ML20195F241

Documents Investigative Efforts in Response to Allegation That Louisiana Power & Light Co (Lp&L) Corporate Security Dept Investigation Re Drug Use by Util Reactor Operators Suspended Prior to Conclusion by Lp&L Mgt

ML20195F241
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	02/27/1985
From:	Hayes B NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI)
To:	Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI)
Shared Package
ML20195E886	List: ML20195E882 ML20195E909 ML20195E914 ML20195E919 ML20195E928 ML20195F124 ML20195F149 ML20195F188 ML20195F204 ML20195F220 ML20195F228 ML20195F241 ML20195F248 ML20195F300 ML20195F347 ML20195F402 ML20195F420 ML20195F455 ML20195F523 ML20195F561 ML20195F587 ML20195F616
References
FOIA-88-25 NUDOCS 8806240254
Download: ML20195F241 (2)

Text

^. ,

gt"; IIGg'o

' UNITED STATES i[

['

k 7

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 s,***** , February 27, 1935 MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert D. Martin, Regional Administrator Region, IV FROM: Ben B. Hayes, Director

{

Office of Investigations

SUBJECT:

h WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 3--ALLEGED CONCEALMENT OF DRUG ABUSE ACTIVITY BY LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT REACTOR OPERATORS (4-84-043)

The enclosed Office of Investigations' (01) report of investigation documents 01 investigative efforts in response to an allegation that a 1983 Louisiana Power & Light Company (LP&L) Corporate Security Department investigation which had identified drug use by a number of Waterford 3 reactor operators was suspended prior to its conclusion by LP&L manage-ment. It was further alleged that no corrective or disciplinary action was taken by LP&L, and that the results of that investigation were suppressed.

Our investigation established that: (1) LP&L's Corporate Security Department did conduct such a drug investigation at Waterford 3 during the period May-July 1983 which identified three LP&L auxiliary reactor operators as being involved in recent use of marijuana; (2) LP&L's investigation was suspended at the request of LP&L senior management because of what LP&L tenned its disruptive influence on candidates who were to take an NRC examination; (3) LP&L's investigation was not reinitiated; (4) some disciplinary action was taken by LP&L against the employees identified by the tenninated investigation as having used drugs. The weight of the evidence developed did not indicate that the results of the LP&L investigation were suppressed.

Notwithstanding the disposition of the original allegations, the 01 investigation developed an additional concern of significance--apparent conflicting statements by members of top LP&L management regarding their knowledge of the LP&L drug investigation.

It is our view that the weight of the evidence indicates Mr. Leddick was aware of the existence of the drug investigation prior to November 1984.

Consequently we believe that he attempted to deceive the NRC when he denied that he had prior knowledge. Similarly, we find his assertion that he does not recall being briefed on the matter unpersuasive. We base this conclusion not only on both documentary and testimonial evidence, notably the testimony of Messrs. Cavanaugh and Barkhurst, but also on the totality of the circumstances.

^

e80624o254 800615 5 PDR NEY < , pg

g a$

Robert D. Martin 2 Februa ry 27, 1985 Based on the conclusion that Mr. Leddick appears to have deliberately attempted to deceive the NRC, a referral was made to the Department of Justice on February 26, 1985. In this case, the putative criminal violation may be 18 U.S.C. 1001.

Neither this report nor memorandum may be released outside the NRC without the permission of the Director, Office of Investigations.

Internal NRC access and dissemination must be on a need and right-to-know basis.

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/ encl:

Commissioners W. J. Dircks , ED0 (3)

\;R. K. Herr, 01:RIV l

l

. - . - . . . _ - . , ,., . - , - - . _ -.-... ... -. ~ . .. .--.