ML26026A126
| ML26026A126 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 01/22/2026 |
| From: | Tanner J Chaloklowas Indian People of the Chickasaw Nation |
| To: | Goldstein B Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| References | |
| Download: ML26026A126 (0) | |
Text
From:
Jeffrey Tanner To:
Beau Goldstein
Subject:
[External_Sender] Re: Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for the H.B. Robinson Plant Date:
Thursday, January 22, 2026 8:41:21 AM Attachments:
image001.png We have no comments and we are in support.
- Thanks, Jeff Tanner Chaloklowas Chickasaws 843-992-4967 On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 8:42AM Beau Goldstein <Beau.Goldstein@nrc.gov> wrote:
Good day,
On 12/31, you received an email regarding the proposed subsequent license renewal for the H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant in Darlington County, South Carolina.
I am following up to see if you have any comments.
Thank you,
Beau J. Goldstein, RPA Environmental Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards
12/31 email excerpt
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing the environmental effects of the proposed subsequent renewal of the facility operating license for the H.B.
Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (Robinson) for an additional 20 years. Robinson is operated by Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke) and is located in Darlington County, South Carolina. Duke submitted an application for Robinson subsequent license renewal (SLR) by letter dated April 1, 2025, pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 supplemental 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 Robinson are not so great that preserving the option of SLR for energy-planning decision-makers would be unreasonable.
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.