ML092530612

2009/09/10 Indian Point Lr Hearing - Nhpa Section 106 Consultation Correspondence for Indian Point Proposed License Renewal

ML092530612
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	09/10/2009
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Division of License Renewal
References
Download: ML092530612 (4)

Text

IPRenewal NPEmails From: Stuyvenberg, Andrew Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 12:36 PM To: Markunas, Kenneth (PEB)

Cc: IPRenewal NPEmails

Subject:

RE: NHPA Section 106 Consultation Correspondence for Indian Point Proposed License Renewal Ken -

Apologies for my delay in responding. I want to briefly address your question from your previous e-mail.

Essentially, NRC is looking to consult with the New York OPRHP as called for by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act regarding the proposed license renewal for Indian Point units 2 and 3. The proposed action that we're reviewing for environmental impacts, then, is operation of Unit 2 until 2033 and Unit 3 until 2035 (a twenty year extension of both units' licenses). Specifically, we're interested in your agency's comments on the potential environmental effects of the proposed license renewal for units 2 and 3 on historical and archaeological resources.

The cooling towers issue was most recently raised by DEC as part of their oversight of Clean Water Act issues. I believe a draft of a water discharge permit had indicated that Indian Point would need to install cooling towers or develop an alternative approach that would result in similar reductions in impacts to aquatic life. That permit proceeding is currently subject to state-level adjudication, and I don't know what the final decision will be as to whether, and if so, when, the Indian Point site may have to install cooling towers (I do know they have discussed different tower design options within that proceeding). It's an area over which NRC doesn't have decision-making authority except insofar as modifications to the cooling system would affect the plant's safe operation. In Chapter 8 of the draft EIS, however, NRC staff had attempted to address potential environmental impacts that may result from a cooling tower retrofit given the inclusion of cooling towers by DEC in that draft permit (we've since received a variety of comments on that analysis). I'll be happy to include the concern you raised below regarding the effects of cooling tower size and footprint in the comments on the draft EIS, if you would like.

If you have any further questions - or if I've missed something in reponding to your previous e-mail - please call me at 301-415-4006. I'll plan to check in with you via telephone in the next day or so if I don't otherwise hear from you.

Thanks for your time, and best regards, Drew From: Markunas, Kenneth (PEB) [1]

Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 2:01 PM To: Stuyvenberg, Andrew

Subject:

RE: NHPA Section 106 Consultation Correspondence for Indian Point Proposed License Renewal Thanks Andrew, Because the new lower cooling towers were a hypothetical, we were reluctant to issue anything formal on the proposal (as you are probably aware, 'official' word from a government agency on a proposal can be used by people either for or opposed to a project in a number of ways to either promote, stop or draw attention to the work). The bottom line as far as our review goes on the proposal was that the wider, lower towers would have the potential for less visual but more archeological impacts. Beyond those obvious impressions what is your agency looking for as a response? Thank you.

Kenneth Markunas Historic SItes Restoration Coordinator 1

NYS Office of Historic Preservation From: Stuyvenberg, Andrew [2]

Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 1:05 PM To: Markunas, Kenneth (PEB)

Cc: IPRenewal NPEmails

Subject:

RE: NHPA Section 106 Consultation Correspondence for Indian Point Proposed License Renewal Ken - If you have a moment, could you let me know when/whether your organization plans to submit a response to the letters and draft supplemental EIS (regarding project 06PR06720) I forwarded to you in early July? If you have any questions or would like to discuss any issues of process or substance prior to sending a response, please let me know and I'll make the appropriate staff here available.

Thanks for your time.

Best regards, Drew

______________________________

Drew Stuyvenberg U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3014154006 Andrew.Stuyvenberg@nrc.gov From: Stuyvenberg, Andrew Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 11:01 AM To: 'Kenneth.Markunas@oprhp.state.ny.us' Cc: IPRenewal NPEmails

Subject:

RE: NHPA Section 106 Consultation Correspondence for Indian Point Proposed License Renewal Ken - When you have a moment, could you please confirm whether you received the e-mail I sent yesterday with the consultation letters attached? Thank you, greatly.

Also, the copy of the draft EIS went out with this morning's mail. I would imagine that you'll receive it in the next week or so.

Thanks again for your time, and please let me know if there's anything you need from me.

Best regards, Drew From: Stuyvenberg, Andrew Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:07 PM To: 'Kenneth.Markunas@oprhp.state.ny.us' Cc: IPRenewal NPEmails

Subject:

NHPA Section 106 Consultation Correspondence for Indian Point Proposed License Renewal Ken -

Thanks for taking the time to speak with me this afternoon regarding Section 106 consultation for the proposed license renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Numbers 2 and 3. I've attached both the scoping 2

letter from NRC to Ruth Pierpont from August of 2007 and the draft EIS comment solicitation letter from NRC to Carol Ash in December of 2008. It appears that the SHPO review number for this project is 06PR06720.

As I indicated on the phone, I will also send a hard copy of the draft EIS to you via regular mail. The draft EIS is available electronically at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/supplement38/

should you wish to review anything prior to receiving the hard copy. Volume 1 contains the main body of the report.

Please let me know if you have any questions or if there is anything additional that I can provide to you. I look forward to your review and comments.

Best regards, Drew

______________________________

Drew Stuyvenberg U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3014154006 Andrew.Stuyvenberg@nrc.gov 3

Hearing Identifier: IndianPointUnits2and3NonPublic_EX Email Number: 1660 Mail Envelope Properties (AC3D8151B0831F4EAFFB2501B87BF90510E1D242CF)

Subject:

RE: NHPA Section 106 Consultation Correspondence for Indian Point Proposed License Renewal Sent Date: 9/10/2009 12:35:44 PM Received Date: 9/10/2009 12:35:45 PM From: Stuyvenberg, Andrew Created By: Andrew.Stuyvenberg@nrc.gov Recipients:

"IPRenewal NPEmails" <IPRenewal.NPEmails@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Markunas, Kenneth (PEB)" <Kenneth.Markunas@oprhp.state.ny.us>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: HQCLSTR02.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 6202 9/10/2009 12:35:45 PM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received: