ML20195F228
| ML20195F228 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1985 |
| From: | Hayes B NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | Toensing V JUSTICE, DEPT. OF, ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195E886 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-25 NUDOCS 8806240250 | |
| Download: ML20195F228 (3) | |
Text
~
n
,**4 g
.c, UNITED sT ATEs
- [,' ' ~ #{ j NUCL E AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION a
E W ASHINGTON D C 705%
I. f E g..../
February 26, 1985 Victoria Toensin;, Esquire Deputy Assistant Attorney General Crininal Division Department of Justice 10th & Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530
Dear Ms. Toensing:
The Office of Investigations initiated an investigation upon receipt of an allegation that Louisiana Power and Light Company (LP&L) terminated a corpo-rate security department investigation regarding auxiliary reactor operator drug use and purposely did not fully advise the NRC of its investigative findings.
During the course of this regulatory investigation, testimony was provided by two witnesses to the NRC investigators which may not be truthful and consequently possibly violative of 18 U.S.C. 1001.
The 0! investigation regarding the above referenced regulatory allegatir n is attached for your information.
That allegation, even if substantiatea, could not form the basis for a criminal referral for the following reasons.
- First, although there is a requirement that the general health of an applicent for a reactor operator's license must be adequate to ensure the"e is no health related operational error, there is no clearly proscribed procedure /or developing and reporting such negative health information to the NRC.
- Indeed, these types of situations (e.g., abuse of alcohol or controlled substances) are handled in different manners by licensees depending upon each utility's corporate "fitnesses for duty" rules.
Second, the licensee (LP&L) in this case advised the NRC resident inspector of the drug allegation.
The NRC resident inspector in turn notified the NRC Region IV Deputy Administrator.
The subjects of this referral arE Messrs. Janes M. Cain, President and Chief Executive Officer, LP&L, and Roth S. Ledcick, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Operatior,s, LP&L.
These individuals were irterviewed during the course of the above mentioned 01 regulatory investigation.
Mr. Cain advised the NRC inves-tigators in a sworn statenent that he had not been made aware of the LP&L drug investigation until several hours before the NRC investigative interview.
During the course of the Cain interview, Mr. Leddick, who was also present, orally advised the NRC investigators that he also had not been previously apprised of the LP&L drug investi0ation.
Mr. Leddick orally advised the NRC Region IV Administrator similarly about two weeks later.
An interview of Willian Cavanaugh,Ill, President and Chief Operating Officer of Mississippi Power and Light (MP&L), who was Mr. Leddick's predecessor at LP&L, stated he briefed Cain regarding the LP&L drug investigation on several occasions and had also briefed Leddick concerning this matter prior to his resignation from LP&L.
8806240250 000615 EY 5
PDR t,,/ 7,,
,e
\\
ff
Victoric Toensing
?
Mr. Cain became aware of Mr. Cavanaugh's testinony sh0rtly af ter it was provided to 01.
Cain then provided 01 with an unsolicited supplemental written statement. Cain advised that although he did not dispute Mr.
Cavanaugh's recollection, he could not recall such briefings taking place.
Once the Cavanaugh interview was determined to contair informatior which was 4
contrary to Mr. Leddick's spontaneous declaration during the Cain interview, it was decided that he too should be interviewed.
Consequently, a statement was prepared for Mr. Leddick's signature.
The statement reflected the comment I
he made during the Cain interview and the above referenced meeting with the NRC Region IV Administrator.
When Mr. Leddick was provided with the proposed l
statement, he and his counsel made numerous changes. These changes reflected a shif t in his testimony from denying being briefed on the LP&L drug case to being unable to remember whether he was briefed on the matter.
Upon close questioning, both leddick and his attorney admitted that the changes in the statement were made because leddick had just become aware of the content of the Cavanaugh statement.
An 01 interview of the LP&L Waterford Steam Electric Station Plant Manager indicated he had also briefed Leddick about the drug investigation in about the same timeframe as Cavanaugh's Leddick briefing.
Lastly, Mr. Leddick subsequently voluntarily provided 01 with a draf t "fitness for duty policy memorandum which he had received fror. Mr. Cavanaugh shortly before his departure from LP&L. The memorandum generally referenced the LP&L drug investigation as a reason for the new policy initiative regarding drug and alcohol abuse.
On the one hand, it could be argued that these two top corporate executives had many issues confronting then daily and that it was retsonable for both Cain ard Leddick, if actually briefed, to have forgotten ' he information.
However, it is equally plausible that neither Cair. or lednick would have forgetter briefings on an issue which could have a seriou ircact on the LP&L licensing schedule, furthermore, the issues brought abeu: as a result of the LP&L invest gation, such as, the ternination of one a.,siliary reactor operator 4
(AR0); the counseling and rehabilitation of two other AP.Ts; the strengthering of LP&L's fitness for duty policies; the corporate disctssions relative to LP&L's right to dictate off-duty conduct of employees; snd the requiring of an employee to submit to polygraph examination and urinelysis testing, could lead a reasonable person to believe that no senior corporate executive could forget such briefings.
It should be noted that no evidence was developed in the 01 regulatory inves-tigation which indicates either Cain or Leddick were responsible for tenninat-ing the LP&L drug investigation, in fact, Mr. Leddick did not join the LP&L organization until af ter the drug investigation was initially terminated.
Victoric Toensinc
?
In light of the evidence of a possible Federal criminal violation, this repcrt and exhibits are being forwarded to you for whatever action you deem appropri-ate.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Roger A. Fortuna, Deputy Director, Office of Investi-gations, at (301) 492-9604 i
Sinc y,
i y
Ben B. Hayes i ect r Office of Inves 'gations Enclosure-As stated i
cc w/o encl:
Chairman Palladino Cmanissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Commission Zech
,