Issuance of Loan Guarantees to Various Applicants for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant-Units 3 and 4 in Burke County, GA, 10510-10513 [2014-04023]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
10510
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Notices
commenter may not exceed three
minutes, depending on the number of
individuals or groups who sign up on
June 18, 2014, to make oral comments,
except at the discretion of the NACIQI
Chair exercised on a case-by-case basis.
The oral comments made will become
part of the official record and will be
considered by the Department and
NACIQI in their deliberations. No
individual or group in attendance or
making oral presentations may
distribute written materials at the
meeting.
Access to Records of the Meeting: The
Department will post the official report
of the meeting on the NACIQI Web site
90 days after the meeting. Pursuant to
the FACA, the public may also inspect
the materials at 1990 K Street NW.,
Washington, DC, by emailing
aslrecordsmanager@ed.gov or by calling
(202) 219–7067 to schedule an
appointment.
Reasonable Accommodations: The
meeting site is accessible to individuals
with disabilities. If you will need an
auxiliary aid or service to participate in
the meeting (e.g., interpreting service,
assistive listening device, or materials in
an alternate format), notify the contact
person listed in this notice at least two
weeks before the scheduled meeting
date. Although we will attempt to meet
a request received after that date, we
may not be able to make available the
requested auxiliary aid or service
because of insufficient time to arrange
it.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carol Griffiths, Executive Director,
NACIQI, U.S. Department of Education,
1990 K Street NW., Room 8073,
Washington, DC 20006–8129, telephone:
(202) 219–7035, fax: (202) 219–7005, or
email Carol.Griffiths@ed.gov.
Electronic Access to this Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register
and the Code of Federal Regulations is
available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
can view this document, as well as all
other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:58 Feb 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Brenda Dann-Messier,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary
Education.
[FR Doc. 2014–04090 Filed 2–24–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Issuance of Loan Guarantees to
Various Applicants for the Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant—Units 3 and
4 in Burke County, GA
U.S. Department of Energy.
Record of Decision (ROD).
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) announces its decision to
issue loan guarantees under Title XVII
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct
2005) totaling approximately $8.3
billion to one or more of the following
applicants for the construction and
start-up of the proposed Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4
advanced nuclear reactors for the
production of electrical power in Burke
County, Georgia: Georgia Power
Company; Oglethorpe Power
Corporation; and Municipal Electric
Authority of Georgia and its
subsidiaries. The VEGP Units 3 and 4
would be located in a rural area in
eastern Burke County, Georgia, which is
the site of two operating nuclear reactor
units (VEGP Units 1 and 2). A new 55mile, 500 kilovolt (kV) transmission line
would be constructed to bring power
from the switchyard for the new units
to the Thomson substation 20 miles
west of Augusta, Georgia. The potential
environmental impacts of constructing
and operating the proposed project,
including the transmission line, were
analyzed pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the
Final Environmental Impact Statement
for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site
(FEIS) and Supplemental EIS (SEIS) for
the Combined Licenses (COLs) prepared
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC). DOE determined that the project
analyzed in the FEIS and SEIS (the NRC
EISs) was substantially the same as the
project that would be covered by the
DOE loan guarantees. DOE was not a
cooperating agency with NRC on the
EISs and subsequently adopted and recirculated them as a DOE final EIS
(DOE/EIS–0476). The formal
announcement of adoption and
recirculation was published by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
on February 17, 2012 (77 FR 9652).
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Copies of this ROD and
DOE/EIS–0476 may be obtained by
contacting Sharon R. Thomas, NEPA
Document Manager, Environmental
Compliance Division, Loan Programs
Office (LP–10), U.S. Department of
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone
202–586–5335; or email
Sharon.R.Thomas@hq.doe.gov. The
DOE Final EIS and this ROD are also
available on the Loan Programs Web site
at: https://
www.loanprograms.energy.gov. These
documents as well as other general
information concerning the DOE NEPA
process can be found on the DOE NEPA
Web site at: https://www.energy.gov/
nepa.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
Background
Georgia Power Corporation (GPC),
Oglethorpe Power Corporation (OPC),
and the Municipal Electric Authority of
Georgia (MEAG) and its subsidiaries
have submitted separate applications for
loan guarantees totaling approximately
$8.3 billion in response to a solicitation
issued by DOE in 2008 under its
authority established by Title XVII of
EPAct 2005. An organization consisting
of Southern Nuclear Operating
Company (SNC), Southern Company
Services (SCS), and GPC personnel was
established to oversee and staff the
proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 (the
Project). The new reactor units,
currently under construction, are
licensed to and would be operated by
SNC. GPC would construct a
transmission line to bring power from
the switchyard for the new units to the
Thomson substation 20 miles west of
Augusta, Georgia. The transmission line
right-of-way would be approximately
150 feet wide, 55 miles long, and have
approximately 225 transmission towers.
In August 2006, SNC submitted an
application to NRC for an ESP for the
proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4. The NRC
prepared an EIS pursuant to NEPA
§ 102(2)(C), and issued an FEIS in
August 2008 (NUREG–1872). On August
26, 2009, NRC issued the ESP. In March
2008, SNC submitted an application to
the NRC for COLs, and in March 2011,
NRC issued a final SEIS for the COLs
(NUREG–1947).1 On February 9, 2012,
NRC issued a Memorandum and Order
1 By issuing an ESP, NRC approves one or more
sites for a nuclear power facility, independent of
the specific nuclear plant design. In reviewing an
ESP application, the NRC evaluates site safety
issues, environmental protection issues, and plans
for coping with emergencies. By issuing a COL,
NRC authorizes the licensee to construct and
operate (under specified conditions) an approved
design for a nuclear power plant at a specific site.
