Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 10, 2000 / Notices 60225

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) The nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made a party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

If the amendment is issued before the

expiration of the 30-day hearing period,

the Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. If a

hearing is requested, the final

determination will serve to decide when

the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendment

and make it immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendment.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, located at One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the

above date. A copy of the petition

should also be sent to the Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, and to M. Stanford

Blanton, Balch and Bingham, Post

Office Box 306, 1710 Sixth Avenue

North, Birmingham, Alabama, attorney

for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated September 8, 2000, as

supplemented by letter dated October 2,

2000, which are available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, located at One White

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first

floor), Rockville, Maryland, and

accessible electronically through the

ADAMS Public Electronic Reading

Room link at the NRC Web site (http:/

/www.nrc.gov).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day

of October, 2000.

L. Mark Padovan,

Project Manager, Project Directorate II–1,

Division of Licensing Project Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–25917 Filed 10–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–U

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–391]

Tennessee Valley Authority; Watts Bar

Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is considering

issuance of an extension of the latest

construction completion dates specified

in Construction Permit No. CPPR–92

issued to Tennessee Valley Authority

(permittee, TVA) for the Watts Bar

Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 2. The

facility is located at the permittee’s site

on the west branch of the Tennessee

River approximately 50 miles northeast

of Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action would extend

the latest construction completion date

of Construction Permit No. CPPR–92 to

December 31, 2010. The proposed

action is in response to the permittee’s

request dated October 13, 1999, as

supplemented by letter dated July 14,

2000.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed to

grant the licensee the option of

completing construction on WBN Unit 2

in the future. The construction permit

expired in December 1999. The

permittee requested the extension for

Unit 2 due to the delay in the

completion of Unit 1 and TVA’s

decision to maintain Unit 2 in a

construction layup status pending

TVA’s determination of further options

to meet future electric power demands.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The environmental impacts associated

with the construction of the facility

have been previously discussed and

evaluated in TVA’s Final Environmental

Statement for construction (FES–CP) of

WBN, Units 1 and 2, issued on

November 9, 1972. NRC staff evaluated

the environmental impacts of

construction and operation of this plant,

issuing comments on TVA’s FES–CP as

60226 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 10, 2000 / Notices

part of its review. In December 1978,

NRC staff issued a Final Environmental

Statement for the operating-license stage

(FES–OL), which addressed the

environmental impacts of construction

activities not addressed previously in

TVA’s FES–CP. The activities included:

(1) Construction of the transmission

route for the Watts Bar—Volunteer 500

kV line; (2) construction of the settling

pond for siltation control for

construction runoff at a different

location from that originally proposed

in the FES–CP; and (3) the relocation of

the blowdown diffuser from the

originally proposed site indicated in the

FES–CP. The staff addressed the

terrestrial and aquatic environmental

impacts in the FES–OL, as well as

historic and archeological impacts, and

concluded that the assessment

presented in the FES–CP remains valid.

A supplemental Final Environmental

Statement related to the operation of

WBN Units 1 and 2 was issued in April

1995. Environmental issues evaluated

included changes to regional

demography, natural resource use,

meteorology, ecology, impacts to

humans and the environment, and

socioeconomic impacts, including

environmental justice issues. The staff

concluded that there were no significant

changes to the environmental impacts

discussed in the 1978 FES–OL due to

changes in plant design or operation, or

changes in the environment.

Furthermore, the staff concluded that no

additional impacts not previously

discussed in the NRC’s 1978 FES–OL

related to construction of Unit 2 were

expected.

Since the NRC’s latest review, all

candidate species have been removed

and the bald eagle delisted from the

Federal threatened and endangered

species list issued by the Fish and

Wildlife Service. The licensee has no

plans to construct additional

transmission lines or disturb any land

that has not been discussed in previous

environmental reviews. Socioeconomic

impacts were evaluated in the

supplement to the FES–OL issued in

1995. No additional impacts are

expected.

The construction of Unit 2 is

approximately 65 percent complete;

therefore, most of the construction

impacts discussed in the FES have

already occurred. This action would

only extend the period of construction

as described in the FES. It does not

involve any different impacts as

described and analyzed in the original

and updated environmental impact

statements. The proposed extension will

not allow any work to be performed that

is not already allowed by the existing

construction permit. The extension will

merely grant the permittee more time to

complete construction and modification

in accordance with the previously

approved construction permit.

Based on the foregoing, the NRC staff

has concluded that the proposed action

would have no significant

environmental impact. Since this action

would only extend the period of

construction activities described in the

FES, it does not involve any different

impacts or a significant change to those

impacts described and analyzed in the

original environmental impact

statement. Consequently, an

environmental impact statement

addressing the proposed action is not

required.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

A possible alternative to the proposed

action would be to deny the request, or

the no-action alternative. This would

result in expiration of the construction

permit for Watts Bar, Unit 2. This option

would require submittal of another

application for construction in order to

allow the permittee to complete

construction of the facility with no

significant environmental benefit. The

environmental impacts of the proposed

action and alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of resources not previously considered

in the FES for Watts Bar.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on October 2, 2000, the staff consulted

with the Tennessee State Official, Ms.

Joel Key, regarding the environmental

impact of the proposed action. The State

official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

On the basis of the environmental

assessment, the NRC concludes that this

action will not have a significant effect

on the quality of the human

environment. Accordingly, the NRC has

determined not to prepare an

environmental impact statement for this

action.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the licensee’s request for

extension dated October 13, 1999, as

supplemented July 14, 2000. Documents

may be examined, and/or copied for a

fee, at the NRC’s Public Document

Room, located at One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),

Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available

records will be accessible electronically

from the ADAMS Public Library

component on the NRC Web site,

http://www.nrc.gov (the Electronic

Reading Room).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 3rd day

of October 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Richard P. Correia,

Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate II,

Division of Licensing Project Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

[FR Doc. 00–25915 Filed 10–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–U

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Excepted Service

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This gives notice of positions

established or revoked under Schedule

C in the excepted service, as required by

Civil Service Rule VI, Exceptions from

the Competitive Service.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam

Shivery, Acting Director, Washington

Service Center, Employment Service

(202) 606–1015.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office

of Personnel Management published its

last monthly notice updating appointing

authorities established under the

Excepted Service provisions of 5 CFR

213 on September 20, 2000 (64 FR

56966). Individual authorities

established under Schedule C between

August 1, and August 31, 2000, appear

in the listing below. Future notices will

be published on the fourth Tuesday of

each month, or as soon as possible

thereafter. A consolidated listing of all

authorities as of June 30 will also be

published.

Schedule C

The following Schedule C authorities

were established during August 2000.

Department of Agriculture

Confidential Assistant to the

Administrator, Farm Services Agency.

Effective August 4, 2000.

Staff Assistant to the Administrator,

Farm Service Agency. Effective August

4, 2000.

Confidential Assistant to the

Administrator, Rural Housing Service.

Effective August 11, 2000.

Confidential Assistant to the Under

Secretary for Food Safety. Effective

August 11, 2000.

Confidential Assistant to the

Administrator, Foreign Agricultural

Service. Effective August 14, 2000.

Confidential Assistant to the

Administrator, Rural Utilities Service,