ML20195F347

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Partially Withheld Investigation Rept 4-84-043.Contradictory Statements by Jm Cain,Rs Leddick & RP Barkhurst Noted. Major Areas Investigated:Alleged Concealment of Drug Abuse by Reactor Operators
ML20195F347
Person / Time
Site: Waterford Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 02/26/1985
From: Driskill D, Hayes B, Herr R
NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI)
To:
Shared Package
ML20195E886 List:
References
FOIA-88-25 NUDOCS 8806270025
Download: ML20195F347 (24)
v • d • e


Text

. .

1 l

l l

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 1

Title:

WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION: ALLEGED CONCEALMENT OF DRUG ABUSE ACTIVITY BY LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT REACTOR OPEDATORS 1

Licensee: Case Number: 4-84-043 l l

Louisiana Power & Light Co. Report Date: 2/26/85 142 Delaronde Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 Control Office: 01:RIV Docket No. 050-00382 Status: CLOSED Reported by: Reviewed by:

A-Donald D. OrTskiTf-

'. '. c O A/YM ~~

'Richa~rd K. Herr Senior Investigator, 01:RIV Director. 01:RIV Participating Personnel: Approv by:

Richard K. Herr Director, 01:RIV , /

V en B 'Haye)(/ ir tor Office of My sti ations Information in '.his record was deleted in accordar.:e w:th 154 Fred m of In':rgibn Act, oc'::ss la , 7 4 9l' f 3: A _._S.D_1 $ 1 8806270025 800615 PDR FDIA DOLEY88-25 PDR , s

(" . . W '

d ^IOl C ] b) _ . _ _ _ .

ACCOUNTABILITY The following portions of this Report of Investigation will not be included in the material placed in the Public Document Room. It consists of pages 3 through E .

l l

I

!, 4-84-043 l  :

l l l SYNOPSIS l

Two confidential sources advised reporting investigator that the Louisiana Power and Light (LP&L) Corporate Security Department had conducted an investigation into drug use by Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3) reactor operators during May 1983. These '

l sources stated some reactor operators (trainees) were identified as using drugs, the investigation was terminated by LP&L management, and I I the outstanding unresolved is3ues were ignored in order to avoid l embarrassment to the utility.

l The Office of Investigations' (01) investigation disclosed that the LP&L Corporate Security Department did conduct an investigation regarding alleged marijuana use by Waterford 3 auxiliary reactor operators between May and June 1983. The LP&L investigation ide'itified one auxiliary l reactor operator who admitted on- and off-site marijuana use, and he was later terminated. Additionally, two other auxiliary reactor operators who admitted recent off-site use of marijuana were suspended for 1 week although they were not teminated. The LP&L investigative report also cocuments an additional allegation that 30 percent of Waterford 3 auxiliary reactor operators participated in off-site use of marijuana.

The report indicates the investigation was suspended by LP&L management because in their view it was becoming a disruptive influence on the auxiliary reactor operators just prior to their taking the NRC Peactor Operator Licensing Examination scheduled for July 12, 1983.  !

l Investigative interviews disclosed the Waterford 3 Plant Manager l recomended to the fomer LP&L Senior Vice Presideat-Nuclear Operations ,

i and the LP&L Senior Vice President-Administrative Services (executive l l responsible for Corporate Security Department) that the investigation be i suspended until after the NRC licensing examination, and they agreed. A change of Senior Vice President-Nuclear Operations occurred in late July 1983.

4 During investigative interviews of the LP&L President and the current Senior Vice President-Nuclear Operations, both stated they were never apprised of the investigation, its findings or its suspansion. When interviewed, the former Senior Vice Presideat-Nuclear Operations stated he had advised both of these officials of the investigation. The

! Waterford 3 Plant Manager contended when interviewed that he also i briefed the current Senior Vice President-Nuclear Operations concerning the investigation. The LP&L President and current Senior Vice President-iluclear Operations later amended their original statements to indicate that they did not recall any briefings regarding the investi-gation by the former Senior Vice President-Nuclear Operations. This amen &nent was made after they learned of the statements contradicting their earlier assertions.

01's investigation disclosed the LP&L investigation was not reinitiated i subsequent to the NRC licensing examination. The Waterferd 3 Plant Manager and the Senior Vice President-Administration Services each stated it uns not his responsibility to reinitiate the ir.vestigation.

