Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Notices 61847 

those sites addressed by the siting study 

grants), and listed potential 

environmental issues for analysis. 

Subsequent to the Notice of Intent, DOE 

held public scoping meetings near the 

sites that were under consideration and 

in Washington, DC. 

DOE received approximately 14,000 

comment letters/e-mails and oral 

comments related to the scope of the 

GNEP PEIS. The major scoping 

comments related to the purpose and 

need, the alternatives that were being 

considered, the various resource areas 

that should be addressed in the PEIS, 

and proliferation risk. 

In response to public comments and 

as the programmatic analysis developed, 

DOE determined that to make projectspecific or site-specific decisions 

regarding any of the three originally 

proposed facilities would be premature. 

The programmatic decisions to be made 

would influence the size and type of 

facilities required for implementing an 

alternative fuel cycle (the originally 

proposed nuclear fuel recycling center 

and advanced recycling reactor) as well 

as the facility needed to support 

research, development, and deployment 

(an Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility). As a 

result, no project-specific or site-specific 

proposals are being made at this time. 

The GNEP PEIS assesses the following 

six domestic programmatic alternatives: 

No Action Alternative—Existing 

Once-Through Uranium Fuel Cycle: The 

United States would continue to rely 

upon a once-through or ‘‘open’’ fuel 

cycle, in which commercial light water 

reactors (LWRs) generate and store SNF 

until DOE could accept the SNF for 

disposal in a geologic repository. 

Fast Reactor Recycle Fuel Cycle 

Alternative: The United States would 

pursue a domestic closed fuel cycle in 

a system that processes LWR SNF in one 

or more nuclear fuel recycling centers 

and would recycle some of the 

recovered materials in one or more fast 

reactors. The SNF from the advanced 

recycling reactors (i.e., fast reactors) 

would also be processed to recover 

materials for repeated recycle in 

advanced recycling reactors. High-level 

wastes (HLW) from separations would 

be disposed of in a geologic repository. 

Thermal/Fast Reactor Recycle Fuel 

Cycle Alternative: This closed fuel cycle 

alternative would be similar to the Fast 

Reactor Recycle Alternative, but it 

would recycle some of the recovered 

materials in thermal reactors prior to 

recycling in advanced recycling 

reactors. HLW from separations would 

be disposed of in a geologic repository. 

Thermal Reactor Recycle Fuel Cycle 

Alternative: The United States would 

pursue a domestic closed fuel cycle that 

processes LWR SNF and recycles some 

of the recovered materials in thermal 

reactors. The following three options are 

assessed: Option 1—Recycle LWR SNF 

to produce a mixed oxide uranium 

plutonium (MOX–U–Pu) fuel for use in 

LWRs; Option 2—Recycle LWR SNF to 

produce fuel for use in heavy water 

reactors (HWRs); and Option 3—Recycle 

LWR SNF to produce a transuranic fuel 

for use in high temperature gas-cooled 

reactors (HTGRs). Option 1 would be a 

closed fuel cycle, in which HLW would 

be disposed of in a geologic repository. 

Options 2 and 3, which include 

recycling of LWR SNF, would dispose of 

HLW and SNF in a geologic repository. 

Once-Through Fuel Cycle Alternative 

Using Thorium: The United States 

would pursue a thorium once-through 

or ‘‘open’’ fuel cycle, in which 

commercial reactors would be fueled 

with thorium/uranium-based fuels. 

Because thorium-based fuels would be 

compatible with existing LWRs, the 

Thorium Alternative could also be 

characterized as representing a ‘‘new 

fuel design.’’ The SNF would be stored 

until DOE could accept it for disposal in 

a geologic repository. 

Once-Through Fuel Cycle Alternative 

using Heavy Water Reactors (HWRs) or 

High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors 

(HTGRs): The United States would 

pursue a domestic once-through or 

‘‘open’’ fuel cycle that uses either HWRs 

or HTGRs. For the HWR/HTGR 

Alternative, two options are assessed: 

Option 1—Use HWRs only; and Option 

2—Use HTGRs only. In either case, the 

SNF would be stored until DOE could 

accept it for disposal in a geologic 

repository. 

These domestic programmatic 

alternatives are not mutually exclusive. 

That is, DOE could decide to pursue 

implementation of one or more 

domestic programmatic alternatives. 

In general, the analyses in the GNEP 

PEIS indicate that the closed fuel cycle 

alternatives offer a greater opportunity, 

relative to the open fuel cycle 

alternatives, to reduce the capacity 

requirements for a future geologic 

repository, and to reduce the hazards 

associated with the disposal of spent 

fuel or high-level radioactive waste. 

However, the closed fuel cycle 

alternatives require more disposal 

capacity for other radioactive wastes 

than is required under the open fuel 

cycle alternatives. Furthermore, 

transportation and associated health 

impacts from the closed fuel cycle 

alternatives would be generally higher 

during the operational period than those 

from the open fuel cycle alternatives 

(except for the Once-Through Fuel 

Cycle using High Temperature GasCooled Reactors). 

Following completion of the GNEP 

PEIS, DOE will be in a position to 

decide whether to pursue a closed fuel 

cycle. The GNEP PEIS is a first, 

important step in deciding whether and 

how to recycle spent nuclear fuel. A 

decision to go forward with recycling 

could trigger additional proposals and 

research to achieve DOE’s programmatic 

goal. Subsequent DOE policies and 

actions could also affect decisions by 

the U.S. commercial utility industry, 

which would ultimately determine 

whether and how to implement any 

changes in the domestic fuel cycle. Any 

DOE proposals would be subject to 

appropriate NEPA review. 

The PEIS also discusses international 

aspects of the GNEP Program, but does 

not evaluate any proposed actions or 

alternatives. Consequently, DOE would 

not make any decisions related to 

international activities based on the 

GNEP PEIS. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 10, 

2008. 

Dennis R. Spurgeon, 

Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy. 

[FR Doc. E8–24669 Filed 10–16–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 12585–002] 

Golden Gate Energy Company; Notice 

of Intent To File License Application, 

Filing of Draft Application, Request for 

Waivers of Integrated Licensing 

Process Regulations Necessary for 

Expedited Processing of a 

Hydrokinetic Pilot Project License 

Application, and Soliciting Comments 

October 10, 2008. 

a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to 

File a License Application for an 

Original License for a Hydrokinetic Pilot 

Project. 

b. Project No.: 12585–002. 

c. Dated Filed: September 30, 2008. 

d. Submitted By: Golden Gate Energy 

Company. 

e. Name of Project: San Francisco Bay 

Tidal Energy Pilot Project. 

f. Location: Within San Francisco Bay, 

in San Francisco and Marin Counties, 

California. The Proposed project site 

extends from beyond the western side of 

the Golden Gate Bridge into the Bay and 

around Angel and Alcatraz Islands 

before ending well short of the BART 

tunnel. No federal lands are occupied by 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
61848 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Notices 

the proposed project works or located 

within the proposed project boundary. 

g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the 

Commission’s regulations. 

h. Potential Applicant Contact: Mike 

Hoover, Golden Gate Energy Company, 

1785 Massachusetts Ave., NW., Suite 

100, Washington, DC 20036; (202) 494– 

9232. 

i. FERC Contact: Matt Buhyoff (202) 

502–6824; or e-mail at 

matt.buhyoff@ferc.gov. 

j. Golden Gate Energy Company has 

filed with the Commission: (1) A notice 

of intent to file an original hydrokinetic 

pilot project license application and a 

draft license application with 

monitoring plan; (2) a request for 

waivers of the integrated licensing 

process regulations necessary for 

expedited processing of a hydrokinetic 

project pilot license application; (3) a 

proposed process plan and schedule; (4) 

a request to be designated as the nonfederal representative for sections 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act 

consultation; and (5) a request to be 

designated as the non-federal 

representative for section 106 

consultation under the National Historic 

Preservation Act (collectively the PreFiling materials). 

k. With this notice, we are soliciting 

comments on the Pre-Filing materials 

from paragraph j above, including the 

draft license application and monitoring 

plans. All comments should be sent to 

the address above in paragraph h. In 

addition, all comments (original and 

eight copies) must be filed with the 

Commission at the following address: 

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

All filings with the Commission must 

include on the first page, the project 

name (San Francisco Bay Tidal Energy 

Pilot Project) and number (P–12585– 

002), and bear the heading ‘‘Comments 

on the proposed San Francisco Bay 

Tidal Energy Pilot Project.’’ Any 

individual or entity interested in 

submitting comments on the Pre-filing 

Materials must do so by October 30, 

2008. 

Comments may be filed electronically 

via the Internet in lieu of paper. The 

Commission strongly encourages 

electronic filings. See 18 CFR 

385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions 

on the Commission’s Web site (http:// 

www.ferc.gov) under the ‘‘e-filing’’ link. 

l. This notice does not constitute the 

Commission’s approval of Golden Gate 

Energy Company’s request to use the 

Pilot Project Licensing Procedures. 

Upon its review of the project’s overall 

characteristics relative to the pilot 

project criteria, the draft application 

contents, and any comments filed, the 

Commission may seek additional 

information needed to continue 

processing the Pilot Project or reject the 

NOI, draft application, and Golden Gate 

Energy Company’s request for waiver/ 

process plan for an original 

hydrokinetic pilot project license. 

m. The proposed San Francisco Bay 

Tidal Energy Pilot Project would be 

implemented in a four-phase 

deployment, including removal of 

hydrokinetic electrical power generators 

and associated hardware in San 

Francisco Bay, California. The final 

design of each phase would be 

dependent upon results of the previous 

phase. In Phase 1, dependent upon final 

design, the project would consist of: (1) 

A 51-foot-long floating barge supporting; 

(2) up to three experimental 

hydrokinetic units approximately 2–3 

meters in diameter; and (3) appurtenant 

facilities. Phase 2 would consist of: (1) 

An anchored jack-up barge supporting; 

(2) hydrokinetic units approximately 5– 

7 meters in diameter; and (3) 

appurtenant facilities. Phase 3 would 

consist of (1) a 12kV transmission cable 

approximately 1.25 miles in total length. 

Approximately 0.75 mile of the cable 

would be buried in the marine 

environment and the remaining 0.5 mile 

of the cable would follow an existing on 

shore right-of-way; and (2) appurtenant 

facilities. Phase 4 consists of project 

removal and site restoration. The 

applicant estimates that the total 

average capacity of less than 1 

megawatt. 

n. A copy of the draft application and 

all Pre-filing Materials are available for 

review at the Commission in the Public 

Reference Room or may be viewed on 

the Commission’s Web site (http:// 

www.ferc.gov), using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ 

link. Enter the docket number, 

excluding the last three digits in the 

docket number field to access the 

document. For assistance, contact FERC 

Online Support at 

FERCONlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll 

free at 1–866–208–3676, of for TTY, 

(202) 502–8659. A copy is also available 

for inspection and reproduction at the 

address in paragraph h. 

o. Pre-filing process schedule. The 

pre-filing process will be conducted 

pursuant to the following tentative 

schedule. Revisions to the schedule may 

be made as appropriate. 

Milestone Date 

Comments on Pre-filing Materials due.Oct. 30, 2008. 

Issuance of Meeting Notice 

(if appropriate).

Nov. 14, 2008. 

Milestone Date 

Public Meeting/technical 

Conference (if appropriate).

Dec. 12, 2008. 

Issuance of notice concluding Pre-filing process.Dec. 29, 2008. 

Issuance of ILP Waiver request determination.Dec. 29, 2008. 

p. Register online at http://ferc.gov/ 

esubscribenow.htm to be notified via email of new filing and issuances related 

to this or other pending projects. For 

assistance, contact FERC Online 

Support. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–24664 Filed 10–16–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Combined Notice of Filings #1 

October 9, 2008. 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following electric corporate 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: EC09–2–000. 

Applicants: Black Hills Wyoming, Inc. 

Description: Black Hills Wyoming Inc 

submits an application for approval for 

transaction to sell a 23.5% undivided 

ownership interest in an electric 

generating facility etc. 

Filed Date: 10/06/2008. 

Accession Number: 20081008–0154. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Monday, October 27, 2008. 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following electric rate 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: ER01–1071–012; 

ER06–9–007; ER05–1281–007; ER03– 

34–011; ER06–1261–006; ER03–1104– 

008; ER03–1105–008; ER06–1392–005; 

ER08–197–005; ER07–904–003; ER98– 

3566–017; ER98–4222–013; ER98–2076– 

015; ER08–250–002; ER07–174–006. 

Applicants: Badger Windpower, LLC; 

FPL Energy Burleigh County Wind, LLC; 

FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC; FPL 

Energy Hancock County Wind, LLC; 

FPL Energy Mower County, LLC; FPL 

Energy North Dakota Wind, LLC; FPL 

Energy North Dakota Wind II, LLC; FPL 

Energy Oliver Wind, LLC; FPL Energy 

Oliver Wind II, LLC; FPL Energy Point 

Beach, LLC; FPL Energy Power 

Marketing, Inc.; Hawkeye Power 

Partners, LLC; Lake Benton Power 

Partners II, LLC; Langdon Wind, LLC; 

Osceola Windpower, LLC 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES