005 pursuant to 40
CFR 1506.9.
EIS No. 20050165, Draft EIS, NPS, AK,
Denali National Park and Preserve
Revised Draft Backcountry
Management Plan, General
Management Plan Amendment,
Implementation, AK, Comment Period
Ends: June 30, 2005, Contact: Anne D.
Castelina (202) 208–6381.
EIS No. 20050166, Draft EIS, AFS, CA,
Brown Project, Proposal to Improve
Forest Health by Reducing
Overcrowded Forest Stand
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Conditions, Trinity River
Management Unit, Shasta-Trinity
National Forest, Weaverville Ranger
District, Trinity County, CA,
Comment Period Ends: June 13, 2005,
Contact: J. Sharon Heywood (530)
226–2500.
EIS No. 20050167, Final EIS, AFS, WV,
Fernow Experimental Forest, To
Continue Long-Term Research and
Initiate New Research, Involving
Removal of Trees, Prescribed Burning,
Stem Injection of Selected of Trees,
Control Invasive Plant Species,
Northeastern Research Station,
Parson, Tucker County, WV,
Comment Period Ends: May 31, 2005,
Contact: Mary Beth Adams (304) 478–
2000.
EIS No. 20050168, Draft EIS, BLM, AK,
East Alaska Draft Resource
Management Plan (RMP), Provide a
Single Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
Glennallen Field Office District, AK,
Comment Period Ends: July 28, 2005,
Contact: Bruce Rogers (907) 822–3217.
EIS No. 20050169, Final EIS, BLM, MT,
Dillon Resource Management Plan,
Provide Direction for Managing Public
Lands within the Dillon Field Office,
Implementation, Beaverhead and
Madison Counties, MT, Wait Period
Ends: May 31, 2005, Contact: Renee
Johnson (406) 683–8016.
EIS No. 20050170, Final EIS, DOE, CA,
Site-wide Continued Operation of
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL) and Stockpile
Stewardship and Management,
Implementation, Alameda and San
Joaquin Counties, CA, Wait Period
Ends: May 31, 2005, Contact: Tom
Grim (925) 422–0704.
EIS No. 20050171, Final EIS, AFS, NV,
Jarbidge Canyon Project, Road
Management Plan Implementation,
Water Projects Construction along
Charleston-Jarbidge Road and South
Canyon Road Reconstruction,
Humbolt-Toiyabe National Forest,
Jarbidge Ranger District, Elko County,
NV, Wait Period Ends: May 31, 2005,
Contact: James Winfrey (775) 778–
6129.
EIS No. 20050172, Final EIS, NRC, AR,
Generic-License Renewal of Nuclear
Plants, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2
(Tac. Nos. MB 8405) Supplement 19
to NUREG–1437, Operating License
Renewal, Pope County, AR, Wait
Period Ends: May 31, 2005, Contact:
Thomas Kenyon (301) 415–1120.
EIS No. 20050173, Draft EIS, NRC, MS,
Grand Gulf Early Site Permit,
Construction and Operation, Issuance
of an Early Site Permit (ESP),
NUREG–1817, Claiborne County, MS,
Comment Period Ends: July 14, 2005,
E:\FR\FM\29APN1.SGM
29APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 82 (Friday, April 29, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22307-22308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-8612]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ER-FRL-6662-9]
Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of
EPA Comments
Availability of EPA comments prepared 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 the Federal Register dated April 1, 2005 (70 FR 16815).
Draft EISs
EIS No. 20050006, ERP No. D1-FHW-H40397-MO, Interstate 70 Corridor
Improvements, Section of Independent Utility 4, from Missouri
Route BB Interchange to Eastern Columbia, Funding, Boone County, MO.
Summary: EPA has no objections to the proposed project.
Rating LO
EIS No. 20040520, ERP No. D-DOE-J39033-UT, Moab Uranium Mill Trailings
Remediation, Proposal To Clean Up Surface Contamination and Implement a
Ground Water Strategy, Grand and San Juan Counties, UT.
Summary: EPA rated the on-site alternative environmentally
unsatisfactory because it would result in continuing exceedances of
water quality criteria and it may not provide long-term pile stability.
EPA has environmental objections to the White Mesa Mill site based on
potential inconsistency with Utah's ground water protection standards.
EPA has environmental concerns for the two other alternatives regarding
transportation of the tailings to the site and cap design.
Rating EU2
EIS No. 20040569, ERP No. D-NRC-D03004-VA, Early Site Permit (ESP at
the North Anna Power Station ESP Site (TAC No. MC1128), Construction
and Operation, NUREG-1811, Louisa County, VA.
Summary: EPA has environmental concerns based on the lack of
information on wetland and stream impacts, the impact on the water
resource and the affects on the downstream communities.
