ML12018A251
| ML12018A251 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 02/03/2012 |
| From: | David Wrona License Renewal Projects Branch 2 |
| To: | Megan Wright US Dept of Energy (DOE) |
| Doyle D, 415-3748 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML12018A251 (6) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D,C, 20555-0001 February 3,2012 Ms, Mona Wright DOE-RL Archaeologist Hanford Cultural Resources Program P,O, Box 550 Richland, WA 99352
SUBJECT:
COLUMBIA GENERATING STATION LICENSE RENEWAL, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Dear Ms. Wright:
As you may already know, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is conducting an environmental review of the effects of renewing the Columbia Generating Station (CGS) operating license. As CGS is located on the Hanford Site, the NRC would like to keep you and the Department of Energy informed on the status of this license renewal activity. NRC technical staff toured the CGS site and reviewed historic and archaeological records. The NRC also contacted several American Indian Tribes having potential interest in the proposed undertaking, As part of the environmental review, the NRC has prepared C! draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to NRC's "Generic Environmentallrnpact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants," NUREG-1437, The SEIS includes the results of a site-specific analysis of environmental impacts of license renewal at CGS.
The NRC published the draft SEIS for CGS license renewal in August 2011, which Included an analysis and determination of potential impacts to historic properties, In response, the NRC received comment letters from the Washington State Historic Preservation Office and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. The NRC would like to provide your office with copies of these comment letters for consideration in the Hanford Cultural Resources Program for the Hanford Site.
The final SEIS is expected to be published in April 2012 and a copy will be forwarded to your office, The CGS license renewal application and the NRC draft SEIS is available at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewallapplications/columbia.html.
M. Wright 2
If you have any questions regarding the CGS license renewal environmental review process or this letter, please contact Daniel Doyle, Environmental Project Manager, at 301-415-3748 or by e-mail at DanieI.Doyle@nrc.gov.
Sincerely, David J. Wrona, Chief Projects Branch 2 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-397
Enclosures:
As stated cc: Listserv
9./;/zl)//
/2,r'!{SM-O.h STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106
- Olympia, Washington 98501 Mailing address: PO Box 48343
- Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 (360) 586-3065' Fax Number (360) 586-3067' Website: www.dahp.wa"ifOJ,
-;-1
" 'J September I, 2011 "
I Mr. David 1. Wrona
(..
Division of License Renewal Nuclear Regulatory Commission
,-'r'l Washington, D.C., 10555-0001 w
Re: Columbia Generating Station Licen~~enewal o
Log No.: 121007-20-NRC
Dear Mr. Wrona:
Thank you for contacting our department. We have reviewed the materials you provided for the proposed Columbia Generating Station License Renewal in Richland, Benton County, Washington.
We concur with your Determination of No Adverse Effect based upon the implementation of the Cultural Resources Protection Plan and the identified stipulations on page 4-28 including the training elements on lines 6 thru 15. We look forward to the development of the Training Agendas and the CRPP scheduled revisions.
We would appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes or other parties that you receive as you consult under the requirements of 36CFR800A{a)(4).
In the event that archaeological or historic materials are discovered during project activities, work in the immediate vicinity must stop, the area secured, and this department notified.
These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer in compliance with the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and its implementing regulations 36CFR800A. Should additional information become available, our assessment may be revised. including information regarding historic properties that have not yet been identified. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and a copy of these comments should be included in subsequent environmental documents.
Sincerely, Robert G. Whitlam, Ph.D.
State Archaeologist (360)586-3080 email: rob.whitlam@dahp.wa.gov
Gallagher, Carol From:
Julie Longenecker Uulieiongenecker@ctuir.org]
Sent:
Tuesday, November 15. 2011 3:19 PM To:
Doyle. Daniel Cc:
Ellen Kennedy; Teara Farrow Ferman; Audie Huber; Julie Longenecker
Subject:
FW: Comments of the EIS for the License Renewal for the Columbia Generating Station Dan,
'. ~
Below are the comments from the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), Cultural Resources Protection Program (CRPP) Richland Office, on the Draft Supplemental EIS for License Renewal of the Columbia Generating Station for Public Comment. Thank you for your phone calls and correspondence in August and September.
I understand the deadline for comments is Nov. 16th, but if you have any questions regarding the comments below, please call or email me tOday or tomorrow at (541) 429-7977, julielongenecker@ctuir.org and we can get them straightened out. If I am not available, please call Ellen Kennedy at (541) 429-7976, Ellenkennedy@ctuir.org.
Thank you, Julie Longenecker
,---.~-,-.--.
Subject:
Comments of the EIS for the License Renewal for the Columbia Generating Station Include a description of the cooling tower plume in Section 2.2.8.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources. This plume is quite visible from many places in the region depending upon the time of year and is within the viewshed of both Rattlesnake Mountain and Gable Mountain, traditional cultural properties that are important places to the CTUIR. Include a discussion of this plume and an analysis of potential visual impacts to these properties in the Historic and Archaeological Resources sections.
CTUIR Cultural Resources Protection Program (CRPP) would like to receive a list of artifacts recovered from 45BN257 during archaeological excavations that occurred prior to the construction of the intake and outfall structures. According to the EIS, these are currently stored within DOE's Hanford Site Cultural and Historic Resources Program Collection.
