ML20043E611
| ML20043E611 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/07/1989 |
| From: | Jonathan Montgomery NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Yandell L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043E518 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-89-540 NUDOCS 9006130199 | |
| Download: ML20043E611 (5) | |
Text
, w w,g 4.g,,...
9,_
-u-
-(D
- ' s
.)
UMTM) Stafeg
[.
((.
g_
,A NUCLEAR R$OULATORY COMMISSION REC M U L
i neone ev att nVAN PLAaA oAP 8. autT81000
$) @ l7 N 1 AnumeTom.tras ani AT4t -71999 Mr. Lawrence A. Vande11. Director Division of Resource Management and Administration Region IV-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Re: Notice of Proposed Suspension for 14 Calendar Days
Dear Mr. Vande11:
In order to promote the efficiency of the Federal servue, I propose to suspend you from your position of Director, Division of R6 source Management and Administration, GG-341-15/6, Region IV, U.S. Nuclear 9egulatory Commission
-(NRC), for 14 calendar days. This action, if taken, will be effective not earlier than 15 calendar days from the date of your receipt of this letter, not counting the cate of-receipt. This action is proposed in accordance with NRC Appendix 4171, Part V,
- Discipline Adverse Actions and Separations".
The background and specific charges en which this proposal is based are set forth below.
-BACKGROUND-You began your career with NRC, Region IV, in Arlington, Texas, on November 19,1979, as a Reactor Inspector (Nuclear Engineer), GG-840-13, in the Reactor Operations and Nuclear Suppcrt Branch, Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
On May 31,198_, you were promoted te e GG-840-14 Reactor inspector. On 1
January 10,1982, you were reassigned to the Senior Resident inspector position at the-nuclear plant in Fort Calhoun, Nebraska..On September 29, 1985, you were promoted to Section Chief,151301-15 Emergency Preparedness and Safeguards programs Section in the Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards and you returned to Arlington, Texas. On MRy 10, 1987, as the result ~of a reorganization you became the Chief of the Radiological Protection and Safeguards $ ranch in that Division, where you served until April 24, 1988. At that time, you were assigned to your present position of Director, Division of Resource Management and Administration, on a rotational assignment.
In 1984, the Houston Lighting and Power Company (HL&P) sought to fill the position of Manager, Nuclear Security Section, Corporate Security Department at the South Texas Pro, ject (STP), HL&P.: Mr. James Kelly, a Region IV Physical Security Specialist, applied for that pcsition at that time. The position was subsequently filled by Pr. Andrew 0. Hill in 1984 Mr. Ronald Caldwell, a.
Region IV Physical Security Specialist, also applied for employment with HL&P
-9006130199 900416
-33 (lC PDR-FOIA M I-GARDEO9-540 PDR
(
_,y j
, T
))
'L pp.T 589
.t.
in 1985. The Nuclear Security Section became the Nuclear Security Division, (NSD) STP, HL&P, in early 1985.
In late 1986, Region IV security inspectors began their inspection of the South Texas Project (STP) pursuant to a request from the Houston Lighting and Power Company (ML&P) to construct and operate a nuclear power plant. There were numerous problems and disagreements existing between the le ion IV and STP security staffs. These problems steamed, % part, from the act that key STP security personnel were former NRC employees who interpreted NRC regulations and their applications differently then did the Region IV inspectors.
By April 1987, it was clear STP had a significant number of security program related issues needing resolution before the approval to load fuel could be granted.
It. June 1987, Region IV management escalated its efforts to be responsive to the needs of STP's fuel load schedule by requiring the Region IV inspettors and, you, as their supervisnr, to stay on location and review the
- steps STP was taking to implement the security program without any significsnt delay.
During the Susser of 1987, rumors were circulating at STP that Region IV inspectors were biased in their findings of deficiencies of the STP security 3rogram. The rumors alleged that Region IV inspectors were retaliating for seing denied employment in-the security group at STP, and that they were racially biased _ These rumors further exacerbated the working relationships between STP personnel and Region IV inspectors.
On July 15,1987 you met with Mr.- R.J. Rehkugler, an HL&P investigator assigned to investigate Nuclear Security Department (NS0) matters. On July-
'20,1987, you met with HL&P managers Mr. James Geiger and Mr. Michael Powell, and Region IV inspectors to address the rumored allegations. According to Mr.