E:\FR\FM\25FEN1.SGM
25FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Notices
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
(CLI–12–02) authorizing the issuance of
COLs for Units 3 and 4. The NRC
Memorandum and Order constitutes the
ROD for the NRC EISs. The NRC Office
of New Reactors issued COLs NPF–91
for Unit 3 and NPF–92 for Unit 4 on
February 10, 2012.
In September 2008, the applicants
submitted a Part I Application to the
DOE Loan Programs Office (LPO) for a
loan guarantee in response to the DOE
Loan Guarantee Solicitation
Announcement titled ‘‘Federal Loan
Guarantee for Nuclear Power Facilities’’
(Reference Number: DE–FOA–0000006).
In December 2008, the applicants
submitted Part II of their application.
NEPA Review
DOE reviewed the NRC EISs and
determined that the project analyzed in
the EISs was substantially the same as
the project that would be covered by the
DOE loan guarantees. DOE did not
participate as a cooperating agency in
the preparation of the NRC EISs;
therefore, in accordance with DOE’s
NEPA regulations (10 Code of Federal
Regulations [CFR] Part 1021), DOE
conducted an independent review of the
NRC EISs and related documents for the
purpose of determining whether DOE
could adopt them pursuant to Council
on Environmental Quality regulations at
40 CFR 1506.3. DOE adopted and recirculated the NRC EISs as a single, final
DOE EIS (DOE/EIS–0476). See EPA’s
Notice of Adoption at 77 FR 9652 (2/17/
12).
In addition to its adoption of the NRC
EISs, DOE considered various sources of
information to satisfy its obligations
under NEPA, including the following:
The Safety Analysis Report prepared by
SNC (see NRC Agency Document Access
and Management System (ADAMS)
Accession Number ML11180A100); the
Standard Design Certification for the
AP1000 nuclear reactor design
developed by the design contractor,
Westinghouse Electric Corporation (see
ADAMS ML11171A500); the Safety
Evaluation Report, prepared by NRC
(see ADAMS ML110450302); the
Independent Engineer Reports prepared
by DOE’s independent engineering firm
(MPR Associates Inc.; Report MPR–3367
Rev.4, April 2013, and supplement
dated October 9, 2013); and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
authorization under Nationwide Permit
No. 12 (project number SAS–2012–
01016) and application for Nationwide
Permit 12, Pre-Construction
Notification, Thomson-Vogtle 500kV
Transmission Line.
As part of its NEPA review, DOE
considered the potential impacts of the
transmission line in consultation with
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:58 Feb 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
the USACE during the Clean Water Act
Section 404 permitting process. DOE
was party to consultation between the
Georgia State Historic Preservation
Office and the USACE, conducted in
compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, and
consulted with the USACE regarding its
review of impacts to federally-listed
threatened and endangered species in
compliance with Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act. USACE
completed the Section 106 process,
determined that there would be no
effect on federally-listed species, and
authorized the proposed activity under
Nationwide Permit No. 12 on September
26, 2013.
Alternatives Considered
The Proposed Action in the NRC EISs
was for NRC to issue licenses that
would authorize the applicants to
construct, operate, and decommission
the proposed project. Several
alternatives were considered by the
NRC, including: (1) The No Action
Alternative, under which the proposed
project would not be constructed,
operated, and decommissioned at the
VEGP site; (2) energy source
alternatives; and (3) system design
alternatives. These alternatives were
eliminated from further consideration
because they did not offer any
environmental advantage over the
proposed action, did not provide a
sufficient amount of power generation
to meet expected demand, or did not
meet the need for a reliable and
economical source of power generation.
The DOE decision is whether or not
to issue loan guarantees to one or more
of the applicants named above to
support construction and startup of the
Project as identified in DOE/EIS–0476
and authorized under the NRC COLs
NPF–91 and NPF–92 for the VEGP Units
3 and 4, respectively. Accordingly, the
DOE alternatives are (1) the Proposed
Action, to issue loan guarantees to the
applicants for the Project, and (2) the No
Action Alternative, i.e., no loan
guarantees.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
DOE has decided that its Proposed
Action, to issue loan guarantees for
construction and startup of the Project,
is environmentally preferable. This
alternative offers environmental benefits
consistent with the statutory objectives
of Title XVII of EPAct 2005, which
include reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions. Compared to coal-fired and
natural-gas-fired sources producing the
same amount of base-load power,
annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emission
rates from nuclear power plants
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10511
(including the fuel cycle processes) are
considerably less (Table 7–1 of the NRC
SEIS). In addition, DOE has determined
that all practicable means to avoid or
minimize environmental harm, as
described in Sections 4.10 (Measures
and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts
During Site-Preparation Activities and
Construction) and 5.11 (Measures and
Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts
During Operation) of DOE/EIS–0476,
have been incorporated into the NRC
COLs NPF–91 and NPF–92 for the VEGP
Units 3 and 4 and will be required as
conditions of the DOE loan agreements
for the Project.
Response to Comments on the Adopted
NRC EISs
DOE received two letters concerning
its adoption of the NRC EISs as DOE/
EIS–0476. The comment letters
included a letter from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Region 4 and a letter from the Blue
Ridge Environmental Defense League
(BREDL).
EPA Comments
EPA expressed a concern regarding
storage, transportation and disposal of
radioactive wastes, and spent fuel,
which at this time does not have an
approved site for disposal. Efforts by
DOE and NRC to address the issue of
how to manage spent fuel are ongoing
and are summarized below.
DOE—On January 29, 2010, the
President directed the Secretary of
Energy to establish a Blue Ribbon
Commission (BRC) to consider a broad
range of technological and policy
alternatives regarding spent fuel
disposition, and to analyze the
scientific, environmental, budgetary,
economic, financial, and management
issues surrounding each alternative. The
BRC included experts from research
facilities, academic and policy-centered
institutions, industry, and labor and
environmental organizations. They were
tasked to conduct a comprehensive
review of policies for managing the back
end of the nuclear fuel cycle, including
alternatives for the storage, processing,
and disposal of civilian and defense
used nuclear fuel, high-level waste, and
materials derived from nuclear
activities. The BRC submitted its final
report and recommendations for future
actions to the Secretary of Energy on
January 26, 2012. In January 2013, DOE
published a Strategy for the
Management and Disposal of Used
Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
Radioactive Waste (available on DOE’s
Web site at https://energy.gov/
downloads/strategy-management-anddisposal-used-nuclear-fuel-and-high-
E:\FR\FM\25FEN1.SGM
25FEN1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
10512
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Notices
level-radioactive-waste). This strategy
includes a phased adaptive and consentbased approach to siting and
implementing a comprehensive
management and disposal system, and
outlines DOE’s plans for the eventual
transportation, storage, and disposal of
used nuclear fuel using both existing
and new authorizations by Congress.
DOE has a contractual obligation to
remove and disposition spent fuel from
the Project, and DOE remains
committed to meeting this obligation in
a manner protective of human health
and the environment.
NRC—The Waste Confidence
Decision and Rule (WCR) represents the
generic determination by NRC that
spent nuclear fuel can be stored safely
and without significant environmental
impacts for a period of time after the
end of the licensed life of a nuclear
power plant. This generic analysis was
incorporated into NRC’s NEPA review
for the Project. In 2010, NRC issued an
updated WCR (10 CFR 51.23(a)). On
June 8, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit ruled that NRC had
violated NEPA in issuing the 2010 WCR
update. New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471
(D.C. Cir. 2012). In response to the
court’s ruling, on August 7, 2012, NRC
voted to delay final approval of any
pending licenses for new nuclear plants
until it can address environmental
concerns regarding long-term waste
storage. However, this delay does not
affect the VEGP project because the
COLs were issued by NRC prior to
NRC’s August 2012 decision. On
September 6, 2012, NRC directed its
staff to prepare a generic EIS and a
revised WCR to address the deficiencies
identified in the court’s opinion. NRC
also created a Waste Confidence
Directorate within the Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards to
oversee the preparation of a new Waste
Confidence EIS and Rule. NRC has
instructed the Directorate to issue the
final EIS and WCR by September 2014.
On September 13, 2013, NRC published
FR notices announcing the availability
of the proposed WCR (78 FR 56776) and
supporting draft Generic EIS for public
comment (78 FR 56621).
NRC has the regulatory authority to
determine if spent fuel can be stored
safely at its licensed facilities. DOE will
continue to monitor the NRC WCR
environmental review and rulemaking,
and DOE’s loan guarantee agreements
will require that the Project comply
with any new regulatory or license
conditions.
In addition to the safety and
environmental review performed by
NRC in the licensing process, DOE
considered other sources of information
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:58 Feb 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
regarding the safety and security of
spent fuel at the proposed Project and
the potential environmental effects of
long-term spent nuclear fuel storage in
the on-site storage facilities. NRC’s
review included a safety evaluation of
the VEGP Units 3 and 4 and the AP1000
reactor design to assess risks, including
those from spent fuel pool fires or leaks.
DOE also reviewed reports developed by
the independent engineering firm, MPR
Associates Inc., completed as part of the
due diligence process for the loan
guarantees for the Project. The
independent engineering firm
confirmed that there were reasonable
plans to safely store spent fuel and
stated that possible post-Fukushima
actions (e.g., modification of spent fuel
pool water level indication) should be
straightforward to integrate into the
AP1000 if NRC should require changes.
Each of the two proposed AP1000 units
has the pool capacity to store 17 years
of spent fuel. The independent
engineering firm also examined the
potential of the dry fuel storage facility
for VEGP Units 1 and 2 to be used for
spent fuel casks from proposed VEGP
Units 3 and 4. A general license for
operating an Independent Spent Fuel
Storage Installation (ISFSI) has been
authorized by NRC and is being built for
VEGP Units 1 and 2. The ISFSI will
accommodate storage of the reactor fuel
from Vogtle Units 1 and 2 for the first
60 years of operation (i.e., 120 reactor
years for two units) with expansion
capacity for an additional 40 years. If
required, this capacity could be
available to meet at least part of VEGP
Units 3 and 4 dry fuel cask storage
needs, although there are no plans to do
so at this time and this use would
potentially require a license
amendment. Additional dry storage
capacity for the VEGP Units 3 and 4
would be developed in the long term, if
needed.
DOE also reviewed information
regarding potential impacts of long-term
spent fuel storage found in the No
Action Alternative of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for a
Geologic Repository for the Disposal of
Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain,
Nye County, Nevada (DOE/EIS–0250,
February 2002) (Yucca Mountain FEIS),
and the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement for a
Geologic Repository for the Disposal of
Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain,
Nye County, Nevada (DOE/EIS–0250F–
S1, June 2008) (Yucca Mountain SEIS).
In the Yucca Mountain FEIS and SEIS,
DOE assessed the potential
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
environmental effects of not
constructing and operating a permanent
disposal repository at Yucca Mountain
(the No Action Alternative) by selecting
two scenarios for analysis. Under
Scenario 1, which assumes the existence
of effective institutional controls, the
estimated radiological health impacts
are almost exclusively limited to
workers. Under Scenario 2, which
assumes a lack of institutional controls
after 100 years, the spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste storage
facilities would begin to deteriorate and
eventually release radioactive materials
to the environment, resulting in adverse
impacts to human health. Over time, the
unchecked deterioration and dissolution
of the materials in the environment
would continue and impacts would
increase. The potential impacts
associated with long-term spent fuel
storage described as part of the No
Action Alternative presented in the
Yucca Mountain FEIS and SEIS were
considered along with the information
provided in the NRC review regarding
the potential environmental and human
health effects of long-term storage of
spent fuel.
BREDL Comments
BREDL provided comments pertinent
to the NEPA environmental review that
DOE addresses below. BREDL also
submitted comments questioning the
eligibility of the Project design as an
innovative technology, DOE’s ability to
secure the debt obligation, and the
integrity of DOE’s due diligence process,
none of which has any bearing on the
NEPA environmental review process. In
reviewing completed loan guarantee
applications and in selecting those to
whom a guarantee will be offered, DOE
applies the criteria set forth in Title
XVII of EPAct 2005, the implementing
regulations in 10 CFR Part 609, and the
applicable solicitation issued by DOE.
DOE’s due diligence process for
evaluating potential loan guarantees
includes a rigorous analysis of the
proposed project including, but not
limited to, its legal, financial, technical,
environmental, regulatory, credit and
market aspects. Subject to continuing
due diligence, DOE establishes a
project’s eligibility and the reasonable
prospect of loan repayment early in this
process, before DOE conditionally
commits to pursuing the documentation
and underwriting of a loan guarantee.
As such, DOE’s due diligence and
internal approval process for the Project
has included an evaluation that fully
addressed BREDL’s concerns. BREDL’s
summarized comments (C) relevant to
DOE/EIS–0476 and DOE’s responses (R)
are included below:
E:\FR\FM\25FEN1.SGM
25FEN1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Notices
1. C: DOE must consider the
Environmental Justice requirements of
Executive Order 12898 in its decision
making.
R: Low income and minority
populations exist within the census
tracts in a 50-mile radius of the Project
site. In reviewing the NRC EISs, DOE
considered the environmental impacts
of the action and whether these
populations would suffer
disproportionately high and adverse
environmental impacts. The NRC EISs
analyzed the potential effects of the
plant during construction and operation
and the mitigations to be enacted by the
Project operators. NRC determined and
DOE concurs that the potential adverse
effects would be generally small and
would not disproportionately affect the
census tracts with higher low-income
and minority populations.
2. C: The design chosen for the new
units fails to avoid, reduce or sequester
air pollutants and anthropogenic
emissions of greenhouse gases, and the
uranium fuel cycle uses fossil fuels that
contribute to global warming.
R: The NRC SEIS included a
comparison of emissions from a nuclear
power plant (including the fuel cycle
processes) to those from similarly sized
fossil fuel plants and demonstrated that
the nuclear plant has approximately 1/
10th the annual CO2 emission rate of a
natural-gas-fired power plant and 1/20th
the emissions of a coal-fired power
plant (See Table 7–1, Comparison of
Annual CO2 Emission Rates).
3. C: The Vogtle Electric Generating
Plant will not meet Clean Air Act
standards. Without maximum
achievable control technology, routine
emissions from the plant would be
excessive especially when considered in
addition to the existing site-wide
radioactive emission levels.
R: The Project is required to meet
Clean Air Act standards and obtain a
permit for operations that generate nonradioactive pollutants, such as
emergency generators. EPA has
determined that the radionuclide
emissions of the plant are best regulated
by the authority given to NRC. On
September 5, 1995 (60 FR 46206), EPA
amended the Clean Air Act’s National
Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS) for radionuclide
emissions to exempt nuclear power
reactors which are licensed by the NRC.
On December 30, 1996 (61 FR 68972),
EPA amended the 40 CFR 61 Subpart I
Radionuclide NESHAP so that it no
longer applies to operations licensed by
the NRC or NRC Agreement States. EPA
has concluded that the NRC regulatory
program controlling air emissions of
radionuclides from nuclear power
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:58 Feb 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
reactors will ensure that resultant doses
will consistently and predictably be
below the levels which EPA has
determined are necessary to provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health.
4. C: Southern Nuclear does not
properly account for the higher levels of
morbidity and mortality in females and
infants caused by low levels of
radiation.
R: While children and fetuses are
more sensitive to the effects of radiation,
the radiation protection standards
applicable at the site for members of the
general public take into account the
differences in sensitivity due to age and
gender, including females and infants.
Decision
DOE has decided to select the
Proposed Action to issue loan
guarantees to one or more of the
following applicants for the
construction and start-up of the
proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 in Burke
County, Georgia, as identified in DOE/
EIS–0476 and authorized under the NRC
COLs NPF–91 and NPF–92: Georgia
Power Company; Oglethorpe Power
Corporation; and Municipal Electric
Authority of Georgia and its
subsidiaries. Approval of loan
guarantees for the Project responds to
the DOE purpose and need pursuant to
Title XVII, Section 1703 of EPAct 2005
(42 U.S.C. 16511–16514), which
authorizes the Secretary of Energy to
make loan guarantees for projects that
(1) avoid, reduce, or sequester air
pollutants or anthropogenic emissions
of greenhouse gases, and (2) employ
new or significantly improved
technologies as compared to commercial
technologies in service in the United
States at the time the guarantee is
issued. The Section 1703 DOE loan
guarantee program aims to accelerate
the commercialization of innovative,
environmentally-friendly technologies
that will support clean, affordable, and
reliable supplies of energy. The purpose
and need for DOE’s loan guarantee
action is to comply with DOE’s mandate
under Title XVII of EPAct 2005 by
selecting projects that meet the goals of
the Act.
Mitigation
The Project for which DOE has
decided to issue loan guarantees
includes all mitigation measures, terms,
and conditions applied by the NRC in
its COLs NPF–91 and NPF–92, as well
as mitigation and avoidance measures
imposed by the USACE in its
Nationwide Permit No. 12 for the
proposed transmission line. The
mitigation measures, terms, and
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10513
conditions represent practicable means
by which to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts from the
selected alternative. NRC is responsible
for ensuring compliance with all
adopted mitigation measures, terms, and
conditions for the Project set forth in the
NRC COLs NPF–91 and NPF–92.
Sections 4.10 (Measures and Controls to
Limit Adverse Impacts During SitePreparation Activities and Construction)
and 5.11 (Measures and Controls to
Limit Adverse Impacts During
Operation) of the adopted NRC EISs
(DOE/EIS–0476) contain the mitigation
measures, terms, and conditions
developed in accordance with NEPA.
DOE’s loan guarantee agreements
require the loan guarantee recipients to
comply with all applicable laws,
authorizations, and approvals, including
the terms of the NRC COLs NPF–91 and
NPF–92 and the USACE permit for the
proposed transmission line, including
mitigation measures contained therein.
Any additional future requirements
imposed by the NRC would also be
required by the loan guarantee
agreements for the Project. A recipient’s
failure to comply with applicable laws,
authorizations, and approvals would
constitute a default, upon which DOE
would have the right under the loan
guarantee agreement to exercise usual
and customary remedies. To ensure a
recipient complies with the
requirements of the loan guarantee
agreement, the Loan Programs Office
proactively monitors all operative loan
guarantee transactions.
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 19,
2014.
Peter W. Davidson,
Executive Director, Loan Programs Office.
[FR Doc. 2014–04023 Filed 2–24–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–10–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Electricity Advisory Committee
Office of Electricity Delivery
and Energy Reliability, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
AGENCY:
This notice announces a
meeting of the Electricity Advisory
Committee (EAC). The Federal Advisory
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat.
770) requires that public notice of these
meetings be announced in the Federal
Register.
DATES: Wednesday, March 12, 2014:
12:00 p.m.–5:45 p.m. (EST), Thursday,
March 13, 2014; 8:00 a.m.–2:30 p.m.
(EST).
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\25FEN1.SGM
25FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10510-10513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04023]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Issuance of Loan Guarantees to Various Applicants for the Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant--Units 3 and 4 in Burke County, GA
AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy.
ACTION: Record of Decision (ROD).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its decision to
issue loan guarantees under Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPAct 2005) totaling approximately $8.3 billion to one or more of the
following applicants for the construction and start-up of the proposed
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4 advanced nuclear
reactors for the production of electrical power in Burke County,
Georgia: Georgia Power Company; Oglethorpe Power Corporation; and
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and its subsidiaries. The VEGP
Units 3 and 4 would be located in a rural area in eastern Burke County,
Georgia, which is the site of two operating nuclear reactor units (VEGP
Units 1 and 2). A new 55-mile, 500 kilovolt (kV) transmission line
would be constructed to bring power from the switchyard for the new
units to the Thomson substation 20 miles west of Augusta, Georgia. The
potential environmental impacts of constructing and operating the
proposed project, including the transmission line, were analyzed
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site (FEIS) and Supplemental EIS
(SEIS) for the Combined Licenses (COLs) prepared by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC). DOE determined that the project analyzed
in the FEIS and SEIS (the NRC EISs) was substantially the same as the
project that would be covered by the DOE loan guarantees. DOE was not a
cooperating agency with NRC on the EISs and subsequently adopted and
re-circulated them as a DOE final EIS (DOE/EIS-0476). The formal
announcement of adoption and recirculation was published by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on February 17, 2012 (77 FR
9652).
ADDRESSES: Copies of this ROD and DOE/EIS-0476 may be obtained by
contacting Sharon R. Thomas, NEPA Document Manager, Environmental
Compliance Division, Loan Programs Office (LP-10), U.S. Department of
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone
202-586-5335; or email Sharon.R.Thomas@hq.doe.gov. The DOE Final EIS
and this ROD are also available on the Loan Programs Web site at:
https://www.loanprograms.energy.gov. These documents as well as other
general information concerning the DOE NEPA process can be found on the
DOE NEPA Web site at: https://www.energy.gov/nepa.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Georgia Power Corporation (GPC), Oglethorpe Power Corporation
(OPC), and the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG) and its
subsidiaries have submitted separate applications for loan guarantees
totaling approximately $8.3 billion in response to a solicitation
issued by DOE in 2008 under its authority established by Title XVII of
EPAct 2005. An organization consisting of Southern Nuclear Operating
Company (SNC), Southern Company Services (SCS), and GPC personnel was
established to oversee and staff the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 (the
Project). The new reactor units, currently under construction, are
licensed to and would be operated by SNC. GPC would construct a
transmission line to bring power from the switchyard for the new units
to the Thomson substation 20 miles west of Augusta, Georgia. The
transmission line right-of-way would be approximately 150 feet wide, 55
miles long, and have approximately 225 transmission towers.
In August 2006, SNC submitted an application to NRC for an ESP for
the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4. The NRC prepared an EIS pursuant to
NEPA Sec. 102(2)(C), and issued an FEIS in August 2008 (NUREG-1872).
On August 26, 2009, NRC issued the ESP. In March 2008, SNC submitted an
application to the NRC for COLs, and in March 2011, NRC issued a final
SEIS for the COLs (NUREG-1947).\1\ On February 9, 2012, NRC issued a
Memorandum and Order
[[Page 10511]]
(CLI-12-02) authorizing the issuance of COLs for Units 3 and 4. The NRC
Memorandum and Order constitutes the ROD for the NRC EISs. The NRC
Office of New Reactors issued COLs NPF-91 for Unit 3 and NPF-92 for
Unit 4 on February 10, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ By issuing an ESP, NRC approves one or more sites for a
nuclear power facility, independent of the specific nuclear plant
design. In reviewing an ESP application, the NRC evaluates site
safety issues, environmental protection issues, and plans for coping
with emergencies. By issuing a COL, NRC authorizes the licensee to
construct and operate (under specified conditions) an approved
design for a nuclear power plant at a specific site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2008, the applicants submitted a Part I Application to
the DOE Loan Programs Office (LPO) for a loan guarantee in response to
the DOE Loan Guarantee Solicitation Announcement titled ``Federal Loan
Guarantee for Nuclear Power Facilities'' (Reference Number: DE-FOA-
0000006). In December 2008, the applicants submitted Part II of their
application.
NEPA Review
DOE reviewed the NRC EISs and determined that the project analyzed
in the EISs was substantially the same as the project that would be
covered by the DOE loan guarantees. DOE did not participate as a
cooperating agency in the preparation of the NRC EISs; therefore, in
accordance with DOE's NEPA regulations (10 Code of Federal Regulations
[CFR] Part 1021), DOE conducted an independent review of the NRC EISs
and related documents for the purpose of determining whether DOE could
adopt them pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality regulations at
40 CFR 1506.3. DOE adopted and re-circulated the NRC EISs as a single,
final DOE EIS (DOE/EIS-0476). See EPA's Notice of Adoption at 77 FR
9652 (2/17/12).
In addition to its adoption of the NRC EISs, DOE considered various
sources of information to satisfy its obligations under NEPA, including
the following: The Safety Analysis Report prepared by SNC (see NRC
Agency Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Number
ML11180A100); the Standard Design Certification for the AP1000 nuclear
reactor design developed by the design contractor, Westinghouse
Electric Corporation (see ADAMS ML11171A500); the Safety Evaluation
Report, prepared by NRC (see ADAMS ML110450302); the Independent
Engineer Reports prepared by DOE's independent engineering firm (MPR
Associates Inc.; Report MPR-3367 Rev.4, April 2013, and supplement
dated October 9, 2013); and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
authorization under Nationwide Permit No. 12 (project number SAS-2012-
01016) and application for Nationwide Permit 12, Pre-Construction
Notification, Thomson-Vogtle 500kV Transmission Line.
As part of its NEPA review, DOE considered the potential impacts of
the transmission line in consultation with the USACE during the Clean
Water Act Section 404 permitting process. DOE was party to consultation
between the Georgia State Historic Preservation Office and the USACE,
conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, and consulted with the USACE regarding its review of
impacts to federally-listed threatened and endangered species in
compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. USACE
completed the Section 106 process, determined that there would be no
effect on federally-listed species, and authorized the proposed
activity under Nationwide Permit No. 12 on September 26, 2013.
Alternatives Considered
The Proposed Action in the NRC EISs was for NRC to issue licenses
that would authorize the applicants to construct, operate, and
decommission the proposed project. Several alternatives were considered
by the NRC, including: (1) The No Action Alternative, under which the
proposed project would not be constructed, operated, and decommissioned
at the VEGP site; (2) energy source alternatives; and (3) system design
alternatives. These alternatives were eliminated from further
consideration because they did not offer any environmental advantage
over the proposed action, did not provide a sufficient amount of power
generation to meet expected demand, or did not meet the need for a
reliable and economical source of power generation.
The DOE decision is whether or not to issue loan guarantees to one
or more of the applicants named above to support construction and
startup of the Project as identified in DOE/EIS-0476 and authorized
under the NRC COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92 for the VEGP Units 3 and 4,
respectively. Accordingly, the DOE alternatives are (1) the Proposed
Action, to issue loan guarantees to the applicants for the Project, and
(2) the No Action Alternative, i.e., no loan guarantees.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
DOE has decided that its Proposed Action, to issue loan guarantees
for construction and startup of the Project, is environmentally
preferable. This alternative offers environmental benefits consistent
with the statutory objectives of Title XVII of EPAct 2005, which
include reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Compared to coal-fired
and natural-gas-fired sources producing the same amount of base-load
power, annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emission rates from
nuclear power plants (including the fuel cycle processes) are
considerably less (Table 7-1 of the NRC SEIS). In addition, DOE has
determined that all practicable means to avoid or minimize
environmental harm, as described in Sections 4.10 (Measures and
Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Site-Preparation Activities
and Construction) and 5.11 (Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse
Impacts During Operation) of DOE/EIS-0476, have been incorporated into
the NRC COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92 for the VEGP Units 3 and 4 and will be
required as conditions of the DOE loan agreements for the Project.
Response to Comments on the Adopted NRC EISs
DOE received two letters concerning its adoption of the NRC EISs as
DOE/EIS-0476. The comment letters included a letter from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 and a letter from the
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL).
EPA Comments
EPA expressed a concern regarding storage, transportation and
disposal of radioactive wastes, and spent fuel, which at this time does
not have an approved site for disposal. Efforts by DOE and NRC to
address the issue of how to manage spent fuel are ongoing and are
summarized below.
