ML032040315
| ML032040315 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 07/09/2003 |
| From: | Long C State of SC, State Historic Preservation Office |
| To: | Kuo P NRC/NRR/DRIP/RLEP |
| Suber G, NRR/DRIP/RLEP 301-415-1124 | |
| References | |
| TAC MB1994 | |
| Download: ML032040315 (2) | |
Text
July 9, 2003 Hi Ay&teGE a Gabemrims Mr.. Pao-Tsin Kuo Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 RE: V. C. Summer Nuclear Station License Renewal Review and National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 Review Process
Dear Mr. Kuo:
Thank you for providing us with information to facilitate the Section 106 review of the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Reicensing Project. The Cultural Resources Report Narrative was well written and included sufficient background information on archaeological and historic sites located along the reservoir shoreline and within the one-mile radius of the nuclear station.
Our office cannot, however, make an assessment of effect until additional information is provided in a revised report. We recommend the following:
- 1. The revised report should include a topographic map (USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle) that clearly shows the location of all known and recorded sites within the Area of Potential Effects (APE).
- 2.
The report needs to discuss seasonal arddaily lake level fluctuations that are directly and indirectly related to the generation of power at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station.
- 3. The report should include representative photographs of the shoreline that substantiate the claims that no environmental impacts associated with erosion were "observed" or are actively taking place.
- 4.
We are concerned about potential adverse effects to archaeological sites 38FA33, 38FA37, and 38FA298. These sites are located along the reservoir shoreline and have not been evaluated for the National Register. Potential effects include erosion and artifact collecting. Were these sites visited during your inspections (see page 6)? Can you provide photographs of these three sites?
Provide more justification that these sites are not being impacted by power generation on Lake Monticello.
Please address the attached technical comments.
These comments have been provided to assist you with your responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and the regulations codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Please contact me at 803-896-6181 ifkyou have ay questions or comments regarding this matter.
S I~ly Go~C
.Lot taff Archa st
(
/
State Historic Preserva ffice S.C. Department of Archives & History* 8301 Parklane Road
- Columbia
- 292234905
- 803-896-6100
- www.state.sc.us/scdah
Technical Comments: Cultural Resources Report Narrative Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station License Renewal
- 1. Thank you for clearly defining the APE!
- 2.
Page 2, I' paragraph: Keith Derting; Ms. Matthews
- 3.
Page 3, ' full paragraph: the first sentence should read "Historic and archaeological site file searches were conducted at the South Carolina Department of Archives and History and the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology to identify...."
- 4.
Page 4: Since the table provides information on selected sites please provide some information on those sites that were excluded.
- 5.
Page 6: Please provide the SHPO site number for the Davis Plantation (Site #39-0009)