ML20211A773

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Staff Requirements Memo Re Commission 861002 Affirmation/ Discussion & Vote in Washington,Dc on SECY-86-268 Concerning Withdrawal of Proposed Rule on Consideration of Earthquakes in Emergency Planning & SECY-86-271
ML20211A773
Person / Time
Issue date: 10/10/1986
From: Chilk S
NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To: Parler W
NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
References
REF-10CFR9.7 M861002, NUDOCS 8610170008
Download: ML20211A773 (2)


Text

4 IN RESPONSE,fPLEASE g#%

REFER TO:

M861002 4

UNITED STATES 8

1, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M[

{

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 k*****/

October 10, 1966 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR:

William C. Parler, General Counsel ax FROM:

8 / Eamuel J. Chilk, Secretary P

SUBJECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFFIRMATION / DISCUSSION AND VOTE, 3:30 P.M., THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2,

1986, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, D.C. OFFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)

I.

SECY-86-268 - Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Regarding Consideration of Earthquakes in Emergency Planning The Commission by a 5-0 vote,* approved a Federal Register Notice which withdraws the Commission's proposed rule amending 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E and sets forth the Commission's explanation for its decision.-

Commissioner Bernthal provided the attached modifications to his separate opinions to be included in the Federal Register Notice.

Commissioner Bernthal's revised separate views should be incor-porated into the FRN, the FRN should be reviewed by Rules and Records.for conformance with the requirements of the Federal Register, and forwarded for signature and publication.

(OGC)

(SECY Suspense:

11/3/86)

  • Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. S5841, provides that action of the Commission shall be determined by a

" majority vote of the members present."

Chairman Zech was not present when this item was affirmed.

Accordingly, the formal vote of the Commission was 4-0 in favor of the decision.

Chairman Zech, however, had previously indicated that he would l

. approve this paper and had he_been present he would have affirmed his prior vote.

l

~ ~

e61017ooos 861010

j PDR 10CFR U

PDR

.iP.T9.7

4 i e' II. - SECY-86-271 - Options for Response to Presiding Officer's Recommendation that Formal Hearings be Convened for Sequoyah Fuels Corporation UF6 to UF4 Conversion Facility The Commission by a 3-2 vote,* approved an order in response to a memorandum dated July 3, 1986 from Judge Frye the presidin'g officer for the Sequoyah Fuels informal adjudicatory proceeding.

The memorandum suggested that the Commission convert the hearing into a formal, trial-type adjudication under the procedures set forth in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G.

In the order the Commission declines again to exercise its discretion to apply its procedures governing formal adjudication to this particular licensing proceeding.

Commissioner Asselstine disapproved the order, and would have applied formal adjudication procedures to the hearing.

Commissioner Bernthal approved in part and disapproved in part; he would have asked the intervenors to demonstrate that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding the relationship of the January 4 accident'to the proposed conversion facility.

If they met that threshold he would have convened a formal hearing.

(Subsequently, on October 3, 1986 the Secretary signed the Order.)

cc:

Chairman Zech Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner-Carr Commission Staf f Of fices EDO PDR - Advance DCS - 016 Phillips

  • 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."

Chairman Zech was not present when this item was affirmed.

In order to allow the will of the majority to prevail, Commissioner Asselstine did not participate in the formal vote on this paper. 'Accordingly, the formal vote of the Commission was 2-1 in favor of the decision.

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

Commissioner Asselstine had indicated his disapproval and had he participated he would have disapproved.

. -