ML20059A923

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Staff Requirements Memo Re SECY-93-281, Motion by Five Star Products & Construction Products Research to Quash Subpoena Issued by Office of Investigations. Commission Approved Order Responding to Motion to Quash Subpoena
ML20059A923
Person / Time
Issue date: 10/22/1993
From: Chilk S
NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To: Parler W
NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
References
REF-10CFR9.7 M931021, NUDOCS 9310270220
Download: ML20059A923 (1)


Text

r oic

'o UNITED STATES

! \\ ),-q ti,^g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$/'

s WASHINGTON.D.C.20sss IN RESPONSE, PLEASE h?'

II REFER TO:

M931021 o,

g, %s g /

October 22, 1993 i

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR:

William C. Parler General Counsel FROM:

Samuel J.

Chilk, Secretar 5

l

SUBJECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS - A1FIFMATION/ DISCUSSION AND VOTE, 11:30 A.M.,

RSDAY, OCTOBER 21, i

1993, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)

I.

SECY-93-281 - Motion by Five Star Products and Construction Products Research to Ouash a Subpoena Issued by the Office of Inves.tications The Commission, by a 4-0* vote, approved an order responding to a motion to quash a subpoena issued by the Office of Investigations.

The order denied the motion to quash and established a new enforcement date for the subpoena of November 1,

1993.

(Subsequently, on October 21, 1993, the Secretary signed the Order.)

cc:

The Chairman Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque EDO OCA OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)

_fDR - Advance VDCS - Pl-24

  • Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C.
55841, provides that action of the Commission shall be determined by a

" majority vote of the members present."

Commissioner Remick was not present when this item was affirmed.

Accordingly, the formal vote of the Commission was 3-0 in favor of the decision.

Commissioner Remick, however, had previously indicated that he would approve this paper and had he been present he would have affirmed his prior vote.

i 0' n /c '*Sl 9310270220 931022 v

PDR 10CFR 1

PT9.7 PDR

<,