Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Notices 69 

sara.cleaver@noaa.gov or Diana Stram, 

Council staff; email: diana.stram@

noaa.gov. 

For technical support, please contact 

our administrative staff; email: 

npfmc.admin@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Agenda 

Wednesday, January 17, 2024 

The Joint Groundfish Plan Teams will 

be reviewing research priorities to 

provide recommendations to the SSC at 

the February 2024 meeting. The agenda 

is subject to change, and the latest 

version will be posted at https://

meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/ 

3031 prior to the meeting, along with 

meeting materials. 

Connection Information 

You can attend the meeting online 

using a computer, tablet, or smart 

phone; or by phone only. Connection 

information will be posted online at: 

https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/ 

Details/3031. 

Public Comment 

Public comment letters will be 

accepted and should be submitted 

electronically to https://

meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/ 

3031. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: December 22, 2023. 

Diane M. DeJames-Daly, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–28841 Filed 12–29–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Record of Decision for the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Civil Nuclear Credit Program 

Proposed Award of Credits to Pacific 

Gas and Electric Company for Diablo 

Canyon Power Plant 

AGENCY: Grid Deployment Office; U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Record of decision. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) announces its decision to 

award credits to Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company (PG&E) under the Civil 

Nuclear Credit (CNC) Program for the 

continued operation of Diablo Canyon 

Power Plant Units 1 and 2 (DCPP) under 

DCPP’s current operating licenses 

issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC). This decision is 

pursuant to the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Civil Nuclear 

Credit Program Proposed Award of 

Credits to Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company for Diablo Canyon Power 

Plant (DOE/EIS–0555). DCPP is an 

existing commercial nuclear power 

plant located in San Luis Obispo 

County, California. PG&E will be 

eligible to receive payments from the 

first award cycle of funding from the 

CNC Program over a four-year award 

period (January 2023–December 2026), 

subject to PG&E’s satisfaction of the 

applicable payment terms and NRC 

license extension approvals. The action 

being taken by DOE does not change the 

operational configuration (i.e., the way 

PG&E operates the plant) of the facility. 

The action awards credits to PG&E to 

help DCPP to continue to operate under 

the existing NRC approved licenses and 

programs. Payments of credits are 

expected to occur annually beginning in 

2025 and will be paid retroactively to 

compensate PG&E for DCPP operations 

in the prior year(s). 

ADDRESSES: For further information on 

this record of decision (ROD), contact 

Mr. Jason Anderson, Document 

Manager, by mail at U.S. Department of 

Energy, Idaho Operations Office, 1955 

Fremont Avenue, Idaho Falls, Idaho 

83415; or by email to cnc_program_

mailbox@hq.doe.gov. This ROD and 

DOE/EIS–0555, as well as other general 

information concerning the DOE 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) process, are available for 

viewing or download at: https://

www.energy.gov/gdo/cnc-cycle-1-diablocanyon-conditional-award-nepadocumentation. For general information 

on the CNC Program, visit 

www.energy.gov/gdo/civil-nuclearcredit-program. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jason Anderson, Document Manager, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho 

Operations Office, 1955 Fremont 

Avenue, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415; by 

email to cnc_program_mailbox@

hq.doe.gov or by phone at (202) 586– 

4316. For general information on the 

DOE NEPA process, contact Brian 

Costner, Director, Office of NEPA Policy 

and Compliance (GC–54), U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585; by email at askNEPA@

hq.doe.gov; or by facsimile at (202) 586– 

7031. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

DOE’s mission ensures America’s 

security and prosperity by addressing its 

energy, environmental, and nuclear 

challenges through transformative 

science and technology solutions. As 

described at www.energy.gov/gdo/civilnuclear-credit-program, the CNC 

Program was established on November 

15, 2021, when President Biden signed 

the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 

Act (IIJA) (Pub. L. 117–58), also known 

as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, 

into law. Section 40323 of the IIJA (42 

U.S.C. 18753) provides $6 billion to 

establish a program to award civil 

nuclear credits. The CNC Program is a 

strategic investment to help preserve the 

existing U.S. commercial power reactor 

fleet and save thousands of high-paying 

jobs across the country. 

Under the CNC Program, owners or 

operators of U.S. commercial power 

reactors can apply for certification to 

bid on credits to support nuclear 

reactors’ continued operation. An 

application must demonstrate that the 

nuclear reactor is projected to close for 

economic reasons and that closure will 

lead to a rise in air pollutants and 

carbon emissions, among other 

conditions. An owner or operator of a 

certified nuclear reactor whose bid for 

credits is selected by DOE is then 

eligible to receive payments from the 

Federal Government in the amount of 

the credits awarded to the owner or 

operator, provided it continues to 

operate the nuclear reactor for the fouryear award period (for DCPP, January 

2023 to December 2026) and subject to 

its satisfaction of other specified 

payment terms. PG&E submitted its 

application for certification and its bid 

for credits under the CNC Program on 

September 9, 2022. DOE made a 

conditional award of credits to PG&E on 

November 21, 2022. 

NEPA requires Federal agencies to 

evaluate the environmental impacts of 

proposals for major Federal actions with 

the potential to significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment. 

Awarding credits for continued 

operation of a commercial nuclear 

power reactor under the CNC Program is 

subject to NEPA. Therefore, DOE 

conducted a review of the existing 

NEPA documentation for continued 

operation of the DCPP reactors in 

accordance with the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) and DOE 

NEPA regulations, 40 CFR 1506.3 and 

10 CFR 1021.200(d), respectively. DOE 

also considered non-NEPA documents, 

such as available licensing basis 

documents, the 2021 Safety Analysis 

Report, Federal and State permits, site 

reports and documents, and relevant 

public information to inform DOE’s 

evaluation of the existing NEPA 

documents. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
70 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Notices 

NEPA Review 

The NRC has principal regulatory 

authority over the licensing of 

commercial nuclear power reactors, and 

DOE conducted a review of the NRC 

environmental documents and those of 

their predecessor, the U.S. Atomic 

Energy Commission (AEC), related to 

the licensing of Diablo Canyon. DOE 

determined that the project analyzed in 

the NRC NEPA documents was 

substantially the same as the project that 

would be covered by the DOE CNC 

Program. DOE determined that 

continued operation of DCPP Units 1 

and 2 as NRC licensed commercial 

nuclear power reactors would have 

environmental consequences that have 

been adequately analyzed in the existing 

NEPA documentation for the purposes 

of adoption in accordance with 40 CFR 

1506.3. Further, DOE determines that 

continued operation of DCPP would 

have beneficial impacts to air quality 

when compared against construction 

and operation of alternative energy 

generation methods that would be 

available to replace the electrical energy 

currently generated by DCPP if the plant 

were to shut down. 

Because DCPP is one of the few 

operating nuclear plants that has not 

completed a license renewal process 

with the NRC, the NEPA documentation 

available for DCPP includes some 

documents that are more dated than for 

other plants expected to apply to the 

CNC Program. The first NEPA document 

is from 1973, the Final Environmental 

Statement related to the Nuclear 

Generating Station Diablo Canyon Units 

1&2 (1973 ES), and was prepared by the 

AEC and supplemented by a 1976 

Addendum to the Final Environmental 

Statement for the Operation of the 

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant Units 1 

and 2 (1976 ES Addendum) and a 1993 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, 

Units 1 and 2 Notice of Issuance of 

Environmental Assessment and Finding 

of No Significant Impact (1993 EA) 

prepared by the NRC. Further, in part 

because the continued operation of 

DCPP may result in additional 

accumulation of spent nuclear fuel, DOE 

also reviewed DCPP’s 2003 

Environmental Assessment Related to 

the Construction and Operation of the 

Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel 

Storage Installation (ISFSI) (2003 ISFSI 

EA) and 2007 Supplement to the 

Environmental Assessment and Final 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

Related to the Construction and 

Operation of the Diablo Canyon 

Independent Spent Fuel Storage 

Installation (2007 ISFSI EA 

Supplement). The 1973 ES, 1976 ES 

Addendum, 1993 EA, 2003 ISFSI EA, 

and 2007 ISFSI EA Supplement 

collectively constitute the Final NEPA 

Documents for DOE adoption in respect 

of DCPP. As additional background, in 

March 2023 the NRC made a categorical 

exclusion determination which the NRC 

relied on in its decision to grant an 

exemption to Diablo Canyon from the 

NRC’s timely renewal requirements so 

long as it submits its license renewal 

application by December 31, 2023. The 

NRC’s decision permits DCPP’s 

operating license to continue beyond 

the expiration dates of November 2, 

2024 (Unit 1) and August 26, 2025 (Unit 

2) until the NRC makes a final 

determination on DCPP’s license 

renewal application. On November 7, 

2023, PG&E submitted a license renewal 

application for both DCPP units to the 

NRC, which is currently undergoing 

NRC review. 

In addition to reviewing the NRC 

NEPA documents, DOE reviewed 

various other reports and more recent 

sources of information to evaluate the 

adequacy of the NRC NEPA documents, 

including the following: (1) the 

Applicant’s Environmental Report— 

Operation License Renewal Stage (2009 

ER); (2) the Annual Update to the Diablo 

Canyon Power Plant License Renewal 

Application (LRA), Applicant’s 

Environmental Report—Operating 

License Renewal Stage, Amendment 1 

(2014 ER Amendment 1); (3) the Update 

to the Diablo Canyon Power Plant 

License Renewal Application (LRA) 

Applicant’s Environmental Report— 

Operating License Renewal Stage. 

Amendment 2 (2015 ER Amendment 2); 

(4) the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Units 

1 and 2 Final Safety Analysis Report 

Update (2021 Safety Analysis Report 

(SAR)); (5) the Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal 

of Nuclear Plants (NUREG–1437), 

Revision 1 (2013 GEIS); and (6) permits 

and other available documents from the 

period May 1973 through July 2023. 

The NRC has principal regulatory 

authority over the licensing of 

commercial nuclear power reactors. 

DOE conducted a review of the NRC 

environmental documents related to the 

licensing of Diablo Canyon, in 

accordance with 10 CFR 1021.200(d). 

DOE conducted an independent review 

of the NRC NEPA documents and 

related documents for the purpose of 

determining whether DOE could adopt 

them pursuant to CEQ regulations at 40 

CFR 1506.3. DOE did not participate as 

a cooperating agency in preparation of 

the DCPP NEPA documents and 

subsequently adopted them as a DOE 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

(DOE/EIS–0555). Formal 

announcements of adoption were 

published by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) and DOE in 

the Federal Register at 88 FR 51798, 

51812 (Aug. 4, 2023). The Notice of 

Adoption provided that DOE would 

execute a ROD no sooner than 30 days 

after publication of the Notice of 

Availability. 

DOE’s review and adoption of the 

NRC NEPA documents covers only the 

period that DCPP’s current operating 

licenses remain in effect. That is to say, 

so long as the DCPP operating licenses 

continue in effect by operation of law, 

DOE will continue to pay credits during 

the four-year award period. PG&E 

submitted its application for DCPP 

operating license renewal on November 

7, 2023, which is currently undergoing 

NRC review. If the NRC denies renewal 

of the DCPP operating licenses, DOE 

will stop payment of credits. If the NRC 

grants renewal of the DCPP operating 

licenses during the January 2023– 

December 2026 award period, DOE will 

stop payment of credits and initiate a 

process to satisfy DOE’s NEPA 

obligations with respect to continuing 

payments. 

Alternatives Considered 

The present DOE decision is whether 

to approve the proposed action 

described in the cover memorandum to 

DOE/EIS–0555: an award of credits to 

PG&E under the CNC Program to 

support continued operation of DCPP as 

constructed, licensed, and authorized 

under current NRC operating licenses 

DPR–80 and DPR–82. Accordingly, the 

alternatives considered by DOE include 

(1) the proposed action of awarding 

CNC Program credits to PG&E, which is 

substantially the same as the primary 

proposed DCPP plant design analyzed 

in the 1973 Environmental Statement; 

and (2) the alternative of not awarding 

CNC Program credits to PG&E, which is 

substantially the same as the Alternative 

Sources of power generation discussed 

in the 1973 Environmental Statement. 

Unlike NRC/AEC, DOE is not deciding 

whether to authorize construction of 

DCPP or whether to license its 

operations. However, DOE’s proposed 

action is substantially the same as the 

prior Federal actions by NRC/AEC that 

led to the construction, licensure and 

present operating configuration of 

DCPP. The proposed credit award 

would provide financial support for the 

continued operation of DCPP under its 

existing NRC licenses during a limited 

four-year award period (2023–2026). 

The alternative of not awarding 

credits to PG&E could result in PG&E 

discontinuing operation of DCPP Unit 1 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Notices 71 

upon license expiration on November 2, 

2024, and Unit 2 upon license 

expiration on August 26, 2025. 

Discontinued operations would result in 

a loss of 2,200 electric megawatts of 

power for the DCPP service area, that 

would likely need to be replaced by 

other forms of energy generation that 

would result in greater amounts of air 

pollution. 

Potential Environmental Impacts 

DOE finds that despite the age of 

some of the NRC/AEC NEPA 

documents, there is sufficient available 

information to complete DOE’s analysis 

of the proposed action. In DOE/EIS– 

0555, DOE considered changes to the 

affected environment and 

environmental impacts of DCPP 

operation since the publication of the 

1973 ES, through available licensing 

basis documents, Federal and State 

permits, site reports and documents, 

and relevant public information. 

Changes to the affected environment 

include the following resource topics: 

Meteorology and Air Quality: The 

region surrounding the DCPP currently 

attains all national ambient air quality 

standards but does not attain the 

California air quality standards for 

ozone and respirable particulates 

(PM10). DCPP operates under several 

San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution 

Control District Permits to Operate and 

submits Annual Air Emissions Reports 

that identify annual fuel usages for 

permitted sources. As air emissions 

from DCPP are regulated by site-specific 

permits in order to comply with the 

State’s air quality standards, air quality 

impacts from continued operation are 

anticipated to be small. 

In addition, continued operation of 

DCPP would result in fewer air 

pollutants emissions (including 

greenhouse gases) compared to those 

that would occur with potential 

replacement power generation sources. 

As described in the cover memorandum 

for the DOE EIS, DOE reviewed three 

independent studies (DOE/EIS–0555 pg. 

6) examining the potential impact of 

DCPP’s retirement. Each study indicates 

that while deployment of renewable 

energy generation would continue, 

partially driven by existing State laws 

and policies, natural gas generation and 

the associated carbon dioxide and 

nitrous oxide emissions would increase 

if DCPP were to cease operations. All 

three studies project that a substantial 

proportion of DCPP’s lost generation 

between 2024 and 2030 would be 

covered largely by increased utilization 

of gas-fired units rather than newly 

constructed renewable electric sources. 

DOE found nothing to refute that 

emissions would increase during the 

credit award period were DCPP to cease 

operations. 

A review of the permitted emission 

sources at DCPP, the diesel-fired 

auxiliary steam boiler and seven 

emergency diesel-fired generators, 

determined that the combined annual 

emissions of all current sources would 

be much less than the major source 

threshold of 100 tons per year of an air 

pollutant. Therefore, emissions from the 

continued operation of DCPP would be 

substantially less than the emissions 

estimated for increased utilization of 

natural gas-fired power generation. 

Finally, if an alternative generating 

technology were to be constructed to 

replace generation as a result of DCPP 

ceasing operations, the construction 

process would be an additional source 

of air pollutant and greenhouse gas 

emissions from construction equipment 

and transportation vehicles. 

Overall, the adverse environmental 

impacts to air quality of continued 

operation of DCPP would be expected to 

be smaller than such impacts of 

construction and operation of an 

equivalent gas-powered electrical power 

generation facility or facilities. 

Geologic Environment: Section 2.4.2 

of the 1973 ES discusses seismology of 

the plant and that DCPP has been 

designed to safely withstand the 

earthquakes as discussed in the staff’s 

Safety Evaluation Report (SER). In 

Chapter 5 of the 2009 ER, Assessment of 

New and Significant Information, PG&E 

described its notification to the NRC 

that preliminary results from ongoing 

studies by PG&E and the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) indicated the presence 

of a new fault, which has since been 

referred to as the ‘‘Shoreline Fault.’’ The 

NRC staff subsequently undertook 

several independent reviews of possible 

implications of the potential Shoreline 

Fault to DCPP and concluded that the 

Shoreline Fault will not likely cause 

ground motions that exceed those for 

which DCPP has already been analyzed 

(DOE/EIS–0555, pg. 7). 

In 2013 the NRC established an Ad 

Hoc Review Panel in response to a 

Differing Public Opinion (DPO) raised 

by an NRC employee regarding the 

NRC’s consideration of the new fault 

information near DCPP. The Ad Hoc 

Review Panel conducted a thorough 

review of the new fault information and 

concluded that the ‘‘Los Osos, San Luis 

Bay, and the Shoreline faults do not 

exceed the level of ground motion 

already considered in the design and 

licensing of DCPP.’’ (DOE/EIS–0555, pg. 

7). 

The issue of the Shoreline Fault was 

again raised in 2017 through public 

petition. The NRC Director of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation reviewed the prior 

information, including that of the Ad 

Hoc Review Panel, and concluded that, 

‘‘the NRC Staff determines that DCPP is 

safe to continue operating and is able to 

safely shut down following an 

earthquake caused by the Shoreline, San 

Luis Bay, or Los Osos faults’’ and that 

it ‘‘did not find that the continued 

operation of DCPP would adversely 

affect public health and safety.’’ (DOE/ 

EIS–0555, pg. 7). 

In 2012, the NRC issued a letter to all 

nuclear power plant licensees requiring 

that they reevaluate the seismic and 

flooding hazard at their sites using 

present-day NRC requirements and 

guidance, which PG&E did. The NRC 

reviewed the information and in 2020, 

issued a letter to PG&E finding no 

further regulatory actions were required 

related to the seismic hazard 

reevaluation activities (DOE/EIS–0555, 

pgs. 7–8). 

DOE determined that the analysis of 

seismological effects, soil effects, and 

other aspects of the geologic 

environment including the Shoreline 

Fault which the NRC found was 

‘‘already considered in the design and 

licensing of DCPP,’’ remain adequate for 

adoption through the current operating 

licenses. 

Water Resources: DCPP utilizes a 

desalination system for potable water 

and a once-through cooling water 

system using Pacific Ocean water. DOE 

reviewed the impacts of the resulting 

discharge into the ocean. Section 2.5 

and Table 5.13 of the 1973 ES shows the 

minimum ambient ocean water 

temperature recorded at Diablo Cove 

between January 1970 and December 

1971 was 45 °F and the maximum 

ambient ocean water temperature was 

63.5 °F. The 1976 Addendum described 

the coordinated jurisdiction over water 

effluents between the NRC and the State 

of California, noting ‘‘the exclusive 

jurisdiction over plant effluent 

discharges and water quality matters 

resides with the State of California and 

[U.S.] EPA’’ and thus while NRC ‘‘lacks 

jurisdiction to regulate liquid effluent 

discharged into Diablo Cove or to alter 

the design of the intake or discharge 

structures, the NRC has a mandated 

responsibility to assess the 

environmental effects of discharges 

proposed by the applicant or permitted 

by those agencies that have 

jurisdiction.’’ 

Water discharges from the DCPP oncethrough cooling water system continue 

to be regulated and monitored in 

accordance with a Central Coast 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 

(CCRWQCB) National Pollutant 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
72 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Notices 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit, which is in administrative 

extension (i.e., pending renewal). 

Information on routine and effluent 

monitoring and the NPDES Receiving 

Water Monitoring Program are reported 

annually to the NRC in the 

Nonradiological Environmental 

Operating Report required under DCPP’s 

Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) as 

part of its NRC operating license. 

Section 2 of PG&E’s NPDES Receiving 

Water Monitoring Program 2020 Annual 

Report recorded the intertidal monthly 

mean ambient seawater temperatures at 

the Diablo Canyon North Control 

station, outside the influence of the 

thermal discharge, as ranging from a low 

of 53.8 °F to a high of 59 °F, within the 

range measured in the 1973 ES for 

ambient ocean water temperature. 

Intertidal temperatures at measurement 

stations regularly contacted by the 

discharge plume averaged 4.9 °F warmer 

than the temperature in South Diablo 

Cove and 6.7 °F warmer than the 

temperature in North Diablo Cove. 

Subtidal monthly mean ambient 

seawater temperatures at the Diablo 

Canyon North Control station ranged 

from a low of 53.4 °F to a high of 58.8 °F, 

also within the range measured in the 

1973 ES for ambient ocean water 

temperature. Subtidal temperatures at 

measurement stations regularly 

contacted by the discharge plume 

averaged 3.8 °F warmer than the 

temperature in South Diablo Cove and 

6.8 °F warmer than the temperature in 

North Diablo Cove. Please reference the 

Ecological Resources section for 

discussion of the effects of thermal 

discharge. 

The DOE concluded that continued 

operation of the DCPP would not result 

in any new or substantially different 

environmental impacts related to water 

resources that have not been assessed by 

previous NEPA documents. In addition, 

in accordance with DCPP’s NRC 

operating license, radionuclide 

monitoring in groundwater is routinely 

conducted and reported in the publicly 

available Diablo Canyon Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating 

Reports. In particular the latest reports 

from 2022, 2021, 2020 have supported 

the original NEPA analyses by finding 

that ‘‘the ambient direct radiation levels 

in DCPP offsite environs did not change 

and were within the pre-operational 

background range.’’ (DOE/EIS–0555, pg. 

15). Therefore, DOE determined that the 

impact findings in the existing NEPA 

documentation remain adequate for 

DOE’s adoption through the current 

operating licenses. 

Ecological Resources: DOE reviewed 

the impacts to the ecological resources 

due to the operation of DCPP as 

analyzed in the existing NEPA 

documents. The 1973 ES identified that 

operation of the plant was expected to 

result in a number of impacts, including 

that thermal discharge from the plant 

‘‘will cause an ecological shift in 

benthic organisms and fish that will 

result in an increase in the number of 

warmwater-tolerant forms. The higher 

temperatures will also increase the 

feeding activity of the giant sea urchin, 

which competes with the abalone for 

the existing food supply (mainly kelp); 

this may lead to a decline in the abalone 

population unless measures are taken to 

control the urchin. A total of 110,000 

abalone may be lost as a result of the 

station operation.’’ 