DOE--On January 29, 2010, the President directed the Secretary of
Energy to establish a Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) to consider a broad
range of technological and policy alternatives regarding spent fuel
disposition, and to analyze the scientific, environmental, budgetary,
economic, financial, and management issues surrounding each
alternative. The BRC included experts from research facilities,
academic and policy-centered institutions, industry, and labor and
environmental organizations. They were tasked to conduct a
comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the
nuclear fuel cycle, including alternatives for the storage, processing,
and disposal of civilian and defense used nuclear fuel, high-level
waste, and materials derived from nuclear activities. The BRC submitted
its final report and recommendations for future actions to the
Secretary of Energy on January 26, 2012. In January 2013, DOE published
a Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and
High-Level Radioactive Waste (available on DOE's Web site at https://
energy.gov/downloads/strategy-management-and-disposal-used-nuclear-
fuel-and-high-
[[Page 10512]]
level-radioactive-waste). This strategy includes a phased adaptive and
consent-based approach to siting and implementing a comprehensive
management and disposal system, and outlines DOE's plans for the
eventual transportation, storage, and disposal of used nuclear fuel
using both existing and new authorizations by Congress. DOE has a
contractual obligation to remove and disposition spent fuel from the
Project, and DOE remains committed to meeting this obligation in a
manner protective of human health and the environment.
NRC--The Waste Confidence Decision and Rule (WCR) represents the
generic determination by NRC that spent nuclear fuel can be stored
safely and without significant environmental impacts for a period of
time after the end of the licensed life of a nuclear power plant. This
generic analysis was incorporated into NRC's NEPA review for the
Project. In 2010, NRC issued an updated WCR (10 CFR 51.23(a)). On June
8, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that NRC
had violated NEPA in issuing the 2010 WCR update. New York v. NRC, 681
F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In response to the court's ruling, on August
7, 2012, NRC voted to delay final approval of any pending licenses for
new nuclear plants until it can address environmental concerns
regarding long-term waste storage. However, this delay does not affect
the VEGP project because the COLs were issued by NRC prior to NRC's
August 2012 decision. On September 6, 2012, NRC directed its staff to
prepare a generic EIS and a revised WCR to address the deficiencies
identified in the court's opinion. NRC also created a Waste Confidence
Directorate within the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
to oversee the preparation of a new Waste Confidence EIS and Rule. NRC
has instructed the Directorate to issue the final EIS and WCR by
September 2014. On September 13, 2013, NRC published FR notices
announcing the availability of the proposed WCR (78 FR 56776) and
supporting draft Generic EIS for public comment (78 FR 56621).
NRC has the regulatory authority to determine if spent fuel can be
stored safely at its licensed facilities. DOE will continue to monitor
the NRC WCR environmental review and rulemaking, and DOE's loan
guarantee agreements will require that the Project comply with any new
regulatory or license conditions.
In addition to the safety and environmental review performed by NRC
in the licensing process, DOE considered other sources of information
regarding the safety and security of spent fuel at the proposed Project
and the potential environmental effects of long-term spent nuclear fuel
storage in the on-site storage facilities. NRC's review included a
safety evaluation of the VEGP Units 3 and 4 and the AP1000 reactor
design to assess risks, including those from spent fuel pool fires or
leaks. DOE also reviewed reports developed by the independent
engineering firm, MPR Associates Inc., completed as part of the due
diligence process for the loan guarantees for the Project. The
independent engineering firm confirmed that there were reasonable plans
to safely store spent fuel and stated that possible post-Fukushima
actions (e.g., modification of spent fuel pool water level indication)
should be straightforward to integrate into the AP1000 if NRC should
require changes. Each of the two proposed AP1000 units has the pool
capacity to store 17 years of spent fuel. The independent engineering
firm also examined the potential of the dry fuel storage facility for
VEGP Units 1 and 2 to be used for spent fuel casks from proposed VEGP
Units 3 and 4. A general license for operating an Independent Spent
Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) has been authorized by NRC and is
being built for VEGP Units 1 and 2. The ISFSI will accommodate storage
of the reactor fuel from Vogtle Units 1 and 2 for the first 60 years of
operation (i.e., 120 reactor years for two units) with expansion
capacity for an additional 40 years. If required, this capacity could
be available to meet at least part of VEGP Units 3 and 4 dry fuel cask
storage needs, although there are no plans to do so at this time and
this use would potentially require a license amendment. Additional dry
storage capacity for the VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be developed in the
long term, if needed.
DOE also reviewed information regarding potential impacts of long-
term spent fuel storage found in the No Action Alternative of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the
Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at
Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada (DOE/EIS-0250, February 2002) (Yucca
Mountain FEIS), and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear
Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County,
Nevada (DOE/EIS-0250F-S1, June 2008) (Yucca Mountain SEIS). In the
Yucca Mountain FEIS and SEIS, DOE assessed the potential environmental
effects of not constructing and operating a permanent disposal
repository at Yucca Mountain (the No Action Alternative) by selecting
two scenarios for analysis. Under Scenario 1, which assumes the
existence of effective institutional controls, the estimated
radiological health impacts are almost exclusively limited to workers.
Under Scenario 2, which assumes a lack of institutional controls after
100 years, the spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste
storage facilities would begin to deteriorate and eventually release
radioactive materials to the environment, resulting in adverse impacts
to human health. Over time, the unchecked deterioration and dissolution
of the materials in the environment would continue and impacts would
increase. The potential impacts associated with long-term spent fuel
storage described as part of the No Action Alternative presented in the
Yucca Mountain FEIS and SEIS were considered along with the information
provided in the NRC review regarding the potential environmental and
human health effects of long-term storage of spent fuel.
BREDL Comments
BREDL provided comments pertinent to the NEPA environmental review
that DOE addresses below. BREDL also submitted comments questioning the
eligibility of the Project design as an innovative technology, DOE's
ability to secure the debt obligation, and the integrity of DOE's due
diligence process, none of which has any bearing on the NEPA
environmental review process. In reviewing completed loan guarantee
applications and in selecting those to whom a guarantee will be
offered, DOE applies the criteria set forth in Title XVII of EPAct
2005, the implementing regulations in 10 CFR Part 609, and the
applicable solicitation issued by DOE. DOE's due diligence process for
evaluating potential loan guarantees includes a rigorous analysis of
the proposed project including, but not limited to, its legal,
financial, technical, environmental, regulatory, credit and market
aspects. Subject to continuing due diligence, DOE establishes a
project's eligibility and the reasonable prospect of loan repayment
early in this process, before DOE conditionally commits to pursuing the
documentation and underwriting of a loan guarantee. As such, DOE's due
diligence and internal approval process for the Project has included an
evaluation that fully addressed BREDL's concerns. BREDL's summarized
comments (C) relevant to DOE/EIS-0476 and DOE's responses (R) are
included below:
[[Page 10513]]
1. C: DOE must consider the Environmental Justice requirements of
Executive Order 12898 in its decision making.
R: Low income and minority populations exist within the census
tracts in a 50-mile radius of the Project site. In reviewing the NRC
EISs, DOE considered the environmental impacts of the action and
whether these populations would suffer disproportionately high and
adverse environmental impacts. The NRC EISs analyzed the potential
effects of the plant during construction and operation and the
mitigations to be enacted by the Project operators. NRC determined and
DOE concurs that the potential adverse effects would be generally small
and would not disproportionately affect the census tracts with higher
low-income and minority populations.
2. C: The design chosen for the new units fails to avoid, reduce or
sequester air pollutants and anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse
gases, and the uranium fuel cycle uses fossil fuels that contribute to
global warming.
R: The NRC SEIS included a comparison of emissions from a nuclear
power plant (including the fuel cycle processes) to those from
similarly sized fossil fuel plants and demonstrated that the nuclear
plant has approximately 1/10th the annual CO2 emission rate
of a natural-gas-fired power plant and 1/20th the emissions of a coal-
fired power plant (See Table 7-1, Comparison of Annual CO2
Emission Rates).
3. C: The Vogtle Electric Generating Plant will not meet Clean Air
Act standards. Without maximum achievable control technology, routine
emissions from the plant would be excessive especially when considered
in addition to the existing site-wide radioactive emission levels.
R: The Project is required to meet Clean Air Act standards and
obtain a permit for operations that generate non-radioactive
pollutants, such as emergency generators. EPA has determined that the
radionuclide emissions of the plant are best regulated by the authority
given to NRC. On September 5, 1995 (60 FR 46206), EPA amended the Clean
Air Act's National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) for radionuclide emissions to exempt nuclear power reactors
which are licensed by the NRC. On December 30, 1996 (61 FR 68972), EPA
amended the 40 CFR 61 Subpart I Radionuclide NESHAP so that it no
longer applies to operations licensed by the NRC or NRC Agreement
States. EPA has concluded that the NRC regulatory program controlling
air emissions of radionuclides from nuclear power reactors will ensure
that resultant doses will consistently and predictably be below the
levels which EPA has determined are necessary to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health.
4. C: Southern Nuclear does not properly account for the higher
levels of morbidity and mortality in females and infants caused by low
levels of radiation.
R: While children and fetuses are more sensitive to the effects of
radiation, the radiation protection standards applicable at the site
for members of the general public take into account the differences in
sensitivity due to age and gender, including females and infants.
Decision
DOE has decided to select the Proposed Action to issue loan
guarantees to one or more of the following applicants for the
construction and start-up of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 in Burke
County, Georgia, as identified in DOE/EIS-0476 and authorized under the
NRC COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92: Georgia Power Company; Oglethorpe Power
Corporation; and Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and its
subsidiaries. Approval of loan guarantees for the Project responds to
the DOE purpose and need pursuant to Title XVII, Section 1703 of EPAct
2005 (42 U.S.C. 16511-16514), which authorizes the Secretary of Energy
to make loan guarantees for projects that (1) avoid, reduce, or
sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse
gases, and (2) employ new or significantly improved technologies as
compared to commercial technologies in service in the United States at
the time the guarantee is issued. The Section 1703 DOE loan guarantee
program aims to accelerate the commercialization of innovative,
environmentally-friendly technologies that will support clean,
affordable, and reliable supplies of energy. The purpose and need for
DOE's loan guarantee action is to comply with DOE's mandate under Title
XVII of EPAct 2005 by selecting projects that meet the goals of the
Act.
Mitigation
The Project for which DOE has decided to issue loan guarantees
includes all mitigation measures, terms, and conditions applied by the
NRC in its COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92, as well as mitigation and avoidance
measures imposed by the USACE in its Nationwide Permit No. 12 for the
proposed transmission line. The mitigation measures, terms, and
conditions represent practicable means by which to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts from the selected alternative. NRC is responsible
for ensuring compliance with all adopted mitigation measures, terms,
and conditions for the Project set forth in the NRC COLs NPF-91 and
NPF-92. Sections 4.10 (Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts
During Site-Preparation Activities and Construction) and 5.11 (Measures
and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation) of the adopted
NRC EISs (DOE/EIS-0476) contain the mitigation measures, terms, and
conditions developed in accordance with NEPA.
DOE's loan guarantee agreements require the loan guarantee
recipients to comply with all applicable laws, authorizations, and
approvals, including the terms of the NRC COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92 and
the USACE permit for the proposed transmission line, including
mitigation measures contained therein. Any additional future
requirements imposed by the NRC would also be required by the loan
guarantee agreements for the Project. A recipient's failure to comply
with applicable laws, authorizations, and approvals would constitute a
default, upon which DOE would have the right under the loan guarantee
agreement to exercise usual and customary remedies. To ensure a
recipient complies with the requirements of the loan guarantee
agreement, the Loan Programs Office proactively monitors all operative
loan guarantee transactions.
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 19, 2014.
Peter W. Davidson,
Executive Director, Loan Programs Office.
[FR Doc. 2014-04023 Filed 2-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-10-P
