ML20244D976
| ML20244D976 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/04/1986 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Asselstine, Palladino, Roberts NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235A568 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-577 NUDOCS 8606200367 | |
| Download: ML20244D976 (8) | |
Text
l, l
sa tstg'o,.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
f,
- E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k*****,
JUN 04 g g i
i l
4 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Palladino l
Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Zech j
FROM:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS WITHOUT PRIOR CONSULTATION WITH THE COMMISSION On July 20, 1982, the Commission delegated to the Executive Director for Op-erations the authority to issue subpoenas during the course of investigations i
or inspections.
In this connection, the Commission requerted that the Execu-tive Director for Operations advise it in advance of the staff's intention to exercise subpoena authority, at least for an initial trial period of about 10 As permitted under the Commission's delegation to the EDO, this au-cases.
thority to issue subpoenas has been re-delegated to the Regional Administra-tors and the Director of IE.
l We have now sought approval to issue subpoenas in eight cases.
In three cases subpoenas were sought at the request of the Office of Investigations.
A brief summary of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of a subpoena -
in each of these cases is enclosed.
In no instance in which the staff has proposed to issue a subpoena has the Commission declined to approve issu-ance.
Judicial enforcement has been necessary under Section 233 of the Atomic Energy Act in only one case to date.
In our view, the circumstances in which the staff has chosen to exercise the authority to issue subpoenas have been reasonable und discreet.
Legal concurrence from OELD has always been received and issuance of the subpoenas has been coordinated with the Office of Investigations as required in NRC Manual Chapter 103-0311.
Accordingly, I believe that the trial period has demonstrated that the staff's exercise of the subpoena power has been appropriate and that prior Commis-sion's approval is no longer necessary.
In addition, although Commission approval can be obtained rapidly, as in the recent Golden Gate Forge and Flange case, the formality of obtaining prior approval can result in delay in issuing a subpoena, particularly where rapid service and return of the sub-CONTACT:
Stephen G. Burns, OELD x27268 Fo% A-F7-577 T4 m
bb h
{S Of-u
j i
2 l
poena is necessary to obtain information.
In the absence of the Commission's instruction to the contrary, the staff does not intend in the future to seek j
prior approval and give prior notification of the issuance of subpoe-i As the EDO has in the past, I will continue to exercise final approval
{
nas.
over issuance of subpoenas by the staff. The staff will notify the Commission j
that a subpoena has been issued.
]
l Original sigralltip Victor Stello Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
As stated cc: SECY OGC i
OPE M
E.
DIST:
Y
- loilffC, ROED Rdr ROED Subj
"' / b d WD ELD Rdr JLieberman/SBurns Info SChidankel Chron EDO/TRehm /JSniezek /JRoe KC/RH/WP/LD Info NRC Central JTaylorr IE HDenton, NRR JDavis, NMSS Reg. Admi.vistrators HRagan, OELD OCunningham/JMurray, OELD EDO R/F l
OFC
- ROED
--.....................!b./:Y...EDO
- RO D
- OELD lNAME
..........%.....k el /ar / c t :
- S SB erman
- G Cu,nnin
- VStello
...... :..gf7/-..gh am 5/p/86 DATE : 5/30/86
- 5/30/86 M~.6
- 5/
/86
+,
Enclosure COMMISSION APPROVED SUBPOENAS 1._
PETER STOMFAY-STITZ ISSUED BY: Region III (1/12/83) l i
l FACTS:
Mr. Stomfay-Stitz was one of three persons raising allegations filed by an intervenor with.the Licensing Board in the Byron proceeding.
Region III conducted a special inspection regarding the matters raised by the allegers and attempted at length to arrange for an interview with Mr. Stomfay-Stitz.
(
Mr. Stomfay-Stitz, however, insisted as a precondition of the interview that he be granted immunity, although he was advised that the NRC had no au-thority to grant immunity and that the U.S. Attorney had stated that his allegations did not merit grand jury investigation.
Mr. Stomfay-Stitz's testi-mony was considered essential to the completion of the inspection, and inspec.
tion results were necessary as part of the preparation of testimony in the
{
licensing proceeding.
For this reason, and in view of the fact that the dead '
line for filing testimony was in approximately a month, the Region subpoenaed Stomfay-Stitz's testimony.
