ML20205C546

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Informs That Discretion Proposed Does Not Fall Under Section VII.B.5 & That Section VII.B.6 Should Be Used.Disagrees with OI Since OE Are Adopting Sol'S Finding of Discrimination Vs OI Finding of No Discrimination
ML20205C546
Person / Time
Issue date: 11/01/1995
From: Linda Watson
NRC
To: Rosano R
NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE)
Shared Package
ML20205B966 List:
References
FOIA-99-76 NUDOCS 9904010260
Download: ML20205C546 (1)


Text

. . . _

From: Li da J. Watson (LJW2)

To: RR l

Date: Wednesday, November 1, 1995 3:03 pm

Subject:

Harrison Case

.I have read the enforcement policy on discretion,Section VII.B.

As I read the policy, the discretion proposed does not fall under VII.B.5, therefore we will have to use VII.B.6. This means we will need D' OR approval and will have to issue a 5-day EN to the Commission. Do you agree?

In addition, we will be disagreeing with OI since we are adopting the SOL's finding of discrimination vs. OI's finding of no discrimination. ' Under the Enforcement Manual Section 2.11, we will need to consult the Commission, i.e., write a Commission paper, unless we get agreement with OI that the Commission does not need to be notified. If we get agreement, we will have to make the EN an SEN, not for public disclosure under this clause. The region believes that OI will agree to go ahead with the action. Do you coordinate this or do I?

I have called M. Harding at TVA and requested the TVA/S&W 1etters j we discussed. l

)

I l

l

)

I i

l l

r

)

/

(

9904010260 990324 '~"~ LI '

! PDR FOIA '

[j)i, my - QUNTER99-76 PDR .-

j