ML26026A107
| ML26026A107 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 01/20/2026 |
| From: | Diehl E US Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, US Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Office of Federal Agency Programs |
| To: | Goldstein B Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| References | |
| Download: ML26026A107 (0) | |
Text
From:
Emma Diehl To:
Beau Goldstein
Subject:
[External_Sender] RE: [External] RE: RE: [External] RE: RE: [External] Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for St. Lucie Plant Date:
Tuesday, January 20, 2026 12:13:06 PM Attachments:
image001.png Good afternoon, Mr. Goldstein:
The ACHP is in receipt of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for St. Lucie Plant. The document addresses Section 106 consultation steps to date, including identification of historic properties, summary of consultation, and potential effects to historic properties. We have no further comments at this time. However, should a consulting party object that the preparation of the DEIS has not met the standards described in 36 CFR § 800.8(c) or that the substantive resolution of the effects on historic properties proposed is inadequate, the NRC must refer the matter to the ACHP. The NRC cannot complete the Section 106 process without resolving such objections.
Thank you for your notification pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.8(c). Should you have any questions or require additional assistance, please contact me and reference ACHP Case No. 024306.
Sincerely,
Emma Diehl Program Analyst Office of Federal Agency Programs Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (202) 517-0212 ediehl@achp.gov
From: Beau Goldstein <Beau.Goldstein@nrc.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2026 11:05 AM To: Emma Diehl <ediehl@achp.gov>
Cc: Bill Marzella <bmarzella@achp.gov>
Subject:
[External] RE: RE: [External] RE: RE: [External] Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for St. Lucie Plant
Thank you for your quick response and clarification!
- Cheers,
Beau J. Goldstein, RPA Environmental Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards
From: Emma Diehl <ediehl@achp.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2026 9:02 AM To: Beau Goldstein <Beau.Goldstein@nrc.gov>
Cc: Bill Marzella <bmarzella@achp.gov>
Subject:
[External_Sender] RE: [External] RE: RE: [External] Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for St. Lucie Plant
Good morning,
My apologies with regards to the intent of the notification. Please continue to notify the ACHP in accordance with 800.8(c) as noted. We will review the documentation provided and provide comments within the 30 days as requested (so on or before January 21).
Thank you, and again my apologies -
Emma
From: Beau Goldstein <Beau.Goldstein@nrc.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2026 10:55 AM To: Emma Diehl <ediehl@achp.gov>
Cc: Bill Marzella <bmarzella@achp.gov>
Subject:
[External] RE: RE: [External] Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for St. Lucie Plant
Good day,
This notification regarding the availability of the environmental impact statement was sent to ACHP to satisfy the requirements of 36 CFR 800.8(c).
To clarify, the ACHP no longer wants to receive this type of notification?
Thank you,
Beau J. Goldstein, RPA Environmental Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards
From: Emma Diehl <ediehl@achp.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2026 6:40 AM To: Beau Goldstein <Beau.Goldstein@nrc.gov>
Subject:
[External_Sender] RE: [External] Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for St. Lucie Plant
Good morning, Mr. Goldstein:
Thank you for providing the ACHP with a notice on the proposed subsequent renewal of the facility operating licenses for St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2 by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The ACHP should only receive notifications from NRC if the undertaking will result in adverse effects to historic properties as defined by 36 CFR 800. If this license renewal will result in adverse effects to historic properties, please submit the required information on the undertaking and the adverse effects to the ACHP through our electronic Section 106 system (Electronic Section 106 Documentation Submittal System (e106) l Advisory Council on Historic Preservation). Otherwise, further consultation with ACHP is not needed unless there should be an objection to NRCs no adverse effect finding or other questions or concerns specific to the Section 106 process and NRC findings.
Please contact me if you have any questions -
Thank you, Emma
Emma Diehl Program Analyst Office of Federal Agency Programs Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (202) 517-0212 ediehl@achp.gov
From: Beau Goldstein <Beau.Goldstein@nrc.gov>
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2025 2:23 PM To: e106 <e106@achp.gov>; Bill Marzella <bmarzella@achp.gov>
Subject:
[External] Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for St. Lucie Plant
Good day,
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing the environmental effects of the proposed subsequent renewal of the facility operating licenses for St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2 (St. Lucie) for an additional 20 years. St. Lucie is operated by Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) and is located in St. Lucie County, Florida. FPL submitted an application for St.
Lucie subsequent license renewal (SLR) by letter dated August 3, 2021, pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 54, Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.
As part of the review, the NRC staff has prepared a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS). In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC is using the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended process to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
As discussed in the draft EIS, the NRC staffs preliminary determination is that SLR would have no adverse effect to historic properties. Further, the NRCs preliminary recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of SLR for St. Lucie are not so great that preserving the option of SLR for energy-planning decision-makers would be unreasonable.
Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), we are requesting your comments on the draft EIS and on the NRC staffs preliminary determination and recommendation within 30 days. Comments and questions may be submitted to Beau Goldstein, Archaeologist at Beau.Goldstein@nrc.gov.
Respectfully,
Beau J. Goldstein, RPA Environmental Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards