ML20246H518

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Staff Requirements Memo Re Commission 890707 Affirmation/ Discussion & Vote in Rockville,Md Re SECY-89-200A Rev to Order in Response to Util Request for Clarification of Licensing Status of Plant
ML20246H518
Person / Time
Issue date: 07/12/1989
From: Chilk S
NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To: Parler W
NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
References
REF-10CFR9.7 M890707, NUDOCS 8907170124
Download: ML20246H518 (1)


Text

- -_

o UNITED STATES -

IN-RESPONSE, PLEASE NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION REFER TO:

M890707

!{ g, g

W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 qj 4

July 12, 1989 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMOR1.NDUM FOR:

William C.

Parler, General Counsel FROM; el J. Chilk, Secretary

SUBJECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS --AFFIRMATION / DISCUSSION AND VOTE, 11:00 A.M.,

FRIDAY, JULY 7,

1989, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)

I.

SECY-89-200A - Revision to Order in Resoonse to Philadelphia Electric ComDany Recuest for Clarification of Licensina Status of Limerick. Unit 2 i

The Commission, by a 4-0 vote,* approved an order responding to a motion of Applicant Philadelphia Electric Company ("PECO")

-for clarification of the licensing status of the Limerick Generating Station, Unit 2.

The order found that the NRC staff, upon making the appropriate finding pursuant to 10 CFR Cec. 50.57, may issue a low power license.

The order also indicated that the Commission is deferring its ruling regarding full power authorization until it conducts its immediate effectiveness review for Limerick, Unit 2, in accordance with 10 CFR Sec. 2.764 (f) (2).

(Subsequently, on July 7, 1989, the Secretary signea the Order.)

cc:

Chairman Carr Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss EDO GPA R - Advance CS - P1-24

  • Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5841, provides that action of the Commission shall be determined by a " majority vote of the members present."

Commissioner Roberts was not present when this item was affirmed.

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

Commissioner Roberts, however, had previously indicated that he would approve this paper and b^

had he been present he would have affirmed his prior vote.

8907170124 890712 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDC

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -