ML20024H490

Requests That Missouri Dept of Natural Resources Assume Responsibility for Administering Section 106 Process for 3 Sites within Area of Potential Effect

ML20024H490
Person / Time
Site:	Callaway
Issue date:	05/21/1991
From:	Partlow J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Mehan G JEFFERSON CITY, MO
References
TAC-M72749, NUDOCS 9106040168
Download: ML20024H490 (2)

Text

- -

May 21, 1991 DISTRIBUTION Docket File ACRS (10)

Docket No.

STN 50-483 NRC & Local PDRs RVirgilio PD33 Reading FCombs JPartlow EChan BBoger BBartlett Mr. G. T. Pehan, 111 JZwolinski RHague Director JHannon RKnop Missouri Department of Natural PKreutzer RLickus Resources MDLynch CKammerer Dost Office Box 176 OGC-0WFN PD33 Gray file Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 EJordan Region 111, DRPW

SUBJECT:

RESPONSIBIL]TY FOR ADMIN!sTERING THE SECTION 106 PROCESS AT THE CALLAWAY PLANT (TAC NO. M72749)

I am writing to request that the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) assume responsibility for administerin National Historic Preservation Act (the Act)g the Section 100 process of the for three sites within the area of potential effect (i.e., the Operational and Maintenance areas) at the Callaway Plant located in Callaway County, Missouri.

This request is made pursuant to Section 800.7, " Agreements with States for Section lof reviews," of M CFP Part 800, " Protection of Historic Properties."

The three sites in question have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

There are also 22 sites within the Residual Lands areas adjacent to the Callaway facility that have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register but which will be maintained by the Union Electric Company (the Licensee) according to the Cultural Resources Management Plan for Residual Lands at the Union Electric Company Nuclear Power Plant (the Flan!.

These latter ?Z sites are not iBThin the area of potentisi effect for this federally issued license and, therefore, cre rot covered by the Act.

Our request is based on several considerations.

The most important of these is that the NRC as a r.atter of practice has chosen not to employ staff knowl-edgeable in adrinistering the Section 106 process of the Act and, therefore, does not have the archeological background required to evaluate the significance of the artifacts at the Callaway site.

For this reason, the NRC would also be unable to evaluate the impact of any. future archeological findings elsewhere which would enhance the significance of artifacts at the Callaway site. Our technical expertise is strongly oriented towards nuclear safety which is our primary mission. While we could retain the services of consultants expert in the matter of protection of historic properties, we might not be able to make informed judgements on the advice and recommendations of such consultants.

Accordingly, it is our view that this administrative oversight responsibility can be best conducted by an agency which has both the required expertise and l

experience in these matters.

I f'D f

9106040168 910521 PS G ??

s;

..!U' i

PDR ADOCK 05000403 idSul$ALL: bLb2tlU Din a

(

_?

l P

ppa

.~.

t Wr. G. T. P(han, l!!

-0 Our view is that the Missouri DNP could more effectively discharge the adr.ini-strative oversight for the three sites in the Operations and Fair,tenance areas of tht Callaway site.

For example, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHF0) stationed in Jefferson City, Missouri, is only about 40 minutes away by ccr f rom tre Ca'.leway site and has the specialized training and erptrien;e to assume these duties.

Additionally, the SHP0 has expresste a keer, and ter.tinuing interest in the issue of historic preservation at the Callaway site.

This interest reflects his detailed understanding and his concerns regarding historic prestrvation at the Callaway site, further, we understand that federal funds are provided to the States for the conduct of administering the Section 106 process.

Finally, we believe that in our f ederal form of government, those responsibilities which cen be best administered by the states shoulc te se assignec lacking a compelling reason not to do 50.

This is the essence of 36 CFR 800.7 Si n ce re ly,

Onginal Spec +

James G. Farticw Associate Director fcr Projects Office of Nuclear Reector Regulation cc:

t'r. Don L. Vlita, Director Eastern Office of Project Feview Acvisory Council on Historic Preservation The Old Post Office Puilding

X r nnsyh ania Avenue, N.L. <P09 e

'oshincten, D.C.

2000a

• Fleese see previou rrence a

f ~_.J f,

1A:PD33:DPPW

.* i 33: Unr n GPA/SP/D OGC-0WFN D:PD33:DRPW ADP3:DRPW 4

rkreut:er MDLyrch/bj C rar:ne rer

• EChav JHannon4 JZwolinski 05/ 03 91 oG491 05/06/91 05/10/?1 05/13/91 6/o/91

/

1. ' 0:DF))/'fI ADF:NRR'i)

I EBoer JPart h f/f/91 (p i91

/

DOCUPEf.T NAME:

G.T. PEHAN,I 1 l