ML19211A787
| ML19211A787 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bailly |
| Issue date: | 10/25/1979 |
| From: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Benjamin A HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19211A788 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912200677 | |
| Download: ML19211A787 (2) | |
Text
-
l y
m.
<x N
2 5 1979 Docket No. S0-367 P00 0
l.
The !!onorable Adam Benjamin 5
i U. S. House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Congressman Benjamin:
Your letter dated October 22, 1979, requested NRC's views and opinions on a
{-
nunber of matters related to the proposed legislation to acquire additional lantis for the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore Park. This letter documents the telephone discussion of October 23rd on these matters between our respec-tive staffs and the fiRC review of the enclosed draft of the amendment to I
Section 17 of tne Act.
Yith regard to area II-A which consists of-the parcels numbered 41, 10, 42, 43 and the northwestern half of parcel 32 as shown on the map numbered PS-1720, dated April 27,197S, it is our understanding that this land is to be acquired subject to the follouing two deed reservations:
1.
All instrumentation related to meteorological monitoring, construction L
newatering and ecological monitoring related to power generation (i.e.,
both construction and operation) should be accessible for operation and
!~
naintenance and replacement as necessitated by obsolescence or acts of F
God or aan.-
t 2.
Dewatering effects resulting from construction activities by NIPSCO are to be assessed at the existing site boundary.
These sane deed reservations should also a'pply to the land identified in the \\
l proposed legislation as area I, per MS-1720..
The proposed acquisition of the fifty-seven ac'es (area II-A) would have no
[
r effect on the issuance or granting of any permits, licenses or other necessary
[
approvals for either construction or operation of the Bailly facility in accordance with the present rules and regulations of the NRC, provided that i
the suggested deed reservations are included in the statute and in the comittee i-report on the legislation. Regarding the inclusion of the original NIPSCO Greenbelt in the proposed legislation as defined in the National Park Service report submitted to the Congress on July 1,1977, we conclude that inclusion of this larger area (i.e., the ninety-twc acre Greenbelt studied by the NPS) into the I:ational Lakeshore would not adversely affect the licensing of the Sailly facility, provided that the deed reservations suggested above are also
,.,.,i,,...u.
ento.h mc nr u,,.,-
- ..... _..... -... ~.. ~. - - - -
t6M 0/7M-*NooT77
F s
?00R OH ul The lionorable Adam Benjanin,
Our conclusions and opinions are based upon our review of the draft acendment to the act (Enclosure) and our interpretation of our current rules, regula-tions and practices. In reaching our conclusions, we have considered the intent of the proposed legislation, the need for environmental monitoring and maintenance of an exclusion area boundary to protect the public health and safety, in addition to a nunter of subsidiary factors.
It is-impossible for us to respond with assurance to your inquiry regardinj the prevention of construction or operation of the Bailly plant by civil litigation initiated by a non-governmental entity. !!owever, if the language of the legislation and its legislative history is clear that its intent is p~
not in any way to impede the industrial growth on privately held land.beyond the Lakeshore boundaries, we believe the litigation posture of tne NRC would be greatly enhanced.
In response to your question whether inclusion of the north-south arm (i.e. area I of map t'-172D dated April 27,1970) would interfere, directly or indirectly, with the exclusion zone necessary for the construction and operation of the L
Pailly facility, the answer is yes. However, the deed reservations discussed
[
above, with one addition, would address this issue. This additional deed reservation would be as follous:
i 3.
f aintenance of NIPSCO's authority to determine all activities including s
the exclusion and removal cf personnel and property from the area should be allowed.
Accordingly, the " conditional" inclusion of Area I in the proposed legislation p
would have no effect on the licensing of the fiailly facility if the deed r
reservations discussed above are included in the statute and in the-language of the cor.riittee report.
We conclude that these proposed deed reservations would address our licensing concerns in the language of the 1976 legislat* ion regarding the !;IPSCO Greenbelt.
u If you have any further questions regarding these matters, please feel free to call upon either me or the mer.:bers of my staff.
E Sincerely, f
L (signed) Lcc V. GtP S I
(SEE PREVIOUS YELLOWS FOR PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES.
Lee V. Gossick
(
Executive Director for Operations
<,, a ~,.,m.
n
- vvn= >s1 ated bMLWR4' sM
..... N. '
R Is p.......
.11.40.Lyntd.il........ Eia s e........
.... tid ton......L" a L..
.19174H.9...
1.9/.2 I B.9... 19/..$.. /.7 L. 19......H 9.................
.m ICC IW3C 318 (9 76) Nam 0240
- u.a. *
- v
- a am s" """* * ** * * * * ' ' " ' - 8 8 8 ' ' "
..,...