1

- , , , . - , . , _ - , , c e ,- _ . . - - -

4-84-043 They each attributed this responsibility to the other. The LP&L Presi-dent and Waterford 3 Plant Manager contended that although the actual investigation was never reinitiated to resolve outstanding issues relative to marijuana use by unidentified individuals, the drug use issue was addressed by the utility by improving the "Fitness for Outy" policies and programs and that in th?'r view this was tantamount to a continuation of the investigation.

The investigation revealed that substantial information pertaining to the drug investigation, to include the fact that it involved auxiliary reactor operators who ostensibly were scheduled to take the NRC-admin-istered reacter operator examination, was provided to two NRC Region IV representatives prior to the examination, and that this information in turn was provided to senior NRC Region IV management. No formal corre-spondence from the licensee to the NRC on this subject during that period was found during the investigation.

Although some allegations were received that the LP&L security investi-gator who conducted the drug investigation was terminated because of his expressed dissatisfaction with the handling of the matter, he declined to be interviewed by the NRC concerning this matter, 2

, 4-84-043 TABLE OF CONTENTS Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Table of Contents ........................ .

. 3 Applicable Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Interviewees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Details of Inves tiga tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .g List of Exhibits . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3

A O &

O 4-84-043 1

1 1

i l

1 1

l l

l 1

l l

l l

l 1

I l

i l

l l

I l

I A

1 t

4-84-043 Applicable Regulations A. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations Part 55.11(a):

The physical condition and the general health of the applicant (for operator or senior operator license) are not such as might cause operational errors endangering public health and safety.

B. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, Chapter 16, Section 186(a):

Any license may be revoked for any material false statement in the application or any statement of fact required under section 182, or because of conditions revealed by such application or statement of fact or any report, record, or inspection or other means which would warrant the Commission to refnie to grant a license on an original application, or for failure to construct or operate a facility in accordance with the terms of the construction permit or license or the technical specifications in the application, or for violation of, or failure to observe any of the terms and provisions of this Act or of any regulatien of the Cumnission.

C. Title 18, U.S. Code, Chapter 47, Rule 1001:

Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or acency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

5

'" ,, %v-- u O

9 4-84-043 i

l l

l 6

4-84-043 Interviewees AULICK, Dean - Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, Washington, D.C. Attorney (EXHIBIT 14)

BARKHURST, Ross P. - LP&L Plant Manager-Nuclear Operations (EXHIBIT 10)

CAIN, James M. - LP&L Chief Executive Officer and President (EXHIBIT 9)

CAVANAUGH III, William - Mississippi Power & Light Company President and Chief Operating Officer (EXHIBIT 11)

CONSTABLE, G. L. - Waterford 3 NRC Senior Resident inspector (EXHIBIT 2)

FRILOUX, Wallace J. - Louisiana Power & Light Co.(LP&L)

Corporate Security Manager (EXHIBIT 7)

HERR, Richard K. - Field Office Director, 01:RIV (EXHIBli 18)

(EXHIBIT 1)

KELLY, James A. - NRC RIV Senior Physical Security Specialist (EXHIBIT 17)

LEDDICK, Roth S. - LP&L Senior Vice President-Nuclear Operations (EXHIBIT 13)

MARTIN, Robert D. - NRC Regional Administrator, Region IV (EXHIBIT 12)

(EXHIBIT 3 h NELSON, William C. - LP&L Senior Vice President-Administrative Services (EXHIBIT 8) f h h,

O

, 4-84-043 2

I 8

1 1

, 4-84-043 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION l

Purpose of Investigation The purpose of this investigation was to detennine whether Louisiana Power & Light Company (LP&L) management improperly tenninated t. Corpo-rate Security Department investigation regarding reactor operator drug use and intentionally did not fully advise the NRC of the investigative i

findings. During the conduct of this investigation, the purpose was expanded to include a deteittiination of the veracity of the statements made by certain members of LP&L top management relative to their know-l ledge concerning the LP&L drug use investigation. '

Background

On Se tember 26,198 (CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED t

telephonically advised reporting investigator that he had received siana,rp Waterford Steam ectric tation, Unit 3 Water , ,

I information that LP&L management had, during the last year, ordered the discontinuation of an LP&L Security Department investigation re ar ing drug abuse activity involving Waterford 3 reactor operators, stated he was told that LP&L took no action against the reactor operators involved in the drug abuse activity and had also fired t security department investigator who conducted the investigation, stated he was told that U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission pe (identity unknown) were advised of the investigation by LP&L.

further stated that a New Orleans, Louisiana, intervenor group, Citizens  !

for Safe Energy (CFSE), the Goverraent Accountability Project (GAP), and '

a newspaper reporter for the New Orleans Times Picay ve knowledge of this information. A report of the interview with is Exhibit 1.

Investicator's Note: Inquiries revealed the individuals referred to as reac' tor operators were actually auxiliary reactor operators at the time of the LP&L investigation; however, subsequent to the LP&L investigation and after passing the NRC licensing examination, two of these indi-viduals were promoted to reactor operators at Waterford 3.

These two titles are used interchangeably in this report based on the characterizations used by the interviewees.

INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS REGARDING THE ALLEGATION THAT LOUISIANA POWER &

LIGHT CmPANY (LP&L) SECURITY STAFF PERSONN'.L UNCOVERED AND INVESTIGATE DRUG USE ACTIVITY BY WATERFORD 3 REACTOR OPERATORS; HOWEVER, LP&L MANAGDIENT STOPPED THE INVESTIGATION, TOOK NO CORRECTIVE ACTION, AND FAILED 10 APPROPRIATELY NOTIFY THE NRC.

On September 27, 1984, G. L. CONSTABLE, Senior Resident inspector, NRC, assigned to Waterford 3, was telephonically interviewed concerning this matter and stated that in May and June 1983 he was apprised by Ross P.

9 f ;- $ di ]b

l 1

4-84-043 gA;;KHURST, Waterf ord 3 Plant Manager, that LP&L had learned of marijuana use by five Waterford 3 reactor operators. CON 5'ABLE stated EARKHURST advised that ore of the reactor operators who admitted on-site use of marijuana was fired and two operators who admitted regular of f-site use were suspended for one week and put through a drug rehabilitation program. CONSTABLE stated that based on what he was told by BARKHURST he believed that LP&L had handled the situation in accordance with their approved corporate drug use policies. CONSTABLE stated he was never provided with a copy of the LP&L Corporate Security Department report c or.cerm ng thi s ma t te r . CONSTABLE later provided a copy of a July 8, 198 3 memo ra n du- (Exhibit 2) he had prepared and sent to NRC Region IV management concerning the inforTnation provided by BARKHURST.

Dr September 28, 1984, James A. KELLY, Senior Pnysical Security Specialist, Region IV, NRC, was queried concerning his knowledge of an LP&L Security Department investigator who was fired during the 1983 time p e r i od. KELLY recalled that Bernard D. MYERS, Jr. , a fortner LP&L Security Departrent investigator was tenninated by LP&L during the surer of 1983.

, . . ; M o.;-. . .kc : b. @  :  :. Y'. y +e,...;;.- > . .

Investi.ator's Note : ,M. % .wp.n -r

M . : . l.@W J 2. c*/a B s . s .. . n'. . m s

.s : W.a. '. . - ' - s .. A h

' . .; s . ."..N

.n".'. w .._ } .* . .

D:

% ,g.,  % '.: . "~..::..* : ;'{. ,..L. *

, 9 *h -

. ...i " . ;

. $:.:s',.,'

. . ' >;.',.'*% a'3 ..E.y:, l * '; ;^ .;

.z._ . . , ,

^,b.

s-

.r 5,.

} fs

.c.l ll - Q(. <%- -. .y'3,.

.Lj

,.;..N..,. y e, .. r .9O.. ... ,. . - a..4 . ' , .

< s ~:. - - ..;,,' ~t as.- 9 L-

._ _m : . . .

hl I Y [... ..

N p

.h. - .

    • f,,* ,((... ,'," g? [.5 3,
, .Y.

, : .[.< .S. Aa 18 e[f,I.h5

,-.':  ;, ' ,st . . .' .(( , , : . , ' \ ';. ' , , . . ' '

, **  ;. 4 l_' '

..,1- .