2.
47 EMPLOYEES AT TMI-2 ISSUED BY: Region I, at request of OI (9/1/83)
FACTS:
OI requested Region I to issue subpoenas for the testimony of 47 l-individuals who had. been working at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 facility wn-s?-rr7
. immediately prior to the March 1979 accident.
01 needed to interview these individuals in order to complete its investigation into the alleged falsification of leak rate test data, and to determine the validity of the Hartman. allega-tions concerning leak rate test irregularities.
The subpoenas were required because' the individuals indicated that they would not voluntarily talk to NRC investigators concerning leak rate test practices in light of the ongoing Grand Jury proceeding on similar issues.
The Commission denied a motion to quash the subpoenas, though it modified the place of return of the subpoenas. Wh'en the individuals did not honor the revised subpoenas, judicial enforcement was sought.
Although the court issued an order to enforce the subpoenas, the order was withdrawn at the request of the Department of Justice because of an ongoing Grand Jury inquiry.
Once the statute of limitations had run on potential criminal violations committed by the individuals, the case was dis-missed by joint stipulation of the parties, and the employees agreed to talk to NRC investigators.
3.
THOMAS BRANDT ISSUED BY: Region IV (12/20/83)
FACTS:
Brandt was a QA supervisor employed by Texas Utilities Generating Company at Comanche Peak Electric Station.
His testimor.y was sought in connection with an ongoing investigation of the alleged improper termination of William Dunham, a Brown and Root employee, and the possible intimidation of QA/QC coatings inspectors which may have resulted.
The Region believed that Brandt might have had information relevant to the investigation because.
' s.
- b'y virtue of his position, he might have had knowledge of the circumstances surrounding Dunham's discharge.
A subpoena was necessary because Brandt stated that he would respond ~ to questioning regarding these matters. only pursuant to a subpoena.
4.
. RAY MILLER CO., INC.
ISSUED BY: Director of IE (4/16/84) 4 FACTS:
DOJ conducted an investigation of Ray Miller Co., Inc.. based on its determination that Ray Miller had supplied nonconforming materials for use in construction of nuclear facilities.
IE issued information notices and a bul-letin concerning this matter.
During the DOJ investigation, Ray Miller Co.
provided documents to DOJ.
IE was informed that the period of DOJ's reten-tion of the documents was ending, raising the likelihood that they might be disposed.
The attorney for Ray Miller Co. indicated that he would provide -
the documentation if subpoenaed.
IE issued a subpoena based upon its belief that NRC might require further reference to these documents in dealing with responses to the IE bulletin and as a result of information developed by 11-censees concerning potentially defective Ray Miller products.
5.
DOW CIIEMICAL CO.
j ISSUED BY:
Region III, at request of OI (9/12/84)
FACTS:
A subpoena was issued for documents obtained by Dow Chemfcal Company from Consumers Power Company, Bechtel Corporation and others
1
. during civil litigation between Dow and Consumers to which the NRC was not a party.
01 considered these documents essential. for the disposition of its investigation into alleged irregularities within the soils QA program at Midland Nuclear Power Station.
OI believed that these documents might indicate that Consumers and Bechtel had knowledge of soil problems at Midland prior to the i
time they acknowledged such problems in hearings before the Licensing l
i Board.
Dow would not release the documents in the absence of a subpoena because. protective orders in the civil litigation precluded its voluntary relea'se of documents designated " confidential", but permitted release of such docu-ments where such disclosure was made pursuant to subpoena or other compul-sory process.
6.
HERB JAN ISSUED BY: Region III, at request of OI (11/6/84)
FACTS:
01 conducted an investigation of events surrounding the licensee Nuclear Pharmacy's failure to perform molybdenum-99 breakthrough tests which resulted in an initially undetected breakthrough event and misadministration of radiological pharmaceuticals.
Jan, a Registered Pharma-cist, had been involved in the breakthrough incident, and 01 sought to inter-view him with regard to his knowledge of the licensee's failure to perform the tests and apparent false certification that the tests were performed, and with regard to whether deliberate efforts were made by licensee management and staff to deceive the NRC by providing false information. Jan declined to pro-vide information without being served with a subpoena, but stated that if
served with a subpoena he would cooperate with NRC investigators. For this 1
reason, a subpoena was issued.
7.
JOE MACKTAL SOUGHT BY: Region IV (Commission approved 2/86; subpoena not issued)
FACTS:
Mr. Macktal, a former electrical foreman at Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, claimed to have information regarding alleged safety concerns at Comanche Peak.
However, the Government Accountability Project (G AP),
which provided representation to Mr. Macktal, interposed conditions to be met before the NRC could gain access to Machtal, and indicated it would advise Macktal and others not to respond to Region IV efforts to interview him but to respond only to NRC representatives of the Comanche Peak Technical Re-view Team.
The Region's informal efforts to interview Mr. Macktal failed,,
and the staff sought approval to issue a subpoena.
When the staff informed GAP that a subpoena would be issued in the absence of an agreement to have Mr. Macktal appear at a specific time and place for an interview GAP agreed to schedule the interview in lieu of the subpoena.
8.
GOLDEN GATE FORGE AND FLANGE CO.
ISSUED BY: Region V, at the request of IE (5/16/86)
FACTS:
The Acting Administrator of Region V issued a subpoena to Golden I
i Gate Forge and Flange Company at the request of the Director of IE to obtain
, documents pertaining to material supplied to others which it represented as meeting the standards applicable to nuclear components. Region V issued the subpoena rather than IE in order to effect more rapid service of the subpoena on the firm, which is located in the San Francisco area. Officers of the com-pany had been found guilty of supplying substandard material to the Depart-ment of the Navy for use in the nuclear navy, and the company apparently has supplied flanges which it inaccurately represented as meeting the require-ments for the ASME Code to Consolidated Pipe and Valve Company, which then supplied the flanges to the D.C. Cook Plant. The staff determined that an examination of Golden Gate's records would assist it in determining to whom the material had been supplied and whether any purchasers further supplied the material for nuclear applications.
However, Golden Gate refused to allow IE's Vendor Program Branch to inspect its records and facilities. In view of this refusal, the staff determined that a subpoena was appropriate to compel production of records which would indicate the extent to which Golden '
Gate had supplied materials to the nuclear industry.
Since the subp'Ana has been issued, the company has made a tentative agreement to permit an in-spection of its facilities and records without NRC having to seek judicial en-forcement of the subpoena.
l
~
j## "4 UNITED STATES Cys Stello
,1
- t, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Roe 3
j WASHINGTON, D.C. 20656 e
s
%,**..+/
GCunningham Lieberman OFFICE OF THE June 17, 1986 Denton sacnerAny Taylor Davis Regions I-V OI MEMORANDUM FOR:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Exec ti e Director for Operations FROM:
gamuel
. Chilk, Secretary SUBJECT ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS WITHOUT PRIOR ICONSULTATIONWITHTHECOMMISSION This is to inform you that the Commission does not object to.
your exercising final approval over issuance-of subpoenas by the staff without prior consultation with the Commission as outlined in your June 4, 1986 memorandum.
cc:
Chairman Palladino Commissioner Roberts l
Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Zech OGC OPE l
l 1
i F
b o t A-97-517 1
3'1 EDO --- 001858 k~S$YS0048 bah
.f p,
}7
)
Stello Roe
- .e w %k UNITED STATES Rehm i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Zer)e i
)
3 l
+'
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 g,
j; 0 r/f c
T.P.
MAR 191987 A
MEMORANDUM FOR:
James G. Veopler, Director 1
Office of Special Projects FROM:
Victor Stello, Jr.
i Executive Director for Operations i
SUBJECT:
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS j
Effective February 9,1987', the Office of Special Projects was established.
Thet office is to efficiently and aggressively:
- 1) assure the identification
.and resolution of those problems which gave rise to the shutdown of TVA's l
Sequoyah and Browns Ferry facilities, and of steps necessary to prevent their recurrence; and 2) evaluate TVA's Watts Bar and Bellefonte and Texas Utilities' Comanche Peak facilities in order to determine compliance with the Commission's regulatory requirements; to assess whether identified problems are on a path to an acceptable solution, and where not, to identify acceptable solutions necessary to enable the staff to complete its licensing reviews of these facilities, consistent with the NRC's statutory mandate to protect the. health and spfety of the public.
To carry out these functions, the Office of Special Projects is hereby delegated the authority to:
Take all actions, except as enumerated helow, associated with the licensing of the TVA facilities and the Comanche Peak facility, including I
determinations of complierce with or issuance of exemptions from the i
regulations.
The Director, Office of Special Projects, is not delegated the authority to issue or revoke construction permits or operating licenses. That authority is retained by the EDO.
Perform all safety and environmental reviews and evaluations and issue associated safety evaluations, environmental assessments, environmental impact statements, and other related documentation necessary to support its advice and recommendations to the EDO reoarding licensing decisions pertaining to the TVA and Comanche Peak facilities.
Cenduct inspection activities related to the licensing of the TVA and Comanche Peak facilities.
Conduct enforcement activities including conduct of enforcement conferences, issuance of notices of violation pursee.nt to 10 CFI 2.?01, and issuance of proposed civil penalties pursuant to 10 CFR 2.205 subject to the approval of the Director, Office of Inspectier, and Enforcement, until April 12, 1907, and thererfter, the Peruty Executive Director for Reqional Operations, i
FoI A-BF517
$9#1T62 (v @ GT 3 y.
M
_2
+
Issue orders for the modification nr suspension of licenses pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 and 2.204.
Enforcement orders are to be coordinated with the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations. Licensing orders are to be coordinated with the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Take appropriate action on requests by persons under 10 CFR 2.706 to modify, suspend, or revoke a license, or for such other action as may be proper.
Take necessary or appropriate action in accordance with the decision of an Adm.inistrative Law Judge, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel, or the Commission after hearings, pursuant to.10 CFR Part 2.
Serve as the principal point of contact for the NRC with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards for matcers under review by OSP.
Develop. procedures to assure the timely scheduling, review, and processing of all matters under review by the Office.
Administer oaths and affirmations, and issue subpoenas where necessary and appropriate pursuant to section 161c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to enable the Director to conduct examination of matters within the functions and authorities of the Office of Special Projects.
Identify research needs required for the above programs.
Issue appropriate Federal Register notices in connection with the actions delegated herein, including notices which offer an opportunity for public hearing in connection with the action proposed to be taken, whether or not required by statute or the Commission's regulations.
Supervise, direct, coordinate, and approve the activities, including administrative functions, of the various organizational units within the Office.
Perform such other functions as may be assigned.
Redeleoation:
The Director may, except where expressly prohibited, redelegate to others the authority delegated to the Director by this or other official directives or communications, sub,iect to the linitetions stated herein and to such other stipulations as the Director may decm necessary.
l
-3 I
l l.
Such redelegation must be made in writing and a copy filed with the 4
Executive Director for Operations, SECY, OGC, RM, and ADM.
The Director may stipulate any limitations on further redelegations of
]
authority which the Director redelegates.
i To the extent that this delepation is inconsistent with my February 10, 1987, memorandum establishing the Office of Special Pro,iects, this delegation supersedes that nemorandum.
Original signed by Victor Stello, -
l i
l l
Victor Stello, Jr.
1 l
Executive Director for Operations i
l cc:
Office Directors Regional Administrators l
l l
i
JUL 0 81987 MEMORANDUM FOR: James G. Keppler, Director Office of Special Projects FROM:
Victor Stello, Jr.
l Executive Director for Operations
~
SUBJECT:
RESCISSION OF SU8POENA AUTHORITY Effective this date, I am rescinding the authority given to you to issue subpoenas in my March 19, 1987 memorandum, " Delegation of Authority to the Office of Special Projects." Any future requirements for the issuance of subpoenas in carrying out your assigned functions should be requested through me. These requests will receive high priority and immediate attention.
If there are any questions related to this rescission of authority, please contact me.
Original signed by 21_ctstSte n e,
1 Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations Distribution:
VStello JTaylor TRehm JJohnson EDO r/f h
10ED
- A0/0EDO y :ED0' I
....:..........:....O.......:............:............:............:...........
g...
- VSt 'l '
lJJoh s n
...... :..../. o
!7/6/07
- 7/0 /87
- 7/ /87 OFFICIAL. RECORD COPY h1 A ~67-877
-WQAd$%.tVff 1 P.
3%
Y J
vs