ML070610480

Section 106 Consultation for Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station License Termination Plan, Sacramento County, CA

ML070610480
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	02/15/2007
From:	Donaldson M State of CA, Office of Historic Preservation, Dept of Parks & Recreation
To:	Bradley Davis NRC/FSME/DWMEP/EPPAD/ERB
References
50312, NRC061102A
Download: ML070610480 (2)

Text

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION P.O. BOX 942896 SACRAMENTO, CA 94296-0001 (916) 653-6624 Fax: (916) 653-9824 calshpo@ohp.parks.ca.gov www.ohp.parks.ca.gov 15 February 2007 Reply To: NRC061102A Jennifer Davis, Branch Chief Environmental Review Branch Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection - Office of Federal and State Material Safety United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C., 20555-0001 Re: Section 106 Consultation for Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station License Termination Plan, Sacramento County, CA

Dear Ms. Davis:

Thank you for your continued consultation regarding the above referenced undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR 800, the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. This letter is in response to your request for comments regarding the above referenced undertaking.

I presently understand the undertaking consists of termination of the license for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station but I am unclear as to what future improvements will be made as mentioned in your 30 October letter and if these activities will be considered in future consultations or are part of this undertaking. In addition, you mention on the second page of your letter, the License Termination Plan (LTP) documents the actions that the licensee plans to undertake to decontaminate and decommission the site. Does this involve excavation and remediation of the soils? If so, is this considered part of this undertaking?

In your letter, you establish the boundaries of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the undertaking as the "Industrial Area" of the site, which is the 1,004 hectare owner-controlled area facility. I am unable to concur with the determination of the APE until NRC provides a map of the APE so that] can better assess whether this APE is sufficient.

It appears that the Commission has considered the presence of potential archaeological and historic properties within the APE; however, I feel the Commission effort has not fully documented potential historic properties. First, considering the controversial history of the construction of Rancho Seco, I would recommend the NRC evaluate the Station as a historic property taking Criterion Consideration G in to account. Secondly, in terms of potential archeological properties I would appreciate a copy of the California State University Sacramento report mentioned in your letter and a search at the appropriate California Historical Resources Information Center search.

Because I am deferring comment on the identification and evaluation of the properties within the APE, until additional documentation is provided, I would like to suspend consideration of the undertakings effect until we have reached a consensus on the identification effort.

Thank you again for considering historic properties in your planning process. I look forward to further consultation regarding future decommission activities. If you have any questions or

NRC061102A 24 January 2007 Page 2 of 2 concerns, please contact Amanda Blosser of my staff at (916) 653-9010 or at ablosser@parks.ca.gov.

Sincerely, Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA State Historic Preservation Officer MWD:ab