5 It 4 , ; e,e- . y ._ j. A_ ,, ~, 4

  • - ' sf, _ k , ^  :.. . -

'h, S ' h-. ' , . ' $ ,. ' , ..=,[.,*1.' . [ .l, .h. *.? '

L fe f.K.. '.:f:*, , g7,.L.f  ;. : , . :;.f -3.Wy fr.)y-

-sg }_y .:Q ;. L:;. ; ,:'. . L '; ",3  :. .m

..r e S4 },n *:,:s. ..e.; _

n r  ; . g 5, : *. . .;' . . -:' .' .". .;

2 ' _ , ;_::, . .

.. _ g ;~'

. . Tr. . *g

. j . .:.....,.'.. ... ,

.6

. -. s

.O .,  ?? h . .?  !.. . - ~f:f^.,.

}

. *n.h1 v.-

. :/ ,, . ,d..

- - c ;.n . . , . .

. . . J... s. %, . ; ..-. '. ' . .;n e.. % ;.

.g - f: *

. .. e ,%

.}.

.- . :: . t

^l: (# L r2

.a i . . '. :- l . A. . .../l.1 :. . . 9 , . '

~ "*.-

.  : py , . ;,.

. .f , , , . ; .. .' .~

2-

.-s.7 .

't. .... y ,.

3- -

.. a u' 'f-.: . . .

,s  ;

.- ..*;2...,......

n.  :

'. . >i: : f .c

. . Ye. . . .. . :, .c~ ' . , 3.

  • - .e 4 n ' .- r, . t- . . . - . .;.

s .

. . \ e-pl .% .. . s u-

.o ,

. . -.. S ej ,......'..,j'.-c.'

. . . } . '. :-. '.'

.- . - 'N: :, . * - ' l. . . .cf.r.,

x.

', . _ P..l 2 y ( ~,.s;_ s p, v

't . c, 4,. J' % _sg, y ? .N. ..t;;; *f s

. . _, ; , .f'

,a .. .* .

- I'

'?'2 '$, ? . : . k.)'l\

49-lk kf) [; [.r? \.?

h E;;.' . . . I 'f-' % jd l,a ~i-

'ry!L.l%?E } .

+

.s . t- ~ y; , . *- _ . .

.f..*  %, l _, 'j. .;. % , .y ., _

s '$' td. }.

y. . '. .~l,.' g r
  • ?. ...v.  :

' % e.;ll .f 5. l , '.

'. _yl; ?

j; .,& - O #

'.? '? .

_, ,;L._._g '%,

-: ' ' . , '.. ; ' ~',.'. *D

, . --, :'r'.,E ', l-. -$;:. yj .")

~ _}'. .

=: ys'-  % n ,,; -

q.  :. .' . . . , - -

e e .'- .- .

^

.3, t kk. . ~.j.. ~'

' Y k YA k ', ' V

'k -

.: y.  %  ;& gf:  ;  ? '.'4% ! ? E - 2 . a ;t)

. 1--' ' ' .

. g= ~ 4< .'i : .. = . .,' , .W f.-

'N.

m% ?.f6, zy,u-y. :h g.. ,.y - 2 :;. . J < ., ;L:..i ; ;'. .:- .. t .c

: C . .:'. - c_ ~,. . : .. . %: s.n.. *

\f ;... k g.g ;y h." ;V.: .  :.. c; & . . :u .w. c : -

.y .s ~ a:.y

W,?.
~:-

n

._b.~

. p )" C. . .'. ' . G . ;. c,y ; _ : ; 'l.

_g ,'_ w.: .y.yW g . " - ;-M . . -*

-ML. %q.y y% *):.+;.;)g y. ;g..f

p.g.;}
ju .f *;; g;/;.;q _

, : .yjf L -;.o; g .s ; , . 5:: .31p9:f.3 9q:;: ;g.; ; ; .- 1. .:;

.: " sy .  : , .

i s . .

.wf f' i o w w*..i-w w s q. " "* ,

x

.y.,

-7 10 *

, s _.c 1

4-84-043

'h '

p 4.g,,b%[%9 ;FW &j ? n.g.. m-  ? .{..~%Q% o T 4.%. ,. yM: -

.yw.6, .,&pak. g %.% .a.. ::? .'

.\ .h 7< M ?r-e-" ? j,q; ;]; . -- '

n,, . ., sJ '

, 4

.J t e ., ;

> ; ,~ y , - ;; *

, y . .

..l ,.

g . .:. . .< . - c  : e *

- Vc , ;; .,~. a7.y . , ;..y ,,; ....-m i ..

7

, . -- 7. :.'

.c., - *-

? -

n:,e;,-

. .' .s . : .:. ..

.-  : . J.::.

y * .j.:q. . ,\.'l ^.;[ _ lQ 4 : ? (( '. . . ,' :5 ll .)-:. ,. ;. ' [ , Q y; en

. 3 e .
-
w. ,, ,

m.; ' r w. u ; p.v v;o

g. f:y -

% w.:

,a K1,;,c ~ g ,.- 7 .q.;. .

a -

.4..

s..w 9;m -. g; . ' i.c. . ~.f f , ... .

~

.g ; .;

4 K,p '. k.)4E%-.q 4,. .g.

~..

p :: .. 7::: :k ., e . y

?,

~:V n .%,Q%

$ 5 h l 9;.+: O&. & & h. _ Q ;,.g &. g.'. N3 , ._ ., 4.

c

.s tn.. .Y. 3 .;

m..- o ,- ,

. . ; b-

% _ ,e w qu. 3 n, p 4 '.

n .,-

g f

e ,,

' S .- +

[

}

Ith }&.Ty

}

?

jg 4 Nk k .$

. 5.8.a.. Nh.hWW Y

[ -

Mhlkh ,y b h h hh k[N On November 19, 1984, a review of LP&L Security Departinent Investigation Report No. 5-001-83(966) (Exhibit 6) was conducted by reporting investi-gator and Richard K. HERR, Director, Office of Investigations, Field Office, Region IV, NRC, at the LP&L Corporate Security Department office located at 142 Delaronde St. , New Orleans, Lnuisiana. The investigative report, prepared by former LP&L investigator Bernard D. MYERS, documents that five awziliary reactor operators were suspected of marijuana use.

Of these, one admitted frequent off-site use and one previous incident of on-site use, two admitted recent of f-site use, one acknowledged the past use in high school, and one denied any involvement (Ibid, Supple-ment No. 3, pages 1-14) . The report also documents a statement by one interviewee indicating a supervisor had asked him for a marijuana cigarette (Ibid, Supplement No. 3, page 10). Additionally reported were several instances wherein interviewees became openly "hostile" and uncooperative toward LP&L investigators. The report relates conrnents by one interviewee that reactor operator supervisory personnel told operators they did not have to speak with corporate security personnel and that "cooperation was strictly voluntary" (Ibid, Supplement No. 3, page 12).

None of the interviewees would identify other reactor operator personnel involved in drug usage; however, statements were made indicating "30 per-cent

  • of the reactor operators use marijuana off-site (Ibid, Supplement No. 3, page 9), and "to clean up the problem, you'll need a new set of operators' libid, Supplement No. 3, page 12). The July 5,1983 cover letter on the report to William NELSON, LP&L Senior Vice President-Admini-strative Services, f rom Wallace J. FRILOUX, Corporate Security Manager, LP&L, docusents the suspension of the invastigation. The sumary portion of the report (Ibid, Sumary Report, page 2), prepared by MYERS, relates his opinion regarding the existence of "strong concern and 11 rn au)

O n

l 4-84-043 suspicion that the use of marijuana among operators, especially while off. site, is extensive." Bernard MYERS declined to be interviewed by the NRC concerning this matter. The report also reflects that on May 12, 1983, the NRC senior resident inspector and a Region IV physical security inspector were notified of the information developed to date.

On November 19, 1984, Wallace J. FRILOUX, supra, was interviewed by reporting investigator and R. K. HERR regarding subject investigation (Exhibit 7). FRILOUX related the decision originally to redirect and later to suspend temporarily the investigation made by BARKHURST, supra, with the concurrence of William CAVANAUGH, former LP&L Senior Vice President-Nuclear Operations, and NELSON, supra, (FRILOUx's immediate supervisor). FRILOUX stated that in mid-June 1983 a decision was made to "redirect" the investigation as it was creating "stress" on the reactor operators who were preparing for NRC reactor operator licensing examinations on about July 11, 1983. FRILOUX stated that interviews of Waterford 3 Maintenance Department personnel were conducted regarding drug use on July 5,1983, subsequent to which the investigation was suspended. He stated the investigation was never reinitiated because he had never received instru:tions to do so. FRILOUX advised that one reactor operator who admitted on and off-site use of marijuana was terminated and three additional personnel who admitted off-site use of marijuana are still employed as reactor operators. FRILOUX stated that briefings of NRC representatives regarding this matter were performed by BARKHURST. He also related that Bernard MYERS, who conducted the LP&L investigatjoa, was terminated by LP&L due to excessive absenteeism.

On November 19,1984, William C. NELSON, supra, was interviewed by reporting investigator and R. K. HERR regarding this matter (Exhibit 8).

NELSON stated that the LP&L Corporate Security Department comes under his responsibility and that during the 1983 investigation of Waterford 3 reactor operator drug use he was regularly briefed by FRILOUX, supra.

NELSON stated that on July 6,1983, he had discussed the status of the investigation with CAVANAUGH and BARKHURST. He stated that on that day he greed with their suggestion that the investigation be suspended until after July 12, 1983, the date the NRC reactor operator licensing examinations were scheduled. NELSON stated he did not brief James M.

CAIN, LP&L Chief Executive Officer and President, regarding the investigation or the decision to suspend it. NELSON stated the investigation was never resumed by the LP&L Security Department because they had never received a request to do so. When questioned cuncerning

' the uncooperative attitudes of several reactor operators during the investigation (Exhibit 6. Supplement No. 3, page 12), NELSON stated this matter had, during the investigation, upset him. He stated he had discussed this matter with BARKHURST, who he believed concurred in his (NELSON's) objection to this sort of behavior.

Investigator's Note: BARKHURST denied knowledge of any supervisory or operator personnel who were uncooperative (Exhibit 10, pages 57-59).

On November 20,1984, James M. CAIN, supra, was interviewed by reporting investigator and R. K. HERR (Exhibit 9). Present during the interview 12

4-84-043 were Roth S. LEDDICK, Senior Vice President-Nuclear Operations, LP&L, Ross BARKHURST, supra, and Admiral Joe WILLIAMS (identified by CAIN as a 1 personalconsultant). CAIN stated that November 20, 1984, was the first time he learned of the 1983 LP&L Security Department investigation (No. ,

5-001-83[966]). He stated he had not been briefed nor had he read the  !

investigative report relative to this matter until just prior to this i NRC interview, CAIN stated that although he was not in a position to discuss the report in detail, he wanted to clarify the impression that the investigation was not completed, as reflected by the Investigative Sumary portion of the report. CAIN stated that based on information provided to him by BARKHURST on November 20, 1983, approximately 18 months subsequent to the suspension of the investigation (as reported in Exhibit 6), drug lectures to employees, on-site searches, and random urinalyses were performed. CAIN stated he interprets these actions to represent "a continuation of the investigation." CAIN stated that the policy of LP&L is, "We do not condone drug use on- or off-site." CAIN stated he did not want the report to represent an impression "that our corporate security investigators have been ' handcuffed' in their activities at Waterford 3." He stated LP&L would make every effort to ensure drug matters are adequately resolved. CAIN stated he has no knowledge that reactor operator supervisory personnel advised their personnel not to cooperate with Corporate Security Department personnel.

Investigator' Note: During the interview with CAIN, both LEDDICK and Admiral WILLIAMS also advised that they first became aware of this matter during the November 20, 1984, briefing of CAIN.

On December 4,1984, Ross P. BARKHURST, Plant Manager-Nuclear Operations, LP&L, Waterford 3, was interviewed by reporting investigator at Waterford 3 (Exhibit 10). Present during this interview was Dean AULICK, an attorney for Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, Washington, D.C., who stated he represented BARKHURST in this matter. BARKHURST stated he was aware that the LP&L Corporate Security Department was conducting investigation 5-001-83(966) from its onset in about early May 1983. BARKHURST stated he was regularly briefed during the investigation aad aware of its progress. BARKHURST stated that in early July 1983 he recomended to CAVANAUGH, supra, the suspension of the investigation (Ibid, pages 27 and 40-43) due to its "disruptive influence" on the auxiliary reactor l operator personnel who were scheduled to take their NRC licensing l examination on July 12, 1983. When questioned regarding the investiga-tion not being resumed, BARKHURST stated he did not know why it was not resumed (Ibid, page 44). BARKHURST stated he believed that decision was the responsibility of either FRILOUX or NELSON, supra. BARKHURST  :

explained that the LP&L policy regarding off-site drug use was thoroughly explained to all Waterford 3 operations personnel beginning in June 1983 (Ibid, pages 32-40) which he believed "stopped off-site use" of marijuana by auxiliary reactor operator personnel (Ibid, page 46). When questioned concerning the adequacy of the investigation, BARKHURST stated he was satisfied with the investigation since all individuals named as being involved with marijuana were questioned. He also stated he did not believe the allegation that 30 percent of the auxiliary reactor operators were involved in marijuana use (Ibid, pages 47-49). BARKHURST stated he advised LElBICX, supra, ccncerning the investigation (Ibid, page 54).

13

i 4-84-043 )

BARKHURST stated he has no knowledge as to whether CAIN, supra, was ever briefed concerning the investigation. BARXHURST stated he is not aware ,

of theany supervisory investigation (orpages Ibid, operator personnel who were uncooperative during 57-59).

On December 5, 1984 William CAVANAUGH III, President and Chief Operat- l ing Officer of Mississippi Power & Light Company, was interviewed by reporting investigator and Richard K. HERR in his office at Jackson, Mississippi (Exhibit 11). CAVANAUGH related that he was the Senior Vice President-Nuclear Operations for LP&L between April 11, 1983 and July 25, 1983. He stated that he was aware of the LP&L Security Department investigation of reactor operator drug use during 1983. He stated he was frequently briefed by FRILOUX and BARKHURST during the course of the investigation. He related that he instructed BARKHURST to brief the NRC resident inspector and he understood FRILOUX would brief the NRC RIV safeguards inspector regarding the matter. CAVANAUGH stated that as a result of the investigation, he had initiated efforts to strengthen the LP&L policies regarding drug and alcohol abuse. CAVANAUGH stated that in about mid-June 1983 EARKHURST had recomended the investigation be i suspended because it was having a disruptive impact on reactor operators l who were preparing for the NRC licensing examinations. CAVANAUGH stated I he discussed this suggestion with NELSON, supra, who agreed to delay continuation of the investigation until after the exam. CAVANAUGH j stated it was his undergtanding that the investigation would be resumed imediately following the licensing exam. CAVANAUGH stated he resigned his position with LP&L on July 25, 1984, and was not informed regarding .

the investigation af ter his departure. CAVANAUGH stated that prior to l leaving LP&L he discussed the investigation w'th LEDDICK his replace- I ment. CAVANAUGH stated that during the investigation he generally discussed the "investigation and its impact on some existing LP&L policies' with CAIN.

Investigator's Note: CAVANAUGH's statements concerning his briefings of CAIN and LEDDICK contradict their statements that they had no knowledge of this investigation prior to November 20, 1984.

CAVANAUGH stated he was not aware of any decision to "stop or cover-up l this investigation. CAVANAdGH stated that during the investigation it l came to his attention that one or more reactor operators displayed a l noncooperative attitude toward the investigators. CAVANAUGH stated he I told BARKHURST to instruct his personnel that they were to cooperate l with the investigators.

investi9ator's Note: BARKHURST denied knowledge of any supervisory l or operator personnel who were uncooperative (Exhibit 10, pages 57-59).

On December 6,1984, Roth S. LEDDICK, supra, attended a meeting with Robert D. ERTlH, Regional Administrator, Region IV, NRC, and other NRC Region IV staff members at the NRC office in Arlington, Texas. During this meeting, LEDDICK stated he had just recently been informed of the LP&L investigation 5-001-83(966) and that no one briefed him concerning this investigation when he started to work for LP&L. Robert D. MARTIN 14

l- -

~

\

. 4-84-043 1

l provided a statement concerning LEDDICK's remarks (Exhibit 12). Richard K. HERR, who was also present during the meeting, furnished a similar ,

statement regarding LEDDICK's comments (Exhibit 18). l Investigator's Note: LEDDICK's statements regarding his knowledge of LP&L investigation 5-001-83(966) contradict the statements of BARKHURST (Exhibit 10, page 54) and CAVANAUGH (Exhibit 11, page 2).

On December 6, 1984, Investigator R. K. HERR prepared a typed statement for Roth S. LEDDICK'S approval and signature concerning his knowledge of LP&L investigation 5-001-83(966) (Exhibit 13). This statement was base 1 on coments LEDDICK had made to HERR and reporting investigator over the previous three weeks and to MARTIN during the December 6,1984, meeting.

It documented his denial of being briefed by CAVANAUGH or BARKHURST or otherwise being aware of the investigation prior to November 1984 Accordingly, following the December 6,1984 meeting with the Region IV staff, LEDDICK, in the presence of his attorney, Dean AVLICK, was interviewed by Investigator HERR and presented with the typed statement for his review and signature. LEDDICK amended this statement (Exhibit 13) to reflect thaty he does not "recall" learning of the investigation prior to November 1984 and that he does not "recall" being briefed by CAVANAUGH or BARKHURST.

Investigator's Note: Further questioning of LEDDICK and his attorney, Dean AULICK, supra (Exhibit 14), disclosed that AULICK had obtained a copy of CAVAHAUGH's statement to the NRC (Exhibit 11). Questioning of AULICK disclosed he had apprised LEDDICK concerning CAVANAUGH's statement imediately subsequent to LEDDICK's meeting with the Region IV staff, supra. LEDDICK conceded that he made the changes to his statement (Exhibit 13) due to the inforination he had just obtained from AVLICK.

On December 12, 1984 Wallace FRILOUX, supra, provided R. K. HERR, supra, with a December 10, 1984 supplemental statement of James M. CAIN, supra (Exhibit 15). This statement relates that CAIN had been made aware of the statement of William CAVANAUGH. CAIN states that he has "no recollection" of discussing LP&L investigation 5-001-83(966)with CAVAMAUGH, nor whether it should be "continued or terminated."

On December 12, 1984, Joseph SLEGER, Executive Assistant to LEDDICK, LP&L, provided R. K. HERR, supra, with a copy of a May 20, 1983 LP&L letter entitled "Fitness For Duty Rule" sent to William CAVANAUGH by Wallace FRILOUX (Exhibit 16). The letter, which outlines proposed reconnendations regarding an LP&L Fitness for Duty Policy, g6nerally references LP&L investigation 5-001-83(966). SLEGER stated LEDDICK had found this document in his office or. December 11, 1984, and recalled that CAVAMAUGH had given it to him. SLEGER provided no additional information concerning the letter.

On January 22, 1985, William CAVANAUGH III was reinterviewed by report-ing investigator and R. K. HERR in Jackson, Mississippi. CAVANAUGH stated that prior to his July 25, 1983 resignation from LP&L he prepared folders pertaining to various projects he had initiated at Waterford 3.

CAVAMAUGH stated that he had provided the May 20, 1983 LP&L letter 15

. 4-84-043 (Exhibit 16) to LEDDICK along with these project folders. CAVANAUGH reiterated that he told LEDDICK about the LP&L drug inveuigation and told him to get a more detailed briefing from FRILOUX. CMANAUGH also reconfirmed that he recalled generally discussing the investigat'on on one or more occasicns with CAIN, supra.

On January 23, 1985, Roth S. LEDDICK was reinterviewed by reporting investigator and R. X. HERR in New Orleans, Louisiana. LEDDICK stated that CAVANAUGH had given him the LP&L letter (Exhibit 16) among folders related to 23 transition projects underway at Waterford 3 in July of 1983. LEDDICK stated he had never read the letter. LEDCICK stated that he believes the letter is what CAVANAUGH referred to when he (CAVANAUGH) said he "briefed me." LEDDICK stated he does not recall being orally briefed regarding the drug use investigation by CAVANAUGH.

On January 23, 1985, James A. KELLY, Physical Security Inspector, Region IV, NRC, provided reporting investigator with a Conversation Record (Exhibit 17) which he (KELLY) prepared on May 11, 1983, during a conversation with Wallace FRILOUX, supra. KELLY stated FRILOUX had telephonically briefed him relative to the LP&L Security Department investigation regarding drug use by