ML062160292: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 03/23/2005
| issue date = 03/23/2005
| title = E-mail from Vito to Blough, Call Back to RI-2003-A-0110 Alleger
| title = E-mail from Vito to Blough, Call Back to RI-2003-A-0110 Alleger
| author name = Vito D J
| author name = Vito D
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-I/DNMS
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-I/DNMS
| addressee name = Barber G S, Blough A R, Cobey E W, Teator J A, Wiebe J S, Wilson E P
| addressee name = Barber G, Blough A, Cobey E, Teator J, Wiebe J, Wilson E
| addressee affiliation = NRC/RGN-I
| addressee affiliation = NRC/RGN-I
| docket = 05000272, 05000311, 05000354
| docket = 05000272, 05000311, 05000354

Revision as of 13:54, 13 July 2019

E-mail from Vito to Blough, Call Back to RI-2003-A-0110 Alleger
ML062160292
Person / Time
Site: Salem, Hope Creek  PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 03/23/2005
From: Vito D
Division of Nuclear Materials Safety I
To: Barber G, Blough A, Cobey E, Teator J, Joel Wiebe, Elizabeth Wilson
NRC Region 1
References
1-2003-A-0110, FOIA/PA-2005-0194
Download: ML062160292 (1)


Text

David Vito -Call back to RI-2003-A-01 10 alleger Page 1 I Dayid Vito -Call back to R1.-12P03-A_-01 10 alleger.Page 1 1 From: To: Scott Barber Date:

Subject:

David Vito A. Randolph Blough; Ernest Wilson; Eugene Cobey; Jeffrey Teator; Joel Wiebe;3123/05 8:14AM Call back to RI-2003-A-0110 alleger-SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFORMATION

--PROTECT ACCORDINGLY

-Pe Rand Vs request, I got in touch with the alleger yesterday.

Regardin the transcrij romm her civil suit, she will be sending it to my P.O. Box.claims that he lied under oath during the civil suit"-and that we should not rely on his testimony (r. ur assessment of her other issues).She also indicated that she intends to provide the NRC with as much additional information as she is allowed to provide related to her civil suit. She indicated that she does not believe she can provide information produced under discovery (per judge's order), but that the judge's order does not preclude her from providing transcripts of depositions.

She indicated that there were many "lies and untruths" stated during the civil suit.I don't know if this would or should be relevant to the outcome of our discrimination review. While she did not say this specifically....it would appear that she would like us to review whatever she may provide related to her civil suit, and consider it within the context of our discrimination review. Just some food for thought.CC: Daniel Holody; Jessie Quichocho; Karl Farrar; Leanne Harrison; Sharon Johnson Information in this record was deleted in accordance with the Freedom of Informatlolt Act, exemptions FOIA-Vi