Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 1997 / Notices 9187

County, MT, Due: March 24, 1997,

Contact: Jeanne Higgins (406) 295–

4693. Published FR—08–23–96—

Review Period Reopened.

Dated: February 25, 1997

B. Katherine Biggs,

Associate Director, NEPA Compliance

Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 97–5074 Filed 2–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

[ER–FRL–5477–9]

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared February 10, 1997 Through

February 14, 1997 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 5, 1996 (61 FR 15251).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D–BLM–K67040–CA Rating

EC2, Imperial Open-Pit Heap Leach

Precious Metal Mine Project, Plan of

Operation, Right-of-Way Approval,

Conditional-Use-Permit and

Reclamation Program Approval,

Imperial County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns based on

potential impacts to surface waters and

recommendations for improved

facilities design, and requested

additional information regarding

avoidance and mitigation of impacts to

waters of the U.S., reduction of PM10

emissions, and facilities design.

ERP No. D–COE–C36074–NJ Rating

EC2, Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet

Feasbility Study, New Jersey Shore

Protection Study, Storm Damage

Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration,

with in the Communities of Avalon,

Stone Harbor and North Wildwood,

Cape May County, NJ.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns over the

alternatives analysis, potential impacts

to benthic communities and water

quality from beach nourishment

activities, and the potential impacts

associated with this and other erosion/

storm damage protection projects in

New Jersey. Additional information is

requested in the final EIS to address

these issues.

ERP No. D–COE–G39031–LA Rating

LO, Mississippi River—Gulf Outlet

(MRGO) New Lock and Connecting

Channels Replacement and

Construction for Connection to the

Mississippi River, Implementation,

Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes, LA.

Summary: EPA has no objection to the

selection of the Tentatively Selected

Plan provided that the described

mitigation measures are implemented.

ERP No. D–FHW–L40201–WA Rating

EC2, US 101 Highway AberdeenHoquian Corridor Project,

Improvements, US Coast Guard and

COE Section 404 Permit, Grays Harbor

County, WA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns based on

unavoidable impacts to wetlands and

potential impacts to other waters of the

US. Additional information is needed to

clarify design specifications resulting

from certain flood frequency data, and

to ensure that proper stormwater

management practices will be

implemented to protect receiving-water

quality appropriately.

ERP No. D–FTA–D54038–MD Rating

EC2, Metrorail Extension—Addison

Road Station to the Largo Town Center,

Transportation Improvements, Prince

George’s County, MD.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns that

environmental issues have not been

adequately addressed. The alternatives

analysis does not adequately compare

alternatives. Secondary and cumulative

impacts were not fully addressed as

well. Information regarding

environmental justices issues was not

clearly documented.

ERP No. D–IBR–K29000–CA Rating

EO2, Interim South Delta Program

(ISDP), Construction and Operation,

Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta,

Implementation, COE Section 404

Permit, Alameda, Contra Costa and San

Joaquin Counties, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental objections and is

concerned that all of the alternatives

analyzed could have significant adverse

impacts on fish and aquatic resources

and that, generally, the proposed project

does not advance that long-term

objectives of ecosystem restoration as

expressed through the CALFED LongTerm Bay-Delta Program. EPA asked

that alternatives be redesigned and

evaluated in the context of the LongTerm Program.

ERP No. D–NAS–E12005–00 Rating

EC2, Engine Technology Support,

Implementation, With Emphases on

Liquid Oxygen and Kerosene, Advanced

Space Transportation Program, Test

Sites: Marshall Space Flight Center

(MSFC) in Huntsville, AL; Stennis

Space Center (SSC) near Bay St. Louis,

MS and Phillips Laboratory, Edwards

Air Force Base, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns regarding

wetlands, groundwater and other

unresolved issues; however, these can

be addressed by the requested

additional information.

ERP No. DS–FHW–K40099–HI Rating

EC2, Makai Boulevard Concept/Nimitz

Highway Improvements, Updated

Information, Construction from Keehi

Interchange to Pier 16 (AWA Street) in

the Kalihi-Palama District, Funding, US

Coast Guard and COE Section 404

Permits, City of Honolulu and Honolulu

County, HI

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns with the project

and asked FHA to provide more

information regarding the sole source

aquifer, erosion and stormwater impacts

to water quality, and the alternative

analysis.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–BLM–K67038–NV Ruby

Hill Gold Mining Operations Project,

Implementation, Battle Mountain

District, Plan of Operations and COE

Section 404 Permit, Eureka County, NV.

Summary: EPA’s concerns regarding

the project’s air emissions have been

addressed in the FEIS, however

mitigation measures remain vague. EPA

supports BLM’s decision to add partial

backfilling to the preferred alternative

and EPA urged BLM to reduce project

disturbance by 120 acres.

ERP No. F–FHW–E40757–AL Eastern

Pleasure Island Hurricane Evacuation

Route Construction, AL–182 in Orange

Beach to CR–95 near CR–20 (on the

mainland) and CR–95 near CR–20 to I–

10, Funding and US Coast Guard Bridge

and COE Section 404 Permits Issuance,

Baldwin County, AL.

Summary: EPA’s review found that

impacts to wetlands were of concern

and that additional wetland mitigation

and agency coordination was needed.

ERP No. F–FHW–E40767–FL Tampa

Interstate Project, Funding, I–275 to just

north of Cypress Street and I–275 from

the Howard Frankland Bridge/Kennedy

Boulevard ramps north to Dr. Martin

Luther King, Jr. Boulevard and I–4 from

I–275, Hillsborough County, FL.

Summary: EPA’s review found that

noise impacts to urban residents were of

concern and that the affected

communities and housing developments

should be allowed to participate in

noise abatement plans.

ERP No. F–FRC–L05206–WA

Snoqualmie Falls Hydroelectric Project
9188 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 1997 / Notices

1The 1992 WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, Pub. L.

102–579, was amended by the ‘‘Waste Isolation

Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act Amendments,’’

Pub. L. 104–201. The 1996 amendments were part

of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal

year 1997.

(FERC Project No. 2493), Relicensing,

Snoqualmie River, King County, WA.

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. F–NPS–L61211–AK Denali

National Park and Reserve,

‘‘Frontcountry’’ Entrance Area and Road

Corridor, Development Concept Plan,

AK.

Summary: Review of the Final EIS

was not deemed necessary. No formal

comment letter was sent to the

preparing agency.

Dated: February 25, 1997.

B. Katherine Biggs,

Associate Director, NEPA Compliance

Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 97–5075 Filed 2–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

[FRL–5697–5]

Guidance for the Implementation of

EPA’s Radiation Protection Standards

for Management and Storage of

Transuranic Waste at the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant (‘‘WIPP Subpart A

Guidance’’)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the amended

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land

Withdrawal Act (WIPP LWA), Pub. L.

102–579 as amended by Public Law

104–201, EPA is required to determine,

on a biennial basis, whether the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) complies

with 40 CFR Part 191, Subpart A, the

standards for management and storage

of radioactive waste. EPA has developed

guidance for the implementation of the

generally applicable standards of

Subpart A at the WIPP to evaluate the

facility’s compliance with radiation

dose limits to the public during the

receipt and emplacement of waste, and

associated activities, if the WIPP is

approved for use as a disposal system.

EPA is hereby announcing that a revised

guidance document, known as the WIPP

Subpart A Guidance, is available to the

public. In developing the guidance, EPA

requested and considered public

comments on the draft WIPP Subpart A

Guidance that was previously

announced on September 5, 1996. (61

FR 46804.)

ADDRESSES: Copies of the revised WIPP

Subpart A Guidance are available to the

public by calling EPA’s WIPP

Information Line at 1–800–331–WIPP.

Copies of the WIPP Subpart A Guidance

and supporting materials are also

available for review at EPA’s Office of

Radiation and Indoor Air located at 501

3rd Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20001; and at the following addresses in

New Mexico where EPA maintains

public information files for the

guidance: (1) Government Publications

Department of the Zimmerman Library

of the University of New Mexico in

Albuquerque, New Mexico (open from

8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Monday

through Thursday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00

p.m. on Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

on Saturday, and 1:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

on Sunday); (2) The Fogelson Library of

the College of Santa Fe, located at 1600

St. Michael’s Drive, Santa Fe, New

Mexico (open from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00

midnight on Monday through Thursday,

8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Friday, 9:00

a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, and 1:00

p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sunday); and (3)

The Municipal Library of Carlsbad, New

Mexico, located at 101 South Halegueno

(open from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on

Monday through Thursday, 10:00 a.m.

to 6:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday,

and 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sunday).

Citizens wishing to review these

materials should request to see the EPA

‘‘WIPP Subpart A Guidance File.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Betsy Forinash, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Radiation

and Indoor Air (6602J), 401 M Street,

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460; (202)

233–9310.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

guidance document pertains to the

requirements established in the

amended WIPP LWA 1 and the federal

regulations at 40 CFR Part 191, Subpart

A. The document does not establish

new binding requirements but will

guide EPA’s implementation of 40 CFR

Part 191, Subpart A at the WIPP.

Subpart A is a generally applicable

radiation protection standard that limits

radiation doses to the public from

management of transuranic radioactive

waste at disposal facilities operated by

the Department of Energy (DOE). The

DOE is proposing to use the WIPP,

located in Eddy County, New Mexico, as

a deep geologic repository for the

disposal of transuranic radioactive

waste generated by nuclear defense

activities. The Subpart A regulations

apply to activities associated with

receiving and emplacing the waste in

the disposal system. (Limitations on

radiation doses which may occur after

closure of the disposal system are

separately addressed by EPA’s disposal

regulations at Subparts B and C of 40

CFR Part 191, and by WIPP compliance

criteria at 40 CFR Part 194.) The

amended WIPP LWA requires EPA to

determine, on a biennial basis, whether

WIPP complies with Subpart A of 40

CFR Part 191. EPA may also conduct

this determination at any other time. If

EPA determines that the WIPP does not

comply with the Subpart A dose

standards at any time after emplacement

of waste has begun, the WIPP LWA

requires the DOE to submit a remedial

plan to EPA describing the actions DOE

will take to comply with Subpart A.

This guidance describes the

application of Subpart A to activities

associated with the approximately 35-

year period during which packaged

waste would be received at the above

ground portion of the WIPP; unloaded

and prepared for emplacement in the

underground repository; lowered down

a mechanical hoist and emplaced in the

mined-out repository; and managed

during the closure and

decommissioning of the facility, if the

WIPP is approved for use as a disposal

system. During this period, the annual

doses from radiation received by

members of the public must not exceed

the limits specified by Subpart A. The

WIPP Subpart A Guidance interprets

Subpart A for the WIPP and provides

the Agency’s recommendations for

methods used to demonstrate and

document compliance with the

standards. The guidance also describes

information DOE should report to EPA

for the Agency’s evaluation of the

WIPP’s compliance with the Subpart A

dose limits.

The guidance does not establish a

new radiation dose standard and does

not establish binding rights or duties,

but will be a non-binding guide for

EPA’s evaluation of the WIPP’s

compliance with Subpart A. In a

September 5, 1996 Federal Register

notice (61 FR 46804), EPA solicited

public comment on draft WIPP Subpart

A Guidance. The WIPP Subpart A

Guidance now available incorporates

revisions made in light of those

comments. EPA will update the

guidance as needed in the future to

reflect changes in policy, in radiation

science or in the operation of the WIPP

site, or as appropriate to respond to

issues raised by the public.

Dated: February 20, 1997.

Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 97–5035 Filed 2–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P