ML19261A710

Comments on Environ Rept,Revision 5.Suggests Addl Attention to Historical & Archaeological Matters.Recommends Consultation W/State Preservation Officers Re Identification of Sites for Inclusion in Natl Register

ML19261A710
Person / Time
Site:	New England Power
Issue date:	02/02/1979
From:	Delaporte C INTERIOR, DEPT. OF
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
ER-76-933, NUDOCS 7902060302
Download: ML19261A710 (1)

Text

3 D - 5(o X 569

1. st NQ%- United States Department of the Interior dO.,kg f ,

s IIERITACE CONSERVATION AND RECREAlION SERVICE

- %g WASIIINGTON, D. C. 20240 If 4 REPLY HEFER T O: ..

ER-76/933 v'

NRC - RI h4i'! " ~ ~ [ g . a.4 j Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Denton:

We have reviewed Revision Number 5 of tlie Environmental Report (Construction Permit Stage) for New England Power 1 and 2 Nuclear Project, Charlestown, Rhode Island. We have the following comments.

The report revision needs additional work in its treatment of historic and archeological resources. In discussing transmission corridor impacts, it is noted on page F. 9-78 that, ' ' . . . there would not be any impact on sites listed, nominated or pending nomination to date to the National Register of Historic Places . .. "

for two transmission circuits, and there would be visual impacts on two listed sites for a third circuit. There would be no impacts on

" cultural" (archeological?) sites (p . F. 9-79). However, there is no evidence that the State Historic Preservation Officer was consulted in making these deturminations. There is also no mention of attempts to identify historic or archeological sites that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register, under 36 CFR 800 and 36 CFR 63.

For the Rome Point site, the fact taat the property is " owned by Applicant" (p. F. 9-91) does not absolve the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of historic preservation responsibilitier. Although the site appears to have been adequately evaluated for historic site impacts, no such investigation seems to have been made for archeological sites.

The entire identification, evaluation, and consultation process should be clarified and documented. In addition, the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer's recommendations should be followed concerning the need for archeological survey work as part of the identification of sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on this project.

Sincerely, O

79020603o9 Chris Therral Delaporte Director