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, 69-77 [2023-28808]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Notices
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
Grid Deployment Office; U.S.
Department of Energy.
ACTION: Record of decision.
AGENCY:
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
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Dec 29, 2023
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
69
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.
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Dec 29, 2023
Jkt 262001
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)
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(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
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Notices
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Dec 29, 2023
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
71
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
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Dec 29, 2023
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Notices
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Dec 29, 2023
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73
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
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
74
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Notices
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Dec 29, 2023
Jkt 262001
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
1 NRC, Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2—Issuance
of License Amendments 188 & 190, July 17, 2006
(ADAMS Accession No. ML061660220).
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Notices
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Dec 29, 2023
Jkt 262001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75
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.’’
2 U.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%201June%202022.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Dec 29, 2023
Jkt 262001
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.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Notices
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Dec 29, 2023
Jkt 262001
(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
3 U.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.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
77
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
National Nuclear Security
Administration, Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of request for comments.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section as soon as possible.
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
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69-77]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28808]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[email protected]. 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-diablo-canyon-conditional-award-nepa-documentation. For general information on the CNC Program, visit
www.energy.gov/gdo/civil-nuclear-credit-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
[email protected] 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 [email protected]; 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/civil-nuclear-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 four-year 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.
[[Page 70]]
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
[[Page 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 [deg]F and the maximum ambient ocean
water temperature was 63.5 [deg]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 once-through cooling water system
continue to be regulated and monitored in accordance with a Central
Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB) National Pollutant
[[Page 72]]
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 [deg]F to a high of 59 [deg]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 [deg]F warmer than the
temperature in South Diablo Cove and 6.7 [deg]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 [deg]F to a high of 58.8 [deg]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 [deg]F warmer than the temperature in
South Diablo Cove and 6.8 [deg]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.
[[Page 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
[[Page 74]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NRC, Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2--Issuance of License
Amendments 188 & 190, July 17, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML061660220).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
four-year 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
[[Page 75]]
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 four-year 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 near-term 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.''
[[Page 76]]
DCPP was the only applicant in Award Cycle 1 that met the eligibility
criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 statutorily-
mandated 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.
[[Page 77]]
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, federally-
recognized 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.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%20Redemption%20Agreement%20April%202022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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