ML20195D079

Memorandum (Questions for Parties at Prehearing Conference).* Joint Motion Filed by Commowealth of Ma & New England Coalition on Nuclear Power for Order Staying Effectiveness of License Amend 104 Granted.Served on 880621

ML20195D079
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	06/20/1988
From:	Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
CON-#288-6531 87-547-02-LA, 87-547-2-LA, OLA, NUDOCS 8806230029
Download: ML20195D079 (2)

Text

o 6,55/

000EErip UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UWC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD E & 21 A9 58 Before Administrative Judges u nc:; o; y ,e ,

DOCKELN.; 6 . i , <:t Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman 8kN Glenn 0. Bright Dr. James H. Carpenter SERVED JUN 211988 In the Matter of VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR ) Docket No. 50-271-0LA POWER CORPORATION )

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear ) (ASLBPNo. 87-547-02-LA)

Power Station) )

) June 20, 1988 MEMORANDUM (Questions for Parties at Prehearing Conference)

On June 13, 1988, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the New England Coalition on Nuclear Power (NECNP) filed a Joint Motion for an order staying tha effectiveness of License Amendment 104, granted by the NRC Staff on May 20, 1988. At the prehearing status conference scheduled for Tuesday, June 28, 1988, the Applicant and Staff, and other parties that wish to do so, are requested to be prepared to respond to certain aspects of that motion. Specifically, parties are invited to r

address the following questions (which are supplementary to the matters l

! spelled out in the Notice of Prehearing Status Conference dated May 24, l 1988, published at 53 Fed. Reg. 19836, May 31, 1988):

1. What effect (if any) will the issuance of Amendment 104 to the Vermont Yankee operating license without an Environmental Assessment l

l l 8806230029 880620 PDR ADOCK 05000271 0 PDR f

i 2 l 1

l (EA) or any other environmental review by the NRC Staff (as set forth in the Joint Motion) have on the schedule for potential litigation of environmental contentions (such as former Contention 3 in this proceeding) which are dependent upon the issuance by the NRC Staff of an EA? See ALAB-869, 26 NRC 13, 32-34 (1987).

2. What is the "independent utility" (if any) of the activities authorized by Amendment 104? See Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. (West Chicago Rare Earths Facility), LBP-84-42, 20 NRC 1296, 1314 (1984);

Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3), ALAB-664, 15 NRC 1, 7-10 (1982); Duke Power Co. (Amendment to Materials License SNM-1773--Transportation of Spent Fuel from Oconee Nuclear Statien for Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station), ALAB-651,14 NRC 307, 311-15 (1981).

3. What activities (if any) have been carried out pursuant to the authority granted by Amendment 104? What is the schedule for further activities?

The foregoing questions were communicated by telephone to parties' representatives on June 20, 1988. Parties should respond in writing to the Joint Motion, on the schedule provided by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.730(c).

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD n a ur Cha'rles Bechhoefer, Chayman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 20th day of June, 1988.