ML20153E912

Suggests That NRC Propose to State Historic Preservation Officer That Properties Identified by Util Are Eligible for Inclusion in Natl Register Re Properties Threatened W/Damage from Operations & Maint Activities.W/O Encls

ML20153E912
Person / Time
Site:	Callaway
Issue date:	07/22/1988
From:	King T ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
To:	Alexion T, Perkins K Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8809070056
Download: ML20153E912 (3)

Text

__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

. .Y l

' ' . Ailvisory l Council On l Historic .

l Preservation l The Old Post Office Buildina l 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW. 8809 l Washington. DC 20004 l

JUL 2 21988 Mr. Kenneth E. Perkins, Director Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Projecta - III, IV, V and Special Projects Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Mail Station Pl-137 washington, DC 20555 Attn Tom Alexion

Dear Mr. Parkins:

As requested by Tom Alexion ot your staff, we have briefly reviewed the package of material you sent to the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places on April 18, 1968 regarding Union Electric Company's Callaway Plant (Docke t No. 50-483). Wo have also discussed this matter with Mr. Michael Weichman of the Missouri State Historic Preservation Officer's st.aff. As a ,

result, we have some observations and recommendations.

As we understand it, the Callaway Plant was approved for construction without compliance with Section 106 of the National -

l Historic Pretervation Act ind our implementing regulations (36 L

CFP. Part 800), but such co tpliance was initiated bef ore the Plant was licensed to operate, arior to licensing, the entire project area was surveyed to identify historic properties, and 129 such properties were identified. A "cultural resources management plan" was then developed, which specifies how each such property I will be treatedt the plan also suggests that 25 of the proporties t are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places, while the other 104 are not considered eligible.

Questions have continued to exist about the purinrted '

ineligibility of the 104 properties, but particular attention has focused on thrse properties -- apparently the only three that may actually be threatened with damage f rom operations and maintenance activities. The Plant was licensed f or operation subject to conditions requiring that the eligibility of the three properties (23CY20, 532, and 359) be formally determined and that A 3

. . e

• 2 1

our regulations be complied with to ensure that the pror arties, )

if eligible, were appropriately treated. Whilw this nort of provision for post-facto review is inconsistent with both Section  !

106 and the regulations, apparently no objection was raised to it '

at the time the license was issued.

The three historic properties were subjected to testing, resulting in a conclusion by Union Electric's contractor that they are eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The State Historic Preservation officer (SHPO), while not disagreeing 1 with this conclusion, raised a number of questions and requested  :

I additional documentation. Much of the requested information was l provided, and you then forwarded the entire package to the Koeper i of the National Register for a formal determination of ,

eligibility. We under stand t; t questions remain a6 to whether  !

the documentation is adequate.

It seems to us that the focus of attention is wrong, and that it  !

is of limited utility to quibble about whether documentation on t the three properties is adequate. Apparently all involved have l proceeded under the assumption that the properties had to be ';

formally nominated to, or at least formally determined eligible for inclusion in, the National Register. In fact, however, nomination has never been required as a basis for NRC's compliance with Section 106, and formal determination of ,

eligibility has not been required since the Council suspended portions of its then-current regulations in 1982 Under our current regulations, a copy of which is enclosed for your ,

referance, if a Federal agency and SHPO agree that a property is I eligible, it can be treated as such for purposes of Section 106  :

review. Accordingly, there is no regulatory requirement that e I final determination be sough t from or rendered by the Keeper of  ;

the Register, provided that both NRC and the SHPO concur in the  !

determination of Union Electric's contractcr that the properties l in question are eligible (See 36 CFR 5800.4(c)(2)). l t

What is required under our regulations, an well as by Union ElectrTc's license as we understand it, is that if eligible [

properties are subject :o effect by the project, consultation  !

occur to arrive, if possible, at agreement about what steps will be taken to evoid or reduce adverse ef fects. Apparently at least the three sites that have been the subject of testing are subject to ef fect f rom operation and maintenance of the Plant, though Union Electric believes that the effect will not be adverse. It appears that the other 22 properties cegarded as eligible are not subject to effect, at least at present, while the properties that Union Electric's contractor regards ao ineligible will, according to the "cultural resources management plan," be protected from serious disturbance as well.

We suggest that, rather than continuing to worry about precisely what documentation to submit to whom for a formal determination of eligibility, NRC simply propose to the SHPO that all the properties identified as such by Union Electc are eligible for inclusion in the Nat ional Register. If the SHP0 concurs, as we s

. s .*

expect he will, then we can move on to the next step in the process: consultation to resolve effects. It appears that the "cultural resources management plan" provides a good starting <

point for this consultation. We assume that Union Electric has been implementing the plan's recommendations; a logical step toward reaching agreement about t ' solving effects would seem to be for NRC and the SHPO to dete- in consultation with Union Electric, how well the plan is UL. a both in terms of protecting historic properties and '

rms of facilitating Union Electric 's ope rations. If the plan ,orking effectively, we i should be able to reach agreement i . ort order on ways to ensure that it continues to do so. If there are prchlems, consultation could address whatever adjustments need to be made.

This would appear to us to be a far more f ruitful approach to the matter than to continue to worry about the information necessary to make formal nominations to the National Register.

I hope these suggestions are of use to you. When NRC is ready to proceed with Section 105 review of this project, please contact Mr. Don Klima, Chief of our Eastern Division of Project Review, ad this address.

Sincer ,

s 4/hY homas -[ King Director, Office of Cultural Resource Preservation I Enclosure l

1 L

{ e l

l i

, - - - . .- - , - - . , - - . - - . - - .----- ---_,---..,.---,.- - -. ---__--_ __ _