Rating EC2
EIS No. 20050018, ERP No. D-FAA-F51050-IL, O'Hare Modernization
Program, Proposes Major Development, Chicago O'Hare International
Airport, Airport Layout Plan (ALP), Federal Funding, U.S. Army COE
Section 404 Permit, City of Chicago, IL.
Summary: EPA expressed concerns related to air quality (criteria
pollutants and hazardous air pollutants), wetlands, stormwater, noise,
and environmental justice. EPA recommended additional analysis for air
(general conformity and fine particulate matter (PM2.5)), noise
mitigation options, and environmental justice. EPA recommended that the
final EIS contain mitigation commitments for: increased mitigation
ratios for wooded wetlands, noise mitigation, specific air mitigation
measures targeting diesel emissions during construction and operation
and hazardous air pollutants associated with aircraft idling and
taxiing.
Rating EC2
EIS No. 20050021, ERP No. D-NRC-F06025-WI, GENERIC--License Renewal for
Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Supplement 23 to NUREG-1437
(TAC Nos. MC2049 and MC2050), Lake Michigan,Manitowoc County, WI.
Summary: EPA has environmental concerns regarding the adequacy and
presentation of the radiological impacts and risk estimates and
entrainment of fish and shellfish. In addition, impacts to ground
water, especially with respect to on-site drinking water wells, are not
discussed.
Rating EC2
EIS No. 20050050, ERP No. D-COE-D39028-00, TIER 1-DEIS Baltimore Harbor
and Channel Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP), To Analyze Dredged
Material Placement, Port of Baltimore, Chesapeake Bay, MD, PA, DE, WV,
VA, DC, and NY.
Summary: EPA had no objections to the ``no action'' alternative
(i.e., the continued use of Open Water Placement in Virginia and the
optimized use of existing dredged material management sites) and the
new Alternative proposing
[[Page 22308]]
beneficial uses of dredged materials (i.e., wetlands restoration in
Dorchester County, MD). EPA expressed environmental concerns over the
remaining three alternatives (i.e., the proposed multiple new Confined
Disposal Facilities in the Patapsco River, the Poplar Island
Environmental Restoration Project expansion and the Large Island
Restoration Middle Bay). EPA recommended that continued use of Open
Water Placement in Virginia include the already designated NorfolkOcean
Disposal Site given its available capacity.
Rating EC1
EIS No. 20050053, ERP No. D-CGD-E03013-00, Compass Port and Deepwater
Port License Application, To Construct a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
Receiving, Storage and Regasification Facility, Proposed Offshore
Pipeline and Fabrication Site, NPDES Permit, U.S. Army COE Section 10
and 404 Permits, Mobile County, AL and San Patricio and Nueces County,
TX.
Summary: EPA expressed objections to the open loop re-gasification
system due to immediate and cumulative adverse impacts to eastern Gulf
waters and habitat. EPA requested additional information that is
necessary for the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits required for
this Deep Water Port.
Rating EO2
EIS No. 20050082, ERP No. D-FRC-J03001-CO, Entrega Pipeline Project,
Construction and Operation New Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline System,
Right-of-Way Grant Issue by BLM, Meeker Hub and Cheyenne Hub, Rio
Blanco and Weld Counties, CO, and Sweetwater County, WY.
Summary: EPA expressed concerns regarding the environmental impacts
of additional natural gas development in the Piceance and Uinta basins
to wildlife, water and air quality. EPA also recommended that other
connected actions to the project and other projects that will be
induced by the new pipeline be reviewed in the EIS.
Rating EC2
EIS No. 20050091, ERP No. D-FRC-G03026-00, Golden Pass Liquefied
Natural Gas (LNG) Import Terminal and Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities,
Construction and Operation, Jefferson, Orange, Newton Counties, TX and
Calcasieu Parish, LA.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns and requested
additional information regarding alternatives, invasive species, air
quality impacts and Clean Air Act conformity.
Rating EC2.Final EISs
EIS No. 20050071, ERP No. F-FHW-F40394-MI, I-94/Rehabilitation Project,
Transportation Improvements to a 6.7 mile portion of I-94 from east I-
96 west and to Conner Avenue on the east end, Funding and NPDES Permit,
City of Detroit, Wayne County, MI.
Summary: EPA has no objections to the preferred alternative.
EIS No. 20050085, ERP No. F-FRC-K05060-CA, Stanislaus Rivers Projects,
Relicensing of Hydroelectric Projects: Spring Gap-Stanislaus FERC No.
2130; Beardsley/Donnells FERC No. 2005; Tulloch FERC No. 2067; and
Donnells-Curtis Transmission Line FERC No. 2118, Tuolumne and Calaveras
Counties, CA.
Summary: EPA has no objections to the project as proposed. In
response to comments from EPA, FERC clarified and provided additional
information on impacts to water and air quality, efforts to involve
tribal governments, and evaluation of environmental justice issues.
Dated: April 26, 2005.
Ken Mittelholtz,
Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 05-8612 Filed 4-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P