CTUIR CRPP recommends that CGS lands be re-surveyed for cultural resources since it has been over 30 years since they were surveyed. CRPP recommends that that this become a condition of the relicensing activity or that a separate PA be developed by NRC and Energy Northwest in consultation with Tribes and SHPO.
CTUIR CRPP recommends that area next to the Columbia River be monitored annually for cultural resources.
Archaeological material may continue to be exposed. CRPP recommends that that this become a condition of the relicensing activity or that a separate PA be developed by NRC and Energy Northwest in consultation with Tribes and SHPO.
On page i-67, lines 30-32 describe several artifacts as having been observed in the vicinity of the current locations of the intake and outfall structures prior to construction. Although the artifacts were not recorded as part of a site, what happened to these artifacts? Provide a list of these artifacts and confirm if these artifacts were collected and if they are stored with the artifacts from 45BN257 within DOE's Hanford Site Cultural and Historic Resources Program Collection.
Will these collections be maintained by DOE for ENW and are there agreements in place that direct DOE to protect these collections? Who is responsible for their protection?
P 2-68, line 27 state that a 1999 survey recorded 45BN706 (lithic core) and 4SBN760 (anvil stone). Confirm if these artifacts were collected and if not, how is Energy Northwest protecting them? If so, were they added to DOE's collection?
£ ~iZlOJ: fJ O(IL.-b3 SUNJI !2..wiO..) ~~k--k fkj cJ: 0, Ot,.,/"(:; if:> I (J)
T~Jcde..: fJvn.,. -D 13
~'~1- (;2Ft)
P.2-68, line 32 indicates that two lithic flakes were observed in the general location of 45BN257. Confirm if these artifacts were collected and if not, how is Energy Northwest protecting them? If so, were they added to DOE's collection?
As the leasee, is it Energy Northwest's responsibility is it to maintain archaeological site records, collections etc.
for the CGS site? Or is it DOE's? Is there an agreement or procedure in place that governs this? CTUIR CRPP recommends that a formal agreement be developed to clarify roles and responsibilities ofTribes, Energy Northwest, NRC and DOE on the CGS site regarding human remains, archaeological sites, collections and cultural resources compliance. CRPP recommends that this agreement be part of the condition of the NRC relicensing activity or that a separate PA be developed by NRC and Energy Northwest in consultation with Tribes and SHPO outlining these.
P. 4-27, line 26*28 indicates that tribes suggested that Energy Northwest work with tribes to develop cultural resources training for Energy Northwest staff. What is the status of this training and when will it occur? CTUIR recommends that this be a requirement as part of the license renewal or be addressed in a PA developed by NRC in consultation with Tribes and SHPO outlining these.
The CTUIR CRPP would like to receive and review Energy Northwest's cultural resources protection procedure and be formally consulted on the implementation of this procedure. Does the procedure call for coordination and/or consultation with CTUIR CRPP? CRPP recommends that this procedure be part of a separate PA developed by NRC and Energy Northwest in consultation with SHPO and Tribes.
The CTUIR CRPP would like to meet with the Energy Northwest personnel who oversee the implementation of the cultural resources protection procedure as well as establish a long-term consultation process and relationship between local staff at Energy Northwest and CTUIR CRPP.
p.4-27-4-28 of the EIS mentions the MOA for Energy Northwest's communication facility located on Rattlesnake Mountain that was signed by DOE, Energy Northwest and SHPO. CRPP would like to remind Energy Northwest and DOE of stipulation B.2 in the MOA committing Energy Northwest and DOE to evaluating technologies as they become available that enable relocation of this facility off of Rattlesnake Mountain. CRPP recommends that this MOA be tied to the NRC relicensing conditions, as operation of the communications facility is part of the relicensing action either as a condition of the license or through the development of a PA by NRC and Energy Northwest in consultation with Tribes and SHPO.
P. 2-68, line 37-the survey was completed by the CTUIR not for the CTUIR.
2
M. Wright
- 2 If you have any questions regarding the CGS license renewal environmental review process or this letter, please contact Daniel Doyle, Environmental Project Manager, at 301-415-3748 or by e-mail at DanieI.Doyle@nrc.gov.
Sincerely, IRA!
David J. Wrona, Chief Projects Branch 2 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-397
Enclosures:
As stated cc: Listserv ADAMS Accession Nos.: ML12041A126 (Pkg)
ML 120118A251 (Ur)
ML11252B053 (Encl. 1)
ML11325A183 (EncL2)
OFFICE i LARPB2:DLR PM: RPB2: DLR BC:RERB:DLR BC:RPB2:DLR NAME IKing DDoyle Almboden DWrona DATE 1/23/12 1/31112 2/3/12 2/3/12 i
OFFICIAL RECORD COpy
Letter to M. Wright from D. Wrona dated February 3,2012
SUBJECT:
COLUMBIA GENERATING STATION LICENSING RENEWAL, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DISTRIBUTION:
HARD COPY:
DLR RF E-MAIL:
PUBLIC RidsNrrDlr Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb1 Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb2 Resource RidsNrrDlrRarb Resource RidsNrrDlrRapb Resource RidsNrrDlrRasb Resource RidsNrrDlrRerb Resource RidsNrrDlrRpob Resource DWrona ACunanan DDoyle LSubin,OGC DMclntyre, OPA WWalker, RIV JGroom, RIV BMaier, RIV VDricks, RIV