10510 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Notices 

1By 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. 

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. 

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 

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 

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 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). 

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: 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 

§ 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Notices 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. 

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 

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-anddisposal-used-nuclear-fuel-and-highVerDate Mar<15>2010 17:58 Feb 24, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 

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: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2014 / Notices 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 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 

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 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 

AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: 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). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES