ML19318C691
| ML19318C691 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/06/1979 |
| From: | Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Stoiber C NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007020168 | |
| Download: ML19318C691 (2) | |
Text
--
'TXO.5%(
3 Da ff9,,N.
a up. EAR R A OR COMMISSibN CRETARIAT RECORD COPJ J
'P*
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
[
~~~~"
- aEw
/
March 6,1979 ifi.f.~
CFFICE OF THE
-'.. ?b COMMISSIONER F
,f"".5..
~"
$5 EdE:
Memorandum for Carlton R. Stoiber Ih Assistant General Counsel i
- e=E=E
.h.
N From:
R. T. Kennedy [ g Q g:
Subject:
REVISED CIVIL PENALTIES LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL 553 g-I. share the Chairman's concerns expressed in his February 26 memorandum k
on this subject.
Before any meeting on this subject, I would appreciate liL your response to the following questions regarding the revised proposal:
g:,:.yj;{:.i-di:ii~
.l.
How many times in the past was the maximum fine asked for by the Staff? How often granted by the Commission?
4gijis 2.
Why did Congress originally provide for de novo review in the
[n=
District Court? Does the removal of the penalty ceiling and dL the increase in the maximum penalty make such de novo review more or less desirable now?
{}".....
3.
Is the " substantial evidence" stano rd of review applicable to the finding on the amount of penalty, as well as the factual detennination?
,d,{5.
i-Or is the standard " abuse of discretion?"
MILL
' 4.
Are more specific statutory. guidelines as to the appropriate amount
$f5..
- 5=.. :=.
of the fine (e.g., past history of violations, severity of violation, qiE!?
or size of lic.ensee) desirable or necessary?
i;=?=
u 5.
Could you specify in what sense the civil penalty proceeding)?
[j,~,',~
is
" equivalent" to the other named proceedings in section 234(c E.~=.
- .c:.:.:=.
6.
Is not the proposed addition in section 234(b)(3) fully and more hgg !
appropriately covered by section 234(e)?
=: = \\
7.
Should there be limitations as to the District in which a civil
_h l' iEEE action may be brought E 2.--
8.
Should section 234(c) specify who may request a hearing?
.b=
[EE.E
- jEE:
cxE
- h.-E.l Ei"=..L Mfhh:h B0 07010 g%
c A
- g, s
s::
&pDI-
, r.y LI
. ". ~.
.a. 5=
-.-......-W
~
t Q 1-a-
tj -
- c; 3
4-
=.;
Also note the followNg coments:
{i}E 1.
Page 15 - Last line should read "act or omission."
E--
t". ":.:.'.":
p 2.
Page 10 - First full sentence 'is unclear -- the statute does grant 2"'
a right to a hearing.
ZZZ cc:
Chairman Hendrie
- 5. 55.
Comissioner Gilinsky Z::" ~
Comissioner Bradford Comissioner Ahearne.
[.
L. V. Gossick, EDO
+
C. Kamerer, OCA E!!E A, Kenneke, Acting Dir., OPE
$5
[S. J. rMik, SECY
~
J. Fouchard, Dir., OPA
!!?::
J. Davis, Acting Dir.. I&E ish E=
E E"
=:.
.. b"
=T.2:.
- .~":::
g= = -
g...
"..=
$E.
. nn <
HEEE i
="E
- EE:';::
E.E";
5.5 s_--...
f.3E t:==
e--
.