[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10510-10513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 [email protected]. The DOE Final EIS 
and this ROD are also available on the Loan Programs Web site at: 
http://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: http://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 http://
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