[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