Geiger's notes of _ the July 20th meeting, you stated that you were "very concerned, that even at the Jerry Goldberg (HL&P1/ Bob Martin level, it was being stated that what HL&P has done is acceptab'e and that the NRC _ inspectors are out to get HL&P."
Despite this confrontational meeting to address the rumors, there was no satisfactory resoldtion.
Subsequently, in late July 1987, the matter of the rumors and previous employment solicitation of both Mr. Caldtsell and Mr. Kelly as well as your meetings with Mr. Rehkugler and Mr. Geiger,-were brought to the attention of Mr. Robert Martin, Regional Administrator, Region IV. Mr. Martin referred the matter to the Office of Inspector and Auditor (01A), NRC. You were informed
't, of this referral. DIA then began an investigation.
In August / September 1987, Mr. Ronald Caldwell, a subordinate of yours at the 4"r,
time, made an ea9loyment ineuiry to HL&P. You brought it to our attention in February 1988 when you became aware that 01A was investigating this matter as S.," f a part of its everall investipation of the STP situation. At that point, you were told to take Mr. Caldwel, off of the STP project to prevent any
-perception by STP/HL&P officials that there was a conflict of interest.
This proposed action is not intended to reflect poorly on your inspection efforts to assure that STP was adequately protected from safeguards y
,m_
~d PPR - T loci
(
3 vulnerabilities. Nevertheless, certain aspects of your conduct, as described in the following paragraphs, cannot be condoned.
SPECIFIC CHARGES Charge No.1: Poor judgement in carrying out your supervisory responsibilities.
10 CFR 0.735-49a which states:
An employee shall avoid any action, whether or not specifically prohibited by this Part 0, which might result in, or create the appearance of:
(f) Affecting adversely the confidence of the public in the integrity of the Government.
Subsequent to Mr. Martin's decision to refer the matter to 01A, and, while m oors and tension still persisted at STP between the Region IV inspectors and STP security personnel, Mr. Caldwell approached you in August / September 1987 concerning his interest in soliciting empicyment for the position of Manager, MSD, STP. This position had been recently vacated by Mr. Andrew Hill. 'Mr.
Caldwell pointed-out appropriate provisions of 10 CFR Part 0 pertaining to employment solicitation. Although you advised Mr. Caldwell you did not think it wise for him to solicit such employment, you recused him from STP inspection matters and permitted him to proceed. Mr. Caldwell telephoned Mr.
Gerald E. Vaughn, HL&P, to express his interest in the security manager's position at.STP, The negotiation was unsuccessful, and Mr. Caldwell told you later the same morning that Mr. Vaughn would not consider him for employment.
- At this point you permitted Mr. Caldwell to resume his STP inspection functions. Despite the sensitivity of this matter, you did not report this solicitation for employment to your supervisor, Mr.. Richard Bangart,'to me or to Mr. Martin at that time. In all cases you exhibited extremely poor judgement.
~
You were knowledgeable of the allegations and tension at STP in August / September 1987 and of Mr. Martin's intentions to forward the matter to 01A for-investigation. Therefore, you should have been more sensitive to the possibility that solicitation of Mr. Hill's former position by one of your inspectors could land credence to the rumors that Region IV inspectors were biased in their inspections as reprisal for their previous employment denials by STP. You should have also recognized that by allowing Mr. Caldwell to continue his STP inspection functions you would'make available another instance of employment denial to be used to perpetuate the rumors. In addition, your failure to recognize the pctential conflict of interest implications and failure to inform Mr. Bancart, me or Mr. M6ttin of Mr.
Caldwell's employment. inquiry prevented us from being fully informed on a matter.of obvious-importance. Your extremely poor judgement permitted and contributed to activities which may have resulted in loss of confidence in the 1
S 9
--c--
,e.
m my. r.
.m
& * $ hh i
4
-4 NRC. In addition, your failure to infors your supervisors prevented them from addressing the conflict of interest implications quickly.
Charee No. 2: Intypropriate conduct in your official dealings.
10 CFR 0.735-49a which states:
An employee shall avoid any action whether or not specifically prohibited by this Part 0, which might result in or create the appearance of:
(d) losing complete independence or. impartiality.
In your July 15, 1987 meeting with Mr. Rehkugler, you indicated, according to Mr. Rehkugler's notes of the meeting, that Region IV inspectors had " warned" STP that their security program would not be ready to support fuel load. You stated that HL&P managers had attempted to deliberately deceive Region IV managers in meetings held at Region IV in June 1987 by saying all was ready to-load fuel. You stated that the working relationship between the HL&P HSD and NRC Region IV security inspectors was very poor. Mr. Rehkugler's minutes from the July 15, 1987 meeting indicate that you made ' derogatory statements about HL&P fpersonnel) throughout the interview, articular 1{ addressed at Messrs.
J.H. Goldberg, G.E. Vaughn, A.O. Hill, and..J. Ryley.
Mr. Rehkugler's minutes report that you " impugn [ed) the competence and integrity of HL&P personnel" and said that HL&P would likely be "the most recalcitrant licensee we've ever dealt with" once the licet.e was issued. He stated that you told
~
him, in effect, that MRC inspectors probably operated outside the scope of established regulations and that STP was being held up as an example for the industry just to prove a point. so that Region IV would not be embarrassed by a-Regulatory Effectiveness Review. team; Mr. Rehkugler also indicated that you stated something to the effect that, "You people [HL&P] never thought that-security would hold up licensing of your plant just because it dosen't hold (licensing) in other plants. Well, we showed you." Further, Mr. Rehkugler's -
notes indicated that you stated, you are "in Region !Y now'.
In addition, Mr. Rehkugler stated that you told his certain individuals at STP.
would "have to go" because they were not acceptable in their positions, although-he said you did not specifically name anyone. Mr. Rehkugler stated that you lacked professionalism in the attitude you took toward him, toward NSD and toward HL&P management. He reports that when he took exception to your characterization of HL&P as being recalcitrant and untrustworthy, you smiled at him and said "you're a good utility man." Mr. Rehkegler stated that in a meeting unrelated to the July 15th' meeting, you called hir aside, while other HL&P personnel were in attendance, and pointed out in a voice loud certain items in a report as examples of where enough to be overheard b'y them,Rehkugler believed this to be unprofessional HL&P personnel had " lied'; Mr.
Also, Mr. Mark McBurnett, en HL&P manager, stated that you indicated conduct.
to him that-the STP personnel who would have to go in order for STP to receive its license were Mr. Andrew Hill, Mr. Larry Ryley, and Mr. David Moore.
m
e
~
~
.. n.
~
a,;
W - 7 toen l'O In my view, the above comments attri5uted to you were inappropriate and
(
prejudicial. Even though there may haet been sufficient evidence in your mind to support such views of HL&P personnel, 9xpressing them in the way you did served no constructive regulatory purpose ed was unprofessional. Although your meethg with Mr. Rehkugler was held in the context of his investigation, it is incunbent upon you-in such situations to conduct yourscif, especially as a manager, in a manner that is impartial and 00jective. Clearly, Mr.
- Rehkugler did not view your conduct during your meetings with him as impartial and objective. Although there is a thin line between complete candor and lack i
of impartiality, it is a distinction which you as a representative of NRC must be able to recognize. Your comments clearly created the appearance of you losing your independence and impartiality "ith regard to STP.
i
'I will be the deciding official in this proposed action. You may reply to this notice orally or in writing, or both. You may also submit affidavits and other documentary evidence in support of your reply. You are entitled to be represented by an attorney or other representative of your choice. An additional copy of this proposed notice is enclosed for your representathe I
should you choose to have one. You are not entitled to a hearing or examination of witnesses at this time. You will be allowed 14' calender days from the date of your receipt of this memorandum to submit a reply. You will be given 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of official time for use in preparing your answer. You may request this time from me. Your written reply, if any, may be mailed to me at the following address:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 611 Ryan Plaza j
Orive, suite 1000, Arlington, Texas 76011, or may be sent through i
L inter-of fice mail.
If you wish to make an oral reply, you may make an appointment, to do so by calling me at x226. The material relied upon for this proposed notice is enclosed.
If you believe thtt you need additional time to submit your answer and secure affidavits, you may request it of me.
If such time is allowed, it will be confirmed.in writing. If you care to discuss the personnel regulations pertinent to this action or to obtain additional ~information on how to reply, you may contar.t Ms. Huel Meadows, Senior Labor Relations specialist, Office of Persannel, at FTS 492-4692.
No decision to suspend you has been made or will be made until.the time 1
allowed for you to answer has expired.
h., respe.se you make will be considered carefully by me before I maka a decision. Whether or not you j
choose to respond, a written notice of decision will be delivered.t or before 4
the effective date of the action, if ore is taken. During the auvance notice j
period, you will continue in a duty stetus.
N D
fl
\\
% Q egional
,R ohn M. Mo. r Administrator V l
Region IV
,.. -,,