ML20244D104
| ML20244D104 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/26/1984 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236J492 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-577, TASK-PINV, TASK-SE SECY-84-417, NUDOCS 8411090394 | |
| Download: ML20244D104 (3) | |
Text
_-
m
,u a
,+
x
+
y+
r.wg+ q s
/p
\\
6-pa ang s:
s, y $ 7/sy 7
s 4
3
%,.....f
,7 g
POLICY ISSUE t
o j
(Notation Vote)
' "f 1 1 1
October 26,'1984' i
U, SEcY-84-417 l
}
For:
The Consission
(
l From:
William J. Dirck x
Executive Director for Operations l
Een Hayes', Director ffice of Investigations 9,
Subject:
DELEGATION OF SUBPOENA AUTHORITY
Purpose:
To delegate to the Director of the Office of Investigations the authority to issue subpoenas during the course of investigations.
,l
\\
Discussion:
By memorandum dated July 20, 1982 the Connission approved f' SECY 82-239 (June 9, 1982) and delegated W e authority to issue subpoenas to _the Executive Directoh for W
Operations. Under that authority subpoenas havelbeen issued in five matters.
In two cases subpoenas' have
been issued to support staff action.
Irfthree cases, including TMI'where 47 subpoenas were'jssuc6 subponnas were issued under the ED0's authority tossupport GI's' investigations. The staff issued subpoe &, at the request of O! because OI does not have the independent authority to issue subpoenas.
Inpractice,theregional01investi&atorhasworked' with the Regional' Counsel and the Office of the Executive Legal Director in preparing a memorandum to the Executive. Director for Operations, a. ' draft Consission memorandum,-and a draft subpoena. Following discussions at the EDO level with appropriate staff efficials and the Office of-Investigations, a memorandum is sent to the Commission informing the Commissioners of the proposed issuance of a subpoena, as is currently required under
/p'),(
b
Contact:
James Lieberman, OELD lip f
/
492-7496 5
d vctn-s?-s vr f
~P 3
\\
u.x s.
q v~
i
.+
}
I?
Y jj (Ol s
1 y
- 2'-
.o
.; ;Q: '
R
%g
'lf
- k e
xh' the Comission's.~ delegation:off subpoena authority; to' the.-
u Y
f 7 @.$
staffs for. the first ten cases. Frequently discussions! '
. are also held with the Office of General Counsel.-
Ll s
f'.y 7 In those cases where the subpoena is being'used.to sugspoEt 1
~f an 01' investigation the staff function in reviewing a, '
1
+
! subpoena is essentially {1)l assuring an adequate legal g i basis for issair.g the subpoena, (2) questipMng whether the;
.I
?! M 2 agency has' exhausted other mechanisms for obtaining.the.
f WP -
information and (3) assuring.on balance that. the subpoena f vg.,
':is the appropriate mechanism to cutain the information.We ll
,1 ;
S" r. consider. this' review process to be proper for staff l
i cdA
- j
- subpoenas. However, this review may'not be always j
f
' appropriate for-01 requested subpoenas in. view of the l
q3 separation between the 01 and staff organizations. L!t may-I; 'J
, y' N p SpW also'not be the.:most efficient way. for 0I to obtain a.
9 4
.. subpoena..
c'N J
1 The' staff. and 01 agree that O'I'should be delegated.
i l
authority to issue subpottms. OI'would consult with the staff before issuing a subpoena to determine whether.the
-staff already Ms the infomation being' sought.,
I t
<u Recommendation:
- That the Comission delega e,to the Director, Office of q
^
~
Investigatfontsthe authorhy to issue subposas when 0
,'c
- necessary orp.ppropriate forthe conduct of 4
' M <%ginvestigatjpnm g(
~
0-2l A l'
jl h
- g.,
Willi.,J. D N c b,/
]i p : f" g
7 y
- fe Direc '" or 0 atiods
.)
. J '/l
~
g V
.i %
y' w l'N,
en Hayes. Dirsc r l
4 OfficolofIWpti ti s A:
i ~
x g
u;x z_
m
, (..
";'l ).
o.iy,'
,/*
.J.
(
,!lr i
K N
g
,y w[! m
.Q (I.
v ( ',.
((
1"
.t
', p.
,,f.
1
} g ;,
p
';t%'
l y s s'
s 4,;
1
]l l
r c
\\<
9 J
- > m,.
3.
q l
3 3
Coac h doners' comments or consent sh uld be provided directly toi t hd 0df] ice lof the Secretary by*c.'o.b. Friday, November.9, 1984.
st i,
f r, s
je e C
- e. j s
l Ccemidn'.)cn Staff Office comuneni.s,'!lfi any, should be submitted
?
'4 t!g commissioners'NLT Fridcy, Now mber 2,~1984, with an izjocr tion copy to the Office,of the Secretary.
If.the papr is of 'such a-nature that it requires additional. time '
u i
cforihnalytical review and comment, the Commissioners and.
the' Secretariat 1should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
t DISTRIBUTION:-
Commissioners
- ooc,
.s OPE.
5 c.
O' OI i,d t
OCA I5 t
g On'
('
OPA REGIONAL OFFICES EDO ELD ASLBP
-ASLAP
.SECY.
n, V
/*-
\\
6 pa naug W
l p
A if/7p, a
a;
\\...../
1 POLICY l'SSUE (Notation Vote).
October 26, 1984-SECY-84-417
.For:
The Consnission
(
From:
William J. Dirck 3
Executive Director fbr Operations 7
DM I}en Hayes, Director ffice of Investigations
Subject:
DELEGATION OF SUBPOENA AUTHORITY
Purpose:
.To delegate to the Director of the Office of Investigations the authority to issue subpoenas during 4
the course of investigations.
Discussion:
By memorandum dated July 20, 1982 the Commission approved i
SECY 82-239 (June 9, 1982) and delegated the authority to issue subpoenas to the Executive Director for Operations. Under that authority subpoenas have been issued in five matters.
In two cases subpoenas have been issued to support staff action.
In three cases, including TMI where 47 subpoenas were issued, subpoenas were issued under the ED0's authority to support 01's investigations..The staff issued subpoenas at the request of 01 because 01 does not have the independent authority to issue subpoenas.
4 In practice, the regional OI investigator has worked with the Regional Counsel and the Office of the Executive I
Legal Director in preparing a memorandum to the Executive Director for Operations, a draft Commission l
memorandum, and a draft subpoena. Following discussions L
at the ED0 level with appropriate staff officials and the Office of Investigations, a memorandum is sent to the Commission informing the Consissioners of the proposed issuance of a subpoena, as is currently required under
Contact:
James Lieberman, OEL6 9h 4 492-7496 g6 go,n-s w n
'D 'S
/
a r
n
2 the Coninission's delegation of subpoena authority to the staffs for the first ten cases.
Frequently discussions are also held with tne Office of General Counsel.
In those cases where the subpoena is being used to support l-
' an 01 investigation the staff function in reviewing a L
subpoena is essentially (1) assuring an adequate legal basis for issuing the subpoena, (2) questioning whether the agency has exhausted other mechanisms for obtaining the f
infonnation and (3) assuring on balance that the subpoena is the appropriate mechanism to obtain the infonnation. We consider this review process to be proper for staff subpoenas. However, this review may not be always l
appropriate for 01 requested subpoenas in view of the separation between the OI and staff organizations.
It may" also not be the most efficient way for OI to obtain a subpoena.
~
The staff and 01 agree that OI should be delegated.
authority to issue. subpoenas. 01 would consult with the staff before issuing a subpoena to determine whether the staff r.1 ready has the information being sought.
Recommendation:
That the Coninission delegate to the Director, Office of Investigations, the authority to issue subpoenas when necessary or appropriate for t.he conduct of investigations.
Willi
'J. Dircks Exec e.Direc or 0 e tio's
+
/
en Hayes, Direc r Office of Investi ti s
P e
e
m
- Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.c.b. Friday, November 9, 1984.
Consnission Staff Office comments, if any,. should.be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Friday, November 2, 1984, with an information copy to the Office of the_ Secretary.
If the 1
- paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for; analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should'be apprised of when comments may be
' expected.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners
- OGC OPE i
OI i
OCA.
OIA i
OPA.
REGIONAL OFFICES EDO ELD ASLBP ASLAP SECY' i
I l
t i
0