ML101310167

Email Regarding Kewaunee Cultural Resources Protection Plan

ML101310167
Person / Time
Site:	Kewaunee
Issue date:	05/10/2010
From:	Aitken P Dominion
To:	Susco J License Renewal Projects Branch 1
SUSCO, J NRR/DLR 415-2927
References
Download: ML101310167 (4)

Text

From: Paul Aitken [paul.aitken@dom.com]

Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:23 AM To: Susco, Jeremy

Subject:

RE: follow up to our conversation today Attachments: MISC-2009-0057 Cultural Resources Portection Plan 9-20-09.pdf

Jeremy, I believe the comment about alewives comes from a statement made in the draft on page 2-26, at lines 31 and 32, regarding the presence of thiaminase in smelts. The following links will take you to aquatic biology journal articles which implicate the alewife as well.

http://afsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1577/H04-002.1?journalCode=aqah http://afsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1577/H03-081.1?journalCode=aqah I have also attached the Cultural Resources Protection Plan.

Paul From: Susco, Jeremy [1]

Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 4:31 PM To: Paul Aitken (Generation - 6)

Subject:

RE: follow up to our conversation today

Paul, Two more questions:

For 3rd comment on page 4 of your comments, can you provide the reference about alewives?

According to our reference noted, smelt is correct. We are perfectly amenable to adding alewives if you could point us to the appropriate reference.

Could you forward me your Cultural Resources Protection Plan mentioned on pages 5 and 6?

Thanks, Jeremy From: Paul Aitken [2]

Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 12:03 PM To: Susco, Jeremy

Subject:

FW: follow up to our conversation today Hi Jeremy, Rich has added some insights to your other question about the 50 foot buffer comment.

Paul

From: gallagher_rj@sbcglobal.net [3]

Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 11:39 AM To: Paul Aitken (Generation - 6); Theodore L Maloney (Generation - 4)

Subject:

Re: follow up to our conversation today Hi Paul, yes, there was a statement in the draft that implied there are no waterways or wetlands on the transmission line ROWs. See page 2-12, lines 6 and 7:

"...Additionally, there is a 50-foot (15m) minimum buffer between the ROWs and any waterways and wetlands..."

The buffers refer to the areas that are by practice hand cut, rather than mowed (if I remember it correctly) or chemically treated. I think it should be changed so it doesn't look as if the T&D right-of-ways are free of wetlands, because they aren't (nowhere in the world as far as I know).

Maybe the following would be a good modification of the above sentence, and leave the rest of the sentence as is:

"Additionally, there is a 50-foot (15m) buffer around waterways and wetlands in which vegetation management consists of hand cutting only..."

---

Original Message -----

From: Paul Aitken To: gallagher_rj@sbcglobal.net ; Theodore L Maloney Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 2:36 PM

Subject:

FW: follow up to our conversation today Ted & Rich Can you help me with this question from Jeremy? Jeremy is working with the Dan Doyle to resolve our comments and those recd from others. I was at the Cooper ACRS meeting this morning and he asked a couple of questions.

Also, Rich you had a comment on the draft SEI regarding the 200 foot vs. foot buffer for vegetation management. What was the intent of the comment? Was the draft SEI not clear or was it inaccurate/

Thanks From: Susco, Jeremy [4]

Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 2:20 PM To: Paul Aitken (Generation - 6)

Cc: Doyle, Daniel

Subject:

follow up to our conversation today Paul, Nice to meet you again today. Only one question remains after talking with you: On line 2 of page 9-7 of your ER, you list the underground storage tank registrations and their expiration dates. All are expired, but it looks like you submitted a timely renewal for 3 of the 5. What about the other two that have an expiration date of 10/28/08?

Thanks, Jeremy Jeremy Susco Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (301) 415-2927 jeremy.susco@nrc.gov CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic message contains information which may be legally confidential and or privileged and does not in any case represent a firm ENERGY COMMODITY bid or offer relating thereto which binds the sender without an additional express written confirmation to that effect. The information is intended solely for the individual or entity named above and access by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it.

Thank you.

E-mail Properties Mail Envelope Properties (23A2D9F7553E664B859332B337ACA83E03FEF50683)

Subject:

RE: follow up to our conversation today Sent Date: 5/10/2010 8:22:51 AM Received Date: 5/10/2010 8:22:51 AM From: Paul Aitken Created By: paul.aitken@dom.com Recipients:

Jeremy.Susco@nrc.gov (Susco, Jeremy)

Tracking Status: None Post Office:

DOM-MBX03.mbu.ad.dominionnet.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1742549 5/10/2010 MISC-2009-0057 Cultural Resources Portection Plan 9-20-09.pdf 1710484 Options Expiration Date:

Priority: olImportanceNormal ReplyRequested: False Return Notification: False Sensitivity: olNormal Recipients received: