ML20205M161
| ML20205M161 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1996 |
| From: | Rosano R NRC |
| To: | Linda Watson NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205M044 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-99-76 EA-95-220, NUDOCS 9904150157 | |
| Download: ML20205M161 (1) | |
Text
.
l From:
Richard Rosano/M To:
WNP3(JFW1)
Ta <pn UJ. i i.cuni, #4/
Date:
1/30/961:38pm i
Subject:
Browns Ferry /SWEC EA %220 -Reply -Reply Thanks for the editorial comments.
As for the penalty: There should not be any " uncertainty" about the violation As I argued l
before Jim Lieberman, we have to decide whether there was a violation or not. The
" closeness" of the call relates to how much evidence there was available, not how much evidence there was. The " closeness" of the call also does not mean the,re was only a 'little bit' of discrimination. There's either discrimination or there is not. Once v'e decide that there was discrimination, we must set aside the issue of evidence and move or, to the appropriate i
sanction. (By the way, your comment about the SOL is essentially '.:orrect. We do accept the SOL's decision and although we don't go into it with our eyes clo<,ed, we seldom challenge his decision as a matter of policy.)
Once we decide there was a violation, we move to OE's " metro map" to decide the sanction. If the violation is willful (which all discrimination is by definitien), and if it was not identified by the licensee (the licensee cannot be given credit for identifierAion when the violation came to light via a DOL complaint), a base civil penalty is the minimum. Considerations of corrective action will then determine whether the penalty should go up f rom there.
This may not win you over, but I wanted to explain what went into the decision. Let us know about NRR concurrence ASAP. Thanks.
CC:
JRG j
l C
(3 99o415o157 990413 (l
l GUNTER99-76 PDR M64Ih