Skip to Content


Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation; Notice of Partial Denial of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Opportunity for Hearing

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble Start Printed Page 58437

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) has denied part of a request by Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (the licensee) for an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-42 issued to the licensee for operation of the Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS), located in Coffey County, Kansas.

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of this amendment was published in the Federal Register on July 26, 2000 (65 FR 46010).

The purpose of the licensee's amendment request was to revise Appendix C, “Antitrust Conditions for Kansas Gas and Electric Company [KGE],” for the WCGS operating license. The revisions (1) add a statement that the antitrust conditions do not restrict the rights of Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (KEPCo) or the duties of Kansas Gas and Electric Company (KGE), that may exist beyond, and are not inconsistent with the antitrust conditions, (2) define “KGE members in licensee's service area” in the appendix to include all KEPCo members with facilities in Western Resources' and KGE's combined service area, (3) delete license conditions restricting KEPCo's use of the power from WCGS, (4) remove out-of-date conditions, and (5) update conditions to be consistent with the terms and conditions of Western Resources' Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) open access transmission tariff. Western Resources is the parent company of KGE.

The NRC staff has concluded that the licensee's proposed deletion of part of Antitrust Condition 2(a) that KGE shall offer an opportunity to participate in other nuclear generating unit(s) (other than WCGS) which KGE may construct, own, and operate, and the proposed deletion of references to Condition 2(a) in Appendix C cannot be granted. The basis for the NRC staff's denial and a more complete description of what part of Condition 2(a) cannot be granted, are documented in the safety evaluation dated September 6, 2002, that supported Amendment No. 147 that approved the remaining parts of the licensee's proposed amendment. The licensee was notified of the Commission's partial denial of the proposed change by letter dated September 6, 2002.

By 30 days from the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, the licensee may demand a hearing with respect to the denial described above. Any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding may file a written petition for leave to intervene.[1]

A request for hearing or 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 (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the above date. Because of continuing disruptions in delivery to mail to U.S. Government offices, it is requested that petitions for leave to intervene and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to A copy of any petitions should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and because of continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to U.S. Government offices, it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to A copy of any petitions should also be sent to Jay Silberg, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037, attorney for the licensee.

For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the application for amendment dated June 27, 2000, and its supplements dated January 31, 2001, May 2, 2001, October 30, 2001, and May 10, 2002, and (2) the Commission's letter to the licensee dated September 6, 2002.

Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and will be accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site​reading-rm/​adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to

Start Signature

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of September 2002.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

William H. Ruland,

Director, Project Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

End Signature End Preamble


1.  “The most recent version of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, published January 1, 2002, inadvertently omitted the last sentence of 10 CFR 2.714(d) and subparagraphs (d)(1) and (2), regarding petitions to intervene and contentions. Those provisions are extant and still applicable to petitions to intervene. Those provisions are as follows: “In all other circumstances, such ruling body or officer shall, in ruling on—

(1) A petition for leave to intervene or a request for hearing, consider the following factors, among other things:

(i) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding.

(ii) The nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding.

(iii) The possible effect of any order that may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.

(2) The admissibility of a contention, refuse to admit a contention if:

(i) The contention and supporting material fail to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section; or

(ii) The contention, if proven, would be of no consequence in the proceeding because it would not entitle petitioner to relief.”

Back to Citation

[FR Doc. 02-23463 Filed 9-13-02; 8:45 am]