ML20247Q803

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Staff Requirements Memo Re 890524 Affirmation/Discussion & Vote in Rockville,Md on Commission Response to Motion to Reconsider Seabrook Order CLI-89-8.Order Denied Motion to Reconsider
ML20247Q803
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 06/02/1989
From: Chilk S
NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To: Parler W
NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
References
REF-10CFR9.7 CLI-89-8, M890524, NUDOCS 8906070052
Download: ML20247Q803 (1)


Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

IN RESPONSE, PLEASE

  1. 'g o uc,o" UNITED $TATES REFER TO: M890524 j' "

J *h.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

)

g W ASWNCTON, D.C. 20555 gs y

%*****aI' June 2, 1989 OFFICE OF THE SECR ET ARY MEMORANDUM FOR:

William C.

Parler, General Counsel Ph FROM:

[ LSamuel J. Chilk, Secretary

SUBJECT:

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

WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 1989, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLMID (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)

I.

Commission Response to Motion to Reconsider Seabrook Order (CLI-89-8)

The Commission, by a 4-0 vote,* approved an Order responding to a May 22, 1989 petition from the Massachusetts Attorney General to reconsider the decision in CLI-89-8 to deny interveners' application for a stay of issuance of the Seabrock low power license.

The Order denied the motion to reconsider.

Commissioner Curtiss did not participate in this matter.

(Subsequently, on May 24, 1989, the Acting Secretary signed the Order).

cc:

Chairman Zech Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Carr Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss l

EDO GPA PDR - Advance DCS - P1-24

  • Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec.

l 5841, provides that action of the Commission shall be l

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 3-0 in favor of the decision.

Chairman Zech, however, had previously l

indicated that he would approve this paper and had he been present he would have affirmed his prior vote.

()ft>>

8906070052 890602

(

PDR 1DCFR q

PT9.7 PDC D

L____

_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _.