ML20099E565
| ML20099E565 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000516, 05000517 |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1976 |
| From: | Regan W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Mcdermott J ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20099D115 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9208100248 | |
| Download: ML20099E565 (17) | |
Text
.
g.
2-
. :w.s 1WA:nmcTon, o; c. :ch lygQ..)tr'ep.[
.ZUyL z,'q-?. J
- 4
- =
1 50 516-Mhet !!os.
and?-50-517' 0 'd5 JMr.' John D. !!cDermott
- Director Officciof. Review and1 Compliance 2
Advisory Ccuncil en llistoric Preservatten'
+
1522 K Street, N. H. -
liashington, D. C.
20005
Dear Mr. licDermott:
._ m
' Pursuant to Section.800.5 'of.the Advisory Council en Historic Preservatier.'s
. Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Preperties (35CFR800)'asrelatedtolongIslandLightingCc=pany'sproposedJames-
-port Nuclear Power: Station, members of the U. S. Nuclear P,esulatory Conaissien staff met with representatives 'of. the New York State Historic
' Preservation Office and of. the Advisory Ccuncil en April 28, 1975, in
- Riverhead Naw York.- This meeting included an on-site inspectica of the Hallock's Pond archaeological property and the Northville Historic District which are. located on.the;Jamesport site.:
w y
As-a= result of this on-site inspection and the subsequent heeting with the parties, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmissica proposes the following-conditions be made a-part-of a Memorandi;m of. Agreement which would citi; ate tany-adverse effect on the'Hallock's-Pond site'and the Northville Historic District which might result from the-construction and operation of the Jamesport Nuclear Power Station.
~
"(1)" l Ha'. l ock 's! Pond Site
'A salvage excavation of the Hallock's Pond rite vill be conducted
- prior:.to' the start of construction of the Janesport Nuclect Pcwar Station..Long Island Lighting Ccepany (applicant) vill centract to have the salvage-excavation performed by;a professieral archaeclogist.
.The choice of archaeologist and salvage excavaticn propesal shall be 7 subject.to.the. approval of the Advisory-Ccuncil cn Historic-Preser-vation. Upon _ receipt-of;the applicant's excavation proposal, the Advisory Council shall have 30 days to notify the applicant of the
- acceptability of the1 proposal. 'If the Advisory Council dcas not
~
- respond within 30. days, the applicarit's proposal shall t:ecc=2 final.
n Q'
2.5.3-A-40 9208100248 920716
-PDR ORG NRRB
.7 n
w y
a 7- - =-
e - -- --.i r
g a
L' y
(2) Northville 1:Istoric District Long _ Island Lighting Cenpany (applicant) will be required to c= ploy reasonabic ceasures to limit further deterioraticn of the hemes in the llorthville Histuric District. Limiting further datorioratica may include such steps as termite extermination, roof repair suffi-
..cient to prevent rain damage, and ceasures necessary to discourcge vendalism.
It need not include reuiring, plastering, rebuilding, replacing fixtures, or any other measure more proparly _decced res- '
toration than prevention of furthar deterioration.
The applictnt shall consult with the New York State Historic Preservatien Office with rescrd to the available technicees for limiting furthe.r deterioration of hcaes. At the expiration of the residents' life tenancy in the Hallock house (House #65 as identified in the " Report on an Archaeological Reconnaissance" prepared by Messrs. Yetter and Saluen), the applicant will, at the least, apply the above condition to this home.
The applicant shall make the hemes availabic to qualified historic preservation groups for restoration on the condition that it shall retain responsibility for seeing to it that further deterioration is controlled in accordance with the above condition.'
If acceptabic to you, the above conditiens will beccme part of any authorization, permit or license which this Ccamission may issue to the Long Island Lighting Ccapany.
Sincerely,
/ 'G n,.,6'
,,. 6 '
1 ffsi.. /, f.. /.?,%,.,
/
lAn. H. Regan, Jr., Chief Environmental Projects Branch 3 Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis e 9 O
o 2.5.3-A-41
( mm
Section 4.1.3 Review Draft January 1977 EliVIR0tNEtiTAL ST At1DARD REVIEW PLA?!
FOR ES SECT 10tl 4.1.3 ENVIRO'lMEtlTAL lt@ ACTS OF C0tlSTRUCTI0ti: HISTORIC AtiD -
ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES 4.1.3.1 THE SilE At;D VICI!ilTY 4.1.3.2 TRAtiSM15510tl CORRIDORS AtiD OffSITE AREAS REVIEW liiPUTS E
Environnental Report Sections Regional Historic. Scenic, Cultural, and Natural Features 2.6 Environmental Reviews Historic and Archeological Sites and flatural I.ardmarks 2.5.3 3
Station DercriptinnHistoric and Archeological Sites (Operation) 5.1.3 Land-Use Imput-Standards and Guides 36 CFR Part 600, Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties Other The site visit Responses to requests for additional information Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies State laws and plans for historic preservation (if available)
REVIEW OUTPUTS Environmental Statement Sections 4.1.3 Environmental Impacts of Construction: Historic and Archeo-logical Sites 4.1. 3.1 The Site and Vicinity 4.1.3.2 Transmission Corridors and Offsite Arcas Other Environmental Reviews S.1.3 Historic and Archeological sites 9
Alternatives to the Project 1,0 Evaluation of the Proposed Action 4.1.3-1 e
em
- - ~ - - ' - ~ - - - - - - _. _
m, 4
danuary 1977 1.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this environmental standard rcview t an is to direct the staff's assessment of potential impacts of statinn construction activities on historic and cultural resour'.cs* in the site and vicinity, along transmission
, corridors, and at of f site areas.
r.
The scope of the review directed by this plan will include consideration of the impact of construction activities of the station on cultural and historic resources and che adequacy of proposed methods to mitigate any adverse impacts on these resources.
The review will be of sufficient detail to enable the reviewer to predict end assess potential impacts and to recommend how these impacts should be treated in the licensing process. Where necessary, the reviewer will recommend consideration,
of alternative locations, designs, practices, or procedures that would mitigate predicted adverse impacts.
II. REQUIRED DATA The kinds of data and information required will bh affected by site-and station-specific factors and the degree of detail will be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. The following data or information will usually be required:
A.-
A description of the efforts of the applicant and the reviewer for ES Section 2.5.3 to locate, identify and evaluate archeological and historic resources, including a description of any surveys conducted and their results.
~
B.
The comment: of organizations and individuals contacted by the staff and/or applicant to identify and locate cultural and historic resources.
C.
A description of the location and significance of those important historic or archeological resources identified by the applicant or by local, y
1
- "important historic and cultural resources" include districts, sites, buildings, aj
'uctures, or objects possessing sufficient h.istorical, archeological archi-
.,xtural or cultural significance to warrant inclusion in the National Register of. Historic Places.
l 4.1.3-2
._=
January _1977 State, or Federal agencies that are in or that might b'e eligible for inclusion in the National Rel_ ster, and that are within 15 km of the proposed statior, or within i
2 km of proposed tronsmission line routes, access cyridors, and offsite areas.
A description of those historic bnd archeological resources identified D.
by. the applicant or by local, State, or Federal agencies and that are within the site boundary or will be physically impacted by construction or operation of the station.
E.
State Laws and Plans for Historic Preservation, if available.
The State Historic Preservation' 0fficer's (SHP0) comments on the impact F.
of the proposed station on important archeological and historic resources.
III. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE The reviewer's analysis of construction impacts to historic and cultural A.
resources will be linked to-the environmental reviews directed by ESRP ESRP 2.5.3 to ensure that those environmental factors most likely to be impacted by the proposed construction are described in that section.
A particularly useful source of expertise in the area of historic ind
_B.
cultural preservation is the Office of Archeology and Historic Preservatien (OAHP)
Wit' in this Office is' the of,the' National _ Park Service, Department of Interior.
Interagency Archeological-Service Division (IASD). The division consists of a headquarters office in Washington, D.C., and regional offices in Atlanta, San Francisco, and Dallas (the addresses of the regior.31 offices are provided in Appendix A to ESRP 2.5.3).
The reviewer, with the assistance of the IASD and in consultation C.
with the SHP0, will considar those cultural and historic resources that are in or are eligible for-inclusion in the National Register and that may be
'he reviewer affected by construction and operation of the proposed station.
l 4.1.3-3 l
January 1977
.N I
L will use the output of appropriate environmental reviews describing proposed construction activity to identify those construction operations that could result in potential impacts. The reviewer's assessment of the potential impacts on these resources will be guided by 36 CFR Part 800 which dcscribes in detail how to
~
assess the impact of a proposed action on properties that are in or are eligible for inclusion in the National Register.
It should be recognized that 'are#are generally two types of impacts on a resource; direct impacts (e.g., destruction during excavation) and indirect impacts (e.g., visual impact).
D.
Cultural and historic resources that are neither listed in nor eligible for inclusion in the National Register are not protected by the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, Executive Order 11593, or 36 CFR Part 800.
Nevertheless, the benefits of the proposed and alternative actions must be weighed aW' 'he loss of or damage to these resources even though they are not eligible 1U Jsion in the National Register.
E.
When required by the analysis for the review directed by ESRP 5.1.3, the l
.ational impacts to historic and archeological resources will be assessed concurrently with this review.
IV. EVALUATION Evaluation of each identified impact will result in one on the following determinations:
The impact of the proposed atiton is ac::cptable.
The impact is acceptable with mitigative action that is minor in nature and this detailed evaluation of alternatives or benefit-cost analyses is not required to support the reviewer's recommendations for adoption.
The impact is acceptable with mitigative action, but such action will be significant (e.g., major design change or relocation). When impacts of this i7 4.1.3-4 v
y _;
u.
January 1977 type are identified, the reviewer will recommend that they be included in con-Final sideration of alternatives to the project and benefit-cost balancing.
determination of acceptability of the impact with or without mitigation will be made on the basis of these reviews.
The reviewer w.ill evaluate the proposed activity to ensure that the appli-cant is committed to use currently acceptable practices to minimize idpa' cts.
The reviewer will, in consultation with the SHP0, use 36 CFR Part 800 to evaluate the potentia
- impacts on properties ia, or eligible for inclusion in the National Recister.
In the case of properties not eligible for inclusion in the National Register, assistance from the SHP0, the Office of Archenlogy and Historic Preservation, or--other qualified individuals may be needed. The reviewer will consider alternatives to reduce the impact on the cultural and historic resources and make a determination of the cost of each alternative versus the benefit derived. The _ cost of the recovery required by the Historical and Archeological Preservation Act of 1974 should be included in the consideration of alternatives.
When the evaluation does not justify preservation of the resource, the applicant should be required to recover archeological, historic, architectural, and cultural data related to the resource. This recovery may include recording by photographs and measured drawings, archeological excavations to uncover data and material, removal of structures or. salvage of architectural features, and other steps that will ensure full knowledge of the lost resource. Salvaged artifacts and materials should be deposited where they are of public and edu'cational benefit.
V.
INPUI TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
~ ~
A.
This section of the environmental statement should be planned to accomplish the following objectives: -(1) public disclosure of impacts;
^
(2) presentation of.the basis for the staff analysis; and (3) presentation of staff conclusions, recommendations, and conditions regarding impacts of The tho reviewed construction activities on historic and cultural resources.
following information will usually be included in ES Section 4.1.3.
4.1 3-5 l_
~
January 1977
.m I
1J 1.
For properties in or eligible for inclusion in the flational
. Register that will not be affected, provide a positive statement of no effect as
' described in Appendix A to ESRP 2.5.3.
2.
Describe significant impacts to those properties that are in or eligible for inclusion in the flational Register. Discuss the steps which led to a determination of whether or not any effects are adverse as described in Appendix'A to ESRP 2.5.3.
3.
Describe the significant impacts on cultural and historic resources not eligible for inclusion in the _flational Register.
4.
Describe any alternatives considered and the reasons for their acceptance.or rejection.
5.
Normally this section should be divided into two subsections:
- 4.1.3.1. Site and Vicinity and 4.1.3.2, Transmission Corridors and Offsite V)
B.
The reviewer will provide inputs or ensure that inputs will be made-to the following ES sections:
t 1.
Section 2.5.3.
The reviewer will ensure that ES Section 2.5.3 contains descriptive information in sufficient detail to support the assess-ment given in ES Sectioi 4.1.3.
~
1
~i
.2.
Section 4.6.
The reviewer will provide as input to ES Sec-tion 4.6' a list-of applicant commitments and staff recommendations of prac-tices-to limit adverse environmental impacts of construction, including:
- a..
any actions required to avoid or mitigate any adverse
-h-c f fects.
b.'
. procedures for recovery of data which the applicant must underta ke.
4.1.3 6 V
' t January-1977
~
J
. 3.
Section 9.
If the reviewer. concludes that a predicted impact
' is unacceptable and cannot be mitigated, an input to ES Section 9 will be made recommending that'the reviewer's conclusion be considered in the overall cyaluation of alternatives-and benefit-cost balancing.
4.
Section 10.1.
The reviewer will provide a list of the una.
voidable impacts which_are predicted to occur as a result of the prop,os,ed construction-activity.
Section 10.3.
The reviewer will provide a brief summary of the 5.
irreversibic and irretrievable commitments of historic and cultural resources resulting from the proposed construction activity.
The reviewer will provide as input to ES Section 6.
Section 10.4.
10.4 a list of important impacts to be considered in the benefit-cost balancing.
IV. REFERENCES References are discussed in detail in Appendix A to ESRP 2.5.3.
e 4
' e'.
e s
. 9
. w 4, e
4.1.3-7 s
e
~
d Section S.I.3 Review Draft January 1977
_E_NVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR ES SECTION S.1.3.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF STATION OPERATION -
LAND USE IMPACTS: HISTORIC / ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES REVIEW INPUTS Environmental Report Sections 2.6 Regional Historic, Scenic. Cultural, and Natural features Environmental Reviews
2.5.3 Socioeconomics
Historic and Archeological Sites and Natural' Landmarks 3
Plant Description 4.1.3 Environmental Impacts of Construction: Historic and Archeo-logical Sites Standards and Guides 36 CFR Part 800, Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Prcperties Others The site visit Responses to' requests for additional information Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies State La'"s and-Plans for Historic Preservation (if available)
REVIEW OUTPUTS
- Environmental Statement Sections 2
V
~--
Environmental-Impacts of Station Operation - Land Use Impacts:
5.1. 3 Historic / Archeological Sites Other Environmental Reviews
-9 Alternatives to the Project 10 Evaluation of the Proposed Action 5.1,3-1 i
a e
e
l January 1977 I'5
-l >
l 1.
pVRPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this environmental standard review plan is to direct the staff's assessment of potential impacts of proposed station operation on important historic and cultural resources
- in the site and vicinity, along transmission
~'
corridors, and at offsite areas.
.The scope of the review directed by this plan will include consideration of the impact of operation of the station on important cultural and historic resources and the adequacy of proposed methods to mitigate any adverse impacts on these resources.
The review will be of sufficient detail to enabl' the reviewer to predict and assess potential impacts and to recommend how these impacts should be treated in the licensing process. Where necessary, the reviewer will recommend consideration of alternative locations, designs, or operating procedures that
'd mitigate predicted cdverse impacts.
$ lb i
(,)'
- 11. REQUIRED DATA AND INFORMATION Am The kinds of data and information required will be affected by site-and station-specific factors and the degree of detail will be modified accoroing to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. The following data or informa-l tion will usually be required:
l A.
A description of the lccation and significance of those important archeological or historic resources identified by the applicant or local, State, or federal agencies that are in or that might be eligible for inclusion in the National Register and that are within 15 km of the proposed station or within 2,km of proposed transmission line routes, access corridors, and offsite areas.
"Important historic and cultural resources" include districts, sites, buildings, l
structures or objects of sufficient historical, archeological, architectural or cultural significance to warrant inclusior, in the National Register of Historic Places.
3 5.1.3-2 J
i e s.
W
i January 1977 State Laws and Plans for Historic Preservation, if available.
B.
The State Historic Preservation Officer's (SHPO) comments on the impact C.
of the proposed station on important archeological and historic resources.
ANALYSIS PROCEDURE r,
Ill. -
The reviewer's analysis and evaluation of operational impact en historic and archeological resources will be based on the concurrent review of construction
- impacts (ESRP 4.1.3).
Only those impacts of operation that are significantly different than or greater than those resulting from construction need be assessed.
In this respect, a temporal extension of an impact from the construction phase through the operational life of the station is not a significant change in the Where-the reviewer determines that the impacts of operation on cultural impact.
and historic resources have been adequately considered by the review directed by
- ESRP 4.1.3, no further review will be required.
If ti.e reviewer determines that t
there will be an impact of operation which is significantly greater than or different than the impact of construction (e.g., the impact of the visual plume t
from'a cooling tower), the reviewer will assess that operational impact as part of the review directed by ESRP 4,1.3 and Appendix A to ESRP 2.5.3.
IV. EVALUATION Where the reviewer has determined that there will be an impact that is greater than or different than the impact of constructinn, the reviewer's evaluation of the impact will be done as part of the evaluation directed by the ESRP foF ES Section 4.1.3.
V.
INPUT T0-THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT This section of the environmental statement should be planned to accomplish-A.
the following objectives:
(1) public disclosure of impacts resultir.g from opera-tion; (2) presentation of the basis for the staff analysis; and (3) presentation of staff conclusions, recommendations, ard condi regarding impacts of the
~
ral resources. The following reviewed operational activities on historic anc' information will usually be included in ES Sectiva S.I.3.
5.1.3-3
January 1977 O
I as 1.
Where there will be no impacts that are greater than or different than the impacts of construction, the following wording will be used:
"lhe staf f has determined that the irrpacts of operation on cultural and historic resources are a tei.. poral extension of the impacts of construction assessed in ES Section 4.1.3.
Consequently, no further discussion is required."
2.
Where the impacts of operation are significantly different than or greater than those described in ES Section 4.1.3, tha reviewer aill include a description of significant impacts on those properties that are in or eligible for inclusion in the National _ Register. The reviewer will discuss the steps that led to a deter.nination of whether or not the ef fect is adverse as described in Appendix A to ESRP 2.E.3.
D.
The reviewer will provide inputs or ensure that inputs will be made to
'following ES sections:
1.
Section 2.5.3.
The reviewer will c,.sure that ES Section 2.5.3 will
^
contain descriptive information in sufficient detail to r sort the assessment given in ES Section 5.1.3.
~
2.
Section 9.
If the reviewer concludes toat the predicted
'a unacceptable, an input to ES Section 9 will be made recommending that the reviewer's conclusion be considered in the overall evaluation of alternatives and benefit-cost balancing, 3.
Section 10.1.
The reviewer will provide a list of the unavoidable impacts that are predicted to occur as a result of proposed station operation.
4.
$cctiog 10.3.
The reviewer will provide a brief summa-of the irreversibic and irretr.evable commitm2nts if historic and cultural resources as a result of pro' posed station operation.
3
)
5.1.3-4
.=
January 1977 5.
Section 10.4.
The reviewer will provide as input to CS Sec-
,l tion 10.4 a list of important impacts to be considered in the benefit-cost balancing.
4 IV. REFERCllCES References are discussed in detail in Appendix A to ESRP 2.5.3.
~
P
^
(-
^
P e
9 9
E 5.1.3-5
-+4; m_.-,;#
,1,+-...m...,,-_.w
.,-_,...m__.
r,-,-
..,,-,..,-.,rr,
'