The NRC Staff subsequently issued 

the 1976 ES Addendum which 

considered impacts that differed in 

extent and/or intensity from those 

described in the 1973 ES, noting that 

‘‘extensive changes have occurred in the 

baseline conditions on which the [1973 

ES] impacts were based . . . brought 

about mainly by the southward 

migration of the sea otter, increased 

commercial harvesting in the Diablo 

Canyon region, red tides, and to a lesser 

extent toxicity problems associated with 

the plant’s cooling water system.’’ The 

1976 ES Addendum summary identified 

that ‘‘major changes have been the 

decline of abalone and sea urchin 

populations.’’ 

Section 5.2.1 of the 1976 ES 

Addendum found that releases of 

copper in the concentrations that 

occurred during the startup of the 

cooling water system for DCPP Unit 1 

were not anticipated, and that the State 

of California concluded that the release 

of copper during DCPP startup 

operations in the 1970s contributed to 

‘‘significant abalone mortality in Diablo 

Cove.’’ After the copper discharge, 

PG&E took measures to eliminate the 

release of copper from the main 

condensers, and NRC Staff concluded 

that the very low concentration of 

copper should have no detrimental 

effect on the biota of Diablo Cove. With 

respect to the effects of thermal 

temperature on the benthic 

environment, section 5.3.2 noted that 

the population of red abalone had 

declined 95 percent at subtidal stations, 

and that Diablo Cove ‘‘will not afford a 

viable habitat in those areas where the 

thermal plume remains in constant 

contact with the bottom.’’ 

The 2003 ISFSI EA notes that, ‘‘[t]he 

marine ecology in the area of Diablo 

Cove has been studied since 1976 under 

the Thermal Effects Monitoring Program 

(TEMP). This program includes periodic 

monitoring of intertidal and subtidal 

algae, invertebrates and fish and several 

physical parameters. Two marine 

species that frequent near-shore areas 

around the DCPP and are listed as 

threatened by the Federal Endangered 

Species Act are the southern sea otter 

and green sea turtle. However, the 

proposed ISFSI activities will not result 

in discharges to the marine 

environment, and thus, there will be no 

impact on these species.’’ 

In 2005, the NRC prepared a 

Biological Assessment (BA) that 

addressed the effects of the continued 

operation of DCPP on threatened and 

endangered marine species in 

accordance with section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act under the 

jurisdiction of the National Marine 

Fisheries Service. Based on this BA, the 

NRC determined that continued 

operation of DCPP may adversely affect 

the green sea turtle, loggerhead sea 

turtle, leatherback sea turtle, and olive 

ridley sea turtle. The NRC also 

determined that continued operation of 

DCPP would have no effect on the 

southern California or the southcentral 

coast stocks of steelhead, the Guadalupe 

fur seal, Steller sea lion, the blue whale, 

fin whale, Sei whale, sperm whale, or 

the humpback whale. No critical habitat 

for any of these species would be 

affected by the continued operation of 

DCPP nor is any critical habitat present 

in the vicinity of DCPP. Although the 

NRC has determined that individuals of 

the four species of sea turtles may be 

adversely affected by the continued 

operation of DCPP, the NRC also 

determined that DCPP does not 

contribute to the overall mortality of 

these species nor jeopardize the 

continued existence of any of these 

species. 

In 2006, the National Oceanic 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) issued a Biological Opinion and 

Incidental Take Statement for 

Continued Operations for green sea 

turtles, leatherback sea turtles, 

loggerhead sea turtles, and olive ridley 

sea turtles. NMFS found hat that the 

continued operation of DCPP ‘‘is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of endangered or threatened 

green, leatherback, loggerhead, or olive 

ridley sea turtles.’’ The incidental take 

statement noted that the ‘‘consultation 

will cover the plant until the expiration 

of its existing operating license in 2026’’ 

and that ‘‘that the levels of anticipated 

take are not likely to result in jeopardy 

to green, leatherback, loggerhead, or 

olive ridley sea turtles.’’ As part of the 

incidental take statement, DCPP reports 

all sea turtle entrainments to NMFS via 

the NMFS Stranding Reports. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Notices 73 

In 2021, PG&E and the Central Coast 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 

(CCRWQCB) reached a settlement 

agreement to resolve alleged thermal 

discharge permit violations from 2003. 

A public review and comment period 

was completed in early 2021 for the 

settlement agreement, which had been 

negotiated between PG&E and 

CCRWQCB during 2020. The settlement 

agreement addressed impacts on 

receiving waters from past and ongoing 

power plant cooling water discharges. 

The funds generated by the settlement 

are to be used for regional water quality 

projects. In addition to this settlement, 

PG&E has been making annual 

payments since 2015 to mitigate the 

potential impacts of its discharges, in 

accordance with the California State 

Water Board’s Once-through Cooling 

Water Policy Requirements. Regardless 

of the thermal discharge impacts 

settlement resolution, the plant NPDES 

permit remains under administrative 

extension. 

Environmental monitoring continues 

to be conducted at DCPP under the 

Receiving Water Monitoring Program 

and includes monitoring tasks such as 

temperature monitoring, State Mussel 

Watch activities, and intertidal and 

subtidal surveys. 

PG&E is required to comply with 

Federal, State, and local environmental 

regulations, agreements, and 

mechanisms (e.g., best management 

practices) that are in place to protect 

ecological resources. 

Historic and Cultural Resources: 

DOE’s proposed action would not add to 

or alter the undertaking that would be 

subject to the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) section 106 

review process, as DOE’s proposed 

action does not change the operational 

configuration of any facility, and it 

would not add to or alter the 

undertaking (see 36 CFR 800.16(y)) that 

would be subject to the section 106 

review process. 

Accordingly, DOE determined that the 

impact findings in the existing NEPA 

documentation remain adequate 

through the current operating licenses 

and DOE’s section 106 compliance 

requirements for the proposed credit 

allocation for the Project have been met. 

Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative 

impacts were not evaluated in the 1973 

ES and the 1976 ES. Addendum but 

were evaluated in the 2003 ISFSI EA 

and 2014 ER Amendment 1. The 2003 

ISFSI EA contains a partial assessment 

of cumulative impacts, stating: ‘‘The 

impact of the proposed Diablo Canyon 

ISFSI, when combined with previously 

evaluated effects from the Diablo 

Canyon Power Plant, is not anticipated 

to result in any significant cumulative 

impact at the site. The offsite radiation 

exposure limits for an ISFSI specified in 

10 CFR 72.104(a) explicitly include any 

contribution to offsite dose from other 

uranium fuel cycle facilities in the 

region.’’ Therefore, the offsite dose 

contribution from the DCPP has been 

included in the evaluation of 

radiological impacts from the proposed 

Diablo Canyon ISFSI. In addition, the 

2014 ER Amendment 1 evaluated 

cumulative impacts for all resources 

areas except Noise, Environmental 

Justice, Waste Management, and Global 

Climate Change. For the evaluated 

resources areas, the ER Amendment 1 

found impacts to be small. 

With respect to overall cumulative 

impacts, DCPP’s continued operation is 

governed by Federal and State permits, 

licenses and plans which ensure that 

any impact from DCPP’s continued 

operation are minimized. This includes 

the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) 

which is part of the NRC licenses for 

operation of DCPP. PG&E is required to 

report ‘‘unreviewed environmental 

questions’’ which ‘‘may result in a 

significant increase in any adverse 

environmental impact previously 

evaluated in the final environmental 

statement.’’ Implementation of such 

changes are subject to prior approval by 

the NRC in the form of a license 

amendment incorporating the 

appropriate revision into the EPP. 

PG&E’s compliance with NPDES permit 

conditions would ensure no changes in 

the temperature differential of DCPP’s 

existing thermal discharge. Further, 

PG&E’s conformity with requirements to 

avoid incidental intake of protected 

species helps assure impacts to the 

environment are mitigated. 

Therefore, DOE has determined the 

NEPA documentation and other 

supporting documents adequately 

address cumulative impacts for 

continued operation through the period 

DCPP’s current NRC licenses remain in 

effect. 

DOE also considered whether license 

renewal is a reasonably foreseeable 

future action. PG&E applied for a license 

renewal from NRC on November 7, 

2023, which is currently undergoing 

NRC review. While the license renewal 

application is for a 20-year life 

extension per NRC regulations, in 

Senate Bill 846 (SB846) the State of 

California limited DCPP’s life extension 

to just five years (no later than October 

31, 2029 for Unit 1 and no later than 

October 31, 2030, for Unit 2). DOE 

cannot at this time reasonably ascertain 

the scope or terms of any license that 

NRC might grant to PG&E in the future. 

Due to this uncertainty, DOE cannot 

meaningfully analyze the potential 

impacts of any license renewal without 

undue speculation. Further, if and when 

NRC acts on PG&E’s application, DOE 

would consider the need for further 

NEPA review prior to deciding whether 

to issue any credits or make any 

payments during the period of operation 

under an NRC license renewal. 

In summary, DOE’s review of the NRC 

NEPA documents and other available 

information for DCPP, indicates that the 

impacts of continued DCPP operation 

for the duration of the current licenses 

would be consistent with the impacts of 

current and historic operations as 

described in DOE/EIS–0555. 

In addition, DCPP complies with 

Federal, State, and local environmental 

regulations, requirements, and 

agreements, and operates using best 

management practices. Based upon 

DCPP’s ongoing compliance 

requirements, and that an award under 

the CNC Program does not change the 

existing operating configuration of 

DCPP facilities or result in significant 

new circumstances or information 

relevant to environmental concerns, 

therefore a Supplemental EIS does not 

need to be prepared. 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

The Proposed Action, providing 

credits for continued operation of DCPP, 

would be the Environmentally 

Preferable Alternative. This alternative 

offers environmental benefits consistent 

with the statutory objectives of the IIJA, 

which include consideration of air 

pollutant emissions including 

greenhouse gases. Compared to natural 

gas-fired sources producing the same 

amount of base-load power, annual GHG 

emission rates from nuclear power 

plants (including the fuel cycle 

processes) are considerably less. 

Comments on Adoption of the NRC 

NEPA Documents 

DOE received two letters from the 

Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility 

(A4NR) during the 30-day waiting 

period for DOE/EIS–0555. No other 

comments were received. DOE has 

considered all comments submitted, 

including any alternatives, information, 

analyses, and objections included in or 

attached to the comment letters. A 

summary of the comments and DOE’s 

responses are as follows: 

Comment 1: None of the NRC NEPA 

documents adopted by DOE in DOE/ 

EIS–0555 evaluates licensed operation 

of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant past 

September 2021 for Unit 1, and April 

2025 for Unit 2. Therefore, DOE’s 

proposed action is not substantially the 

same as the actions evaluated by the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
74 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Notices 

1NRC, Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2—Issuance 

of License Amendments 188 & 190, July 17, 2006 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML061660220). 

NRC NEPA documents and 

environmental impacts have not been 

evaluated beyond those dates. 

Comment 1 DOE Response: DCPP’s 

current NRC operating licenses are valid 

until November 2, 2024 (Unit 1) and 

August 26, 2025 (Unit 2), and the 

operating licenses may remain in effect 

by operation of law beyond those dates 

in accordance with NRC rules and 5 

U.S.C. 558(c). The 1993 EA analyzes the 

license extension for ‘‘40 years after the 

date of the issuance of the ‘low-power’ 

operating licenses’’ or to extend the 

expiry on DCPP Unit 1 from April 23, 

2008 to September 22, 2021, and for 

Unit 2 from December 9, 2010 to April 

26, 2025. In 1999, the NRC amended its 

policy to allow reactor licensees to 

recapture time spent in low-power 

testing or shutdown time. In 2005, PG&E 

took advantage of this policy change 

and filed a License Amendment Request 

(LAR) to extend the Diablo Canyon 

licenses to 40 years from the date of 

issuance of the full-power operating 

license (FPOL). In its LAR, PG&E stated 

that, ‘‘[t]he environmental affects [sic] 

associated with the proposed license 

amendments are enveloped by the 

original and recapture environmental 

reviews . . . since these reviews 

assumed 40 years of full-power 

operation. The impacts associated with 

the additional periods of operation have 

thus been previously addressed.’’ In 

October 2005, the NRC published a 

notice of the proposed amendments to 

revise the license expiration dates in the 

Federal Register, and the proposed 

finding that the amendments involve no 

significant hazards consideration (70 FR 

59087). In July 2006, NRC granted the 

LAR and amended the license dates to 

November 2, 2024 for Unit 1 and August 

26, 2025 for Unit 2, explaining, with 

respect to environmental 

considerations: 

The amendments change a requirement 

with respect to the installation or use of a 

facility component located within the 

restricted area as defined in 10 CFR part 20. 

The NRC staff has determined that the 

amendments involve no significant increase 

in the amounts, and no significant change in 

the types, of any effluents that may be 

released offsite, and that there is no 

significant increase in individual or 

cumulative occupational radiation exposure. 

The Commission has previously issued a 

proposed finding that the amendments 

involve no significant hazards consideration 

and there has been no public comment on 

such finding on October 11, 2005 (70 FR 

59087). Accordingly, the amendments meet 

the eligibility criteria for categorical 

exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no 

environmental impact statement or 

environmental assessment need be prepared 

in connection with the issuance of the 

amendments. 

While the NRC’s intervening decision 

to permit plants to recapture low-power 

testing time resulted in an operating 

license extension of approximately 37 

months for Unit 1 and 4 months for Unit 

2, the environmental impacts of this 

change were encompassed in the 

original NRC NEPA documents, which 

assumed environmental impacts from a 

40-year period of full-power operation. 

Thus, this intervening change in NRC 

policy did not result in significant new 

circumstances or information relevant to 

environmental concerns. Indeed, the 

1973 ES reviewed 40 years of full power 

operation, but as NRC noted in granting 

the LAR, the revised expiration dates 

equate to 35.2 effective full power years 

(EFPY) of power operations for Unit 1 

and 35.8 EFPY for Unit 2.1 DOE’s review 

and adoption of the NRC NEPA 

documents cover its proposed action, 

which is providing credits for continued 

operation of DCPP within the period 

that DCPP’s current NRC operating 

licenses remain in effect. 

Comment 2: DOE’s proposed action’s 

impact on the environment should be 

evaluated through 2045 as it is an 

enabling factor for PG&E’s pending 

application for a 20-year renewal of the 

DCPP operating licenses. 

Comment 2 DOE Response: The 

proposed action awards credits to PG&E 

to help allow DCPP to continue to 

operate under the existing NRC 

approved licenses. Relicensing of DCPP 

operating licenses would require the 

NRC to complete a NEPA evaluation. If 

the NRC completes a NEPA evaluation 

and decides to renew the operating 

licenses of DCPP prior to the end of the 

four-year award period, DOE would 

consider the NRC’s NEPA evaluation 

prior to deciding whether to continue to 

issue credits. 

Comment 3: A DCPP license renewal 

may not occur until after the DOE fouryear award period has ended. PG&E has 

indicated that a reasonable timeline for 

an accelerated license renewal process 

would be 4–5 years; that its prior effort 

was on a trajectory to finish in about 

seven years; and that it has taken as long 

as 11 years for the NRC license renewal 

process to be completed. DOE’s EIS 

would need to consider environmental 

effects, including cumulative effects, 

over a substantially longer period of 

time than the dates cited in the NRC 

NEPA documents because operation of 

the Diablo Canyon Power Plant past 

September 2021 for Unit 1, and April 

2025 for Unit 2 is reasonably 

foreseeable. 

Comment 3 DOE Response: As 

explained in the Comment 1 DOE 

response, DCPP’s current NRC operating 

licenses are valid until November 2, 

2024 (Unit 1) and August 26, 2025 (Unit 

2). If PG&E continues to operate the 

reactors beyond their existing expiration 

dates during the NRC’s review of a 

renewal application, the NRC’s existing 

NEPA evaluations that support 

operation of DCPP would remain 

adequate, as stated by the NRC in the 

Federal Response brief to the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit Case No. 23–852: 

The NRC will prepare an environmental 

impact statement before making any decision 

to renew PG&E’s licenses for a new term, 

which the Exemption Decision does not do. 

And in the event PG&E is able to temporarily 

continue operating the reactors past their 

current expiration dates while in timely 

renewal, permitting such operation to occur 

under the terms of the existing licenses 

would not be a new ‘major Federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment.’ The possibility of such 

continued operation inheres in every license 

granted by the NRC, by nature of the 

Administrative Procedures Act and its 

incorporation into the Atomic Energy Act. 

Comment 4: Because of the significant 

and material differences in the proposed 

action(s) evaluated in the NRC NEPA 

documents from the DOE proposed 

action, DOE is restricted by 40 CFR 

1506.3(b)(1) to treating the NRC NEPA 

documents as a draft EIS rather than a 

final EIS. DOE is required by 10 CFR 

1021.313 to conduct public review of a 

draft EIS. 

Comment 4 DOE Response: CEQ 

regulations authorize the adoption of an 

EIS or EA prepared by another Federal 

agency, ‘‘provided that the statement, 

assessment, portion thereof, or 

determination meets the standards for 

an adequate statement, assessment, or 

determination . . . .’’ 40 CFR 1506.3(a). 

If the actions covered by an existing EIS 

and the proposed action are 

‘‘substantially the same,’’ the adopting 

agency ‘‘shall’’ republish it as a final 

EIS. 40 CFR 1506.3(b)(1). As stated in 

DOE/EIS–0555, DOE’s award of credits 

to PG&E would not change existing NRC 

licenses or the present operational 

configuration of DCPP. DOE’s credit 

award analyzed under DOE/EIS–0555 

would provide financial support for 

continued DCPP operations under its 

existing NRC licenses. Although CEQ 

regulations do not define the phrase 

‘‘substantially the same,’’ CEQ 

discussed the phrase in the preamble to 

its Update to the Regulations 

Implementing the Procedural Provisions 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Notices 75 

2U.S. Dep’t of Energy Guidance for the Civil 

Nuclear Credit Program, pg. 11 (June 30, 2022), 

https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-06/ 

US%20DOE%20CNC%20Guidance-Revision%201- 

June%202022.pdf. 

of the National Environmental Policy 

Act: ‘‘when one agency’s action may be 

a funding decision for a proposed 

project, and another agency’s action is 

to consider a permit for the same 

project.’’ 85 FR 43304 (Jul. 7, 2020). For 

purposes of 40 CFR 1506.3(b)(1), DOE’s 

credit award action is ‘‘substantially the 

same’’ as the prior Federal actions that 

authorized the construction, licensure, 

and continued operations of DCPP 

under the existing license. Therefore, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3(b)(1), 

DOE did not republish the adopted 

NEPA documents as a draft EIS but 

instead republished them as a final EIS 

consistent with 40 CFR 1506.10. 

Comment 5: The statement in DOE/ 

EIS–0555 that ‘‘A DOE award under the 

CNC Program would not change the 

operating configuration or 

environmental impact of the DCPP 

facilities’’ overlooks the material 

changes in PG&E financial incentives 

under [California Senate Bill (SB)] 846 

that will take effect on November 3, 

2024 for Unit 1 and August 27, 2025 for 

Unit 2. A DOE award is the necessary 

prerequisite for this fundamental 

alteration of Diablo Canyon Power 

Plant’s rate recovery paradigm, and the 

environmental impacts stemming from 

reasonably foreseeable changes in 

operating practices (e.g., a greater 

frequency of unplanned outages and 

reactor trips) should be addressed in 

DOE’s EIS. 

Comment 5 DOE Response: The 

commenter’s basis for asserting that 

there will be ‘‘reasonably foreseeable 

changes in operating practices (e.g., a 

greater frequency of unplanned outages 

and reactor trips)’’ at DCPP is unclear. 

The commenter appears to assert that 

certain provisions of SB 846 alter 

‘‘financial incentives’’ related to DCPP 

operations and will therefore cause 

PG&E to change the way it operates 

DCPP in a manner that will cause 

additional outages and reactor trips. 

DOE finds this assertion to be 

speculative. There have been no 

changes proposed by PG&E to the 

operational configuration of DCPP. As 

stated in DOE/EIS–0555, the NRC 

granted PG&E a one-time exemption for 

DCPP from 10 CFR 2.109(b) to allow 

PG&E to submit a license renewal 

application for DCPP less than 5 years 

prior to expiration of the current 

operating licenses, but no later than 

December 31, 2023. As the NRC 

explained in the PG&E DCPP exemption 

decision, the NRC has determined that 

the issuance of the requested exemption 

meets the provisions of the categorical 

exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25). Under 

10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), the granting of an 

exemption from the requirements of any 

regulation of chapter 10 qualifies for a 

categorical exclusion if (i) there is no 

significant hazards consideration; (ii) 

there is no significant change in the 

types or significant increase in the 

amounts of any effluents that may be 

released offsite; (iii) there is no 

significant increase in individual or 

cumulative public or occupational 

radiation exposure; (iv) there is no 

significant construction impact; (v) 

there is no significant increase in the 

potential for or consequences from 

radiological accidents; and (vi) the 

requirements from which an exemption 

is sought involves one of several 

matters, including scheduling 

requirements (10 CFR 

51.22(c)(25)(iv)(G)). The NRC further 

stated that the exempted regulation is 

not associated with construction, and 

the exemption does not propose any 

changes to the site, alter the site, or 

change the operation of the site. 

Therefore, NRC concluded that the 

requirements of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(iv) 

were met and grant of the requested 

exemption would have no significant 

impact. Where neither NRC nor PG&E 

has expressed any expectation that 

operating practices at DCPP would 

meaningfully change during the fouryear award period, DOE declines to find 

that enactment of SB 846 will cause a 

‘‘reasonably foreseeable’’ change in 

PG&E’s operating practices. Please 

reference DOE’s response to Comment 

10 for further discussion. 

Comment 6: DOE did not conduct 

adequate public involvement before 

publishing DOE/EIS–0555. There was 

no notice of intent published, as 

required by 40 CFR 1501.9(d), and no 

public scoping process. There was no 

draft EIS published requesting public 

comments as required by 40 CFR 

1506.3(b)(1). A4NR urges DOE to utilize 

a public scoping process to address 

them. 

Comment 6 DOE Response: DOE 

published DOE/EIS–0555 in accordance 

with the adoption requirements in 

CEQ’s NEPA regulations, 40 CFR 

1506.3. DOE found that the NRC 

documents adopted by DOE/EIS–0555 

meet the standards for adequacy under 

NEPA and CEQ regulations, and the 

actions covered by them are 

substantially the same as DOE’s 

proposed action within the meaning of 

40 CFR 1506.3(b)(1). In such 

circumstances, 40 CFR 1506.3(b)(1) 

instructs DOE to adopt the NRC 

documents and republish them as a 

final EIS (DOE/EIS–0555) and does not 

require a new public scoping process or 

a new draft EIS or formal public 

comment period. 

Comment 7: DOE/EIS–0555 is devoid 

of any discussion of alternatives to the 

proposed DOE action of awarding the 

Credits, including the no action 

alternative, despite the requirement of 

42 U.S.C.A. section 4332(C)(iii). This 

void reinforces the divergence between 

the DOE proposed action and the NRC 

proposed action(s) evaluated in the NRC 

NEPA documents in 1973, 1976, 1993, 

2003, and 2007. With regard to the DOE 

proposed action, the no action 

alternative has the benefit of retaining 

any unissued credits within the DOE 

CNC program for use by other certified 

reactors with potentially fewer adverse 

environmental effects. DOE is required 

by 10 CFR 1021.210(d) to consider the 

alternatives analyzed in DOE/EIS–0555 

before rendering a decision on the 

proposed action, and to confine its 

decision to one within the range of 

alternatives analyzed in DOE/EIS–0555. 

Comment 7 DOE Response: A 

description of the alternatives 

considered is included in this ROD. The 

commenter suggests DOE/EIS–0555 

should have identified as a benefit the 

fact that declining to award credits 

would retain unissued credits in the 

CNC Program such that they could be 

awarded in the future to other nuclear 

reactors that might have fewer adverse 

environmental effects. DOE has 

considered both the costs and benefits 

of declining to make the proposed credit 

award and retaining unused credits 

within the CNC Program. As explained 

in DOE’s Amended Guidance for Award 

Cycle 1 of the CNC Program, ‘‘the first 

award cycle of the CNC Program is 

directed toward Nuclear Reactors most 

at risk of imminent closure’’ such that 

the operator can sufficiently 

demonstrate that it intends to 

‘‘permanently cease operations . . . 

before September 30, 2026’’ and that 

‘‘Air Pollutants would increase if the 

Nuclear Reactor were to cease 

operations and be replaced with other 

types of power generation.’’ 2 Noting 

that 12 commercial nuclear reactors had 

already shut down since 2013, DOE 

explained that prioritizing a credit 

award to reactors at risk of imminent 

closure in Cycle 1 would address nearterm risk of further reactor shutdowns 

‘‘while retaining Credits for future 

award cycles to assist as many 

additional Nuclear Reactors as possible 

that are projected to cease operation due 

to economic factors in a future period.’’ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
76 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Notices 

DCPP was the only applicant in Award 

Cycle 1 that met the eligibility criteria. 

Comment 8: DOE/EIS–0555 states that 

no refurbishment of Diablo Canyon 

Power Plant is planned, relying on a 

PG&E 2009 Environmental Report (and 

its 2014 update) attached as an 

appendix to PG&E’s previously 

withdrawn license renewal application. 

DOE/EIS–0555’s assertion appears 

unfounded in light of the emphasis in 

SB 846’s urgency clause on ‘‘ensuring 

electrical reliability in the California 

electrical system’’. SB 846 requires that 

the $1.4 billion General Fund loan be 

conditioned on the operator conducting 

an updated seismic assessment and 

commissioning an independent study 

‘‘to catalog and evaluate any deferred 

maintenance at the Diablo Canyon 

powerplant and to provide 

recommendations as to any risk posed 

by the deferred maintenance, potential 

remedies, and cost estimates of those 

remedies, and a timeline for 

undertaking those remedies.’’ DOE/EIS– 

0555’s dismissal of refurbishment prior 

to completion of these statutorilymandated reviews is premature. 

Comment 8 DOE Response: There has 

been no proposed refurbishment of 

DCPP ripe for NEPA analysis. See the 

Comment 5 DOE Response for NRC’s 

decision on the exemption request. 

Comment 9: As DOE’s proposed 

action will have impacts on ecological 

resources. DOE should engage in formal 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service pursuant to 50 

CFR 402.13 and 50 CFR 600.920. 

Comment 9 DOE Response: As stated 

in section 7.6 of DOE/EIS–0555, in 

2005, the NRC prepared a Biological 

Assessment that addressed the effects of 

the continued operation of DCPP on 

threatened and endangered marine 

species in accordance with section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

under the jurisdiction of the National 

Marine Fisheries Service. PG&E is 

required to comply with Federal, State, 

and local environmental regulations, 

agreements, and mechanisms (e.g., best 

management practices) that are in place 

to protect ecological resources. A DOE 

award under the CNC Program would 

not change the operating configuration 

or environmental impact of the DCPP 

facilities. As such, DOE concludes that 

consultation under the ESA is not 

required for the proposed action to 

award credits for continued operation of 

DCPP under the current licenses. 

Comment 10: A two-page excerpt 

from a fact-finding report approved by 

the Diablo Canyon Independent Safety 

Committee at its September 13, 2023, 

meeting identifies a contemplated ocean 

dredging project for accumulated 

sediment in the Diablo Canyon Intake 

Cove necessitated by potential extended 

operation of the power plant. The area 

of concern was originally designed to 

have an average (base) depth of 36 to 38 

feet. Over nearly 40 years of operations, 

about 16 to 20 feet of sand have 

accumulated in that area, significantly 

reducing the depth and increasing the 

velocity of seawater being drawn into 

the intake bays. The higher amount of 

sand and increased velocity of seawater 

makes it more difficult for divers to 

keep the intake racks and bays clear of 

debris. These conditions also make it 

more likely for kelp to be drawn into the 

intake and foul the racks or condensers. 

Kelp ingestion has the potential to cause 

the circulating water system to trip, 

which stops cooling of the steam turbine 

condensers and can place significant 

stress on plan systems, and possibly a 

turbine/reactor trip, due to inability to 

dump steam to the condensers. Concern 

about the potential to have the 

circulating water system trip due to kelp 

ingestion is the reason that the plant 

will reduce power during some winter 

storms. The attached document is 

inadequately evaluated by DOE/EIS– 

0555. 

Comment 10 DOE Response: DOE 

notes that approval of the referenced 

fact-finding report by the Diablo Canyon 

Independent Safety Committee occurred 

after DOE had noticed the adoption of 

DOE/EIS–0555 in the Federal Register, 

on August 4, 2023. 

On October 3, 2023, the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (Corps) published a 

public notice of an application by PG&E 

(SPL–2023–00468–LM) for a Clean 

Water Act section 404 permit 

authorizing dredging of accumulated 

material at the intake structure located 

at the north end of the intake cove of 

DCPP, and placement of dredge material 

at the Corps Nearshore Placement Area. 

The notice stated that ‘‘[t]he depth of 

the center portions of the Intake Cove 

varies from –16 FT mean lower low 

water (MLLW) in the back (eastern) part 

of the cove to –33 FT MLLW in front of 

the intake structure.’’ Although 16–20 

feet of sediment have accumulated in 

certain parts of the Intake Cove away 

from the intake structure, other areas of 

the Intake Cove remain near the target 

average base depth. Based upon the 

Corps’ preliminary review of relevant 

factors, including water quality, coastal 

zone management, essential fish habitat, 

cultural resources, and endangered 

species, the Corps made a preliminary 

determination that ‘‘an environmental 

impact statement is not required for the 

proposed work.’’ 

DOE does not have primary 

jurisdiction or control over PG&E’s 

proposed dredging activity. At this time, 

whether the Corps will grant the 

requested permit and what conditions 

(e.g., required avoidance or mitigation 

measures) the Corps may attach to any 

permit granted, are unclear. As 

indicated in the Corps’ notice, before 

granting any section 404 permit, the 

Corps will ‘‘prepar[e] an Environmental 

Assessment and/or Environmental 

Impact Statement pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Act.’’ 

DOE has reviewed the Corps’ notice of 

permit application and an 

Administrative Draft Environmental 

Assessment dated August 21, 2023, 

prepared for PG&E by Stantec 

Consulting Services, Inc. and attached 

as Appendix A to the Summary of Staff 

Recommendation of the California 

Coastal Commission filed September 15, 

2023. DOE finds persuasive the Corps’ 

preliminary determination that the 

proposed dredging activity will not 

require an environmental impact 

statement. DOE also finds that the 

changes in depth in certain portions of 

the Intake Cove, which the Diablo 

Canyon Independent Safety Committee 

agrees can be remedied by dredging the 

shallow areas, do not represent 

significant new circumstances or 

information relevant to environmental 

concerns that might require preparation 

of an EIS supplement. 

Decision 

DOE has decided to implement the 

Proposed Action to issue credits to 

PG&E for continued operation of DCPP, 

as identified in DOE/EIS–0555 and 

authorized under NRC licenses DPR–80 

and DPR–82. 

Basis for Decision 

Approval of credits responds to the 

DOE purpose and need pursuant to the 

IIJA, which authorizes the Secretary of 

Energy to provide credits for nuclear 

reactors that meet certain minimum 

requirements: (1) a determination that 

the nuclear reactor is projected to close 

for economic reasons; (2) a 

determination that pollutants would 

increase if the nuclear reactor were to 

cease operations and be replaced with 

other types of power generation; and (3) 

that the NRC has reasonable assurance 

that the nuclear reactor will continue to 

be operate in accordance with its 

current license and poses no significant 

safety hazards (42 U.S.C. 18753). DOE 

also considered the environmental 

impacts and public comments when 

making its decision. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Notices 77 

3U.S. Dep’t of Energy Form of Civil Nuclear 

Credit Redemption Agreement, https://

www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/ 

US%20DOE%20CNC%20Guidance-%20Appendix

%20B%20Draft%20Credit%20

Redemption%20Agreement%20April%202022.pdf. 

Mitigation Measures 

The Project for which DOE has 

decided to issue credits includes all 

mitigation measures, terms, and 

conditions applied by the NRC in 

licenses DPR–80 and DPR–82. The 

mitigation measures, terms, and 

conditions represent practicable means 

by which to avoid or minimize 

environmental impacts from operation 

of DCPP. NRC is responsible for 

ensuring compliance with all adopted 

mitigation measures, terms, and 

conditions for the Project set forth by 

NRC in licenses DPR–80 and DPR–82. 

DOE’s issuance or payment of any 

credits awarded to PG&E beyond the 

period that DCPP’s current NRC 

operating licenses are in effect—that is, 

operations under a renewed license and 

not the current license—would be 

conditioned on PG&E’s compliance with 

NRC requirements applicable to license 

renewal. DOE would stop payment of 

credits and initiate a process to satisfy 

DOE’s NEPA obligations with respect to 

continuing payments during the period 

of operation under an NRC license 

renewal. 

Habitat monitoring of the DCPP is 

continuous and ongoing due to 

mitigation measures put in place in the 

DCPP license terms after the 1976 ES 

Addendum, which required as a license 

condition that, ‘‘[b]efore engaging in 

additional construction or operational 

activities which may result in a 

significant adverse environmental 

impact that was not evaluated or that is 

significantly greater than that evaluated 

in this Environmental Statement, the 

applicant shall provide written 

notification to the Director of the Office 

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.’’ This 

license condition continues in the 

current NRC license, which states, ‘‘[a]s 

a condition of the Environmental 

Protection Plan (EPP) which is part of 

the NRC licenses for operation of DCPP, 

PG&E is required to report ‘‘unreviewed 

environmental questions’’ which ‘‘may 

result in a significant increase in any 

adverse environmental impact 

previously evaluated in the final 

environmental statement.’’ 

Implementation of such changes are 

subject to prior approval by the NRC in 

the form of a license amendment 

incorporating the appropriate revision 

into the EPP. PG&E is required to submit 

an annual report identifying if any of 

these events [which may result in a 

significant increase in any adverse 

environmental impact previously 

evaluated] occurred. 

Environmental monitoring continues 

to be conducted at DCPP under the 

Receiving Water Monitoring Program 

(RWMP) and includes monitoring tasks 

such as temperature monitoring, State 

Mussel Watch activities, and intertidal 

and subtidal surveys. 

DOE’s form credit award agreement 

for the CNC Program, which is publicly 

available,3 also contains mitigation and 

monitoring measures. As applied to 

DCPP, this includes annual reporting 

requirements on estimates of emission 

of air pollutants avoided by the 

continued operation of the DCPP 

compared to the emission of air 

pollutants reasonably expected had 

DCPP terminated operation prior to the 

commencement of the award. Annual 

reporting requirements also include the 

number of stakeholder or community 

engagement events held by PG&E and 

their attendance, including 

organizations who represent 

community-based organizations, 

Disadvantaged Communities, federallyrecognized Indian Tribes, State and 

local governments, economic 

development organizations, and labor 

representatives, as well as any 

community benefits agreements created, 

feedback received from stakeholders 

and federally-recognized Indian Tribes 

and steps to address feedback where 

necessary. 

Finally, the award agreement requires 

recipients to attest to their compliance 

with all applicable laws, including 

environmental laws, in all material 

respects at the time of award agreement 

and each time the awardee requests 

payment. Environmental laws include 

any laws in effect as of the date of the 

award agreement and in the future 

which regulate or impose obligations 

relating to environmental impacts, and 

necessarily include any associated 

environmental mitigation measures in 

the terms of NRC licenses DPR–80 and 

DPR–82 and the associated mitigation 

measures contained therein. Future 

requirements imposed by the NRC 

would also be required by the credit 

award agreement for the Project. A 

recipient’s misstatement or omission in 

representation of its compliance with all 

applicable laws may constitute an event 

of default, upon which DOE would have 

the right to exercise remedies, including 

withholding the payment of any credits. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on December 21, 

2023, by Maria D. Robinson, Director, 

Grid Deployment Office, pursuant to 

delegated authority from the Secretary 

of Energy. That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on December 

27, 2023. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2023–28808 Filed 12–29–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

National Nuclear Security 

Administration 

Agency Information Collection 

Extension 

AGENCY: National Nuclear Security 

Administration, Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) invites public comment on a 

proposed extension for three years of a 

collection of information that DOE with 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Comments regarding this 

proposed information collection must 

be received on or before March 4, 2024. 

If you anticipate any difficulty in 

submitting comments within that 

period, contact the person listed in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section as soon as possible. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments to Laura 

Fellow, Foreign Affairs Specialist, by 

mail at Office of Nonproliferation and 

Arms Control, National Nuclear 

Security Administration, U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585, or by fax at (865) 203–3946 

or by email at laura.fellow@

nnsa.doe.gov. Due to potential delays in 

DOE’s receipt and processing of mail 

sent through the U.S. Postal Service, 

DOE encourages responders to submit 

comments electronically to ensure 

timely receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

other questions, contact Laura Fellow, 

Foreign Affairs Specialist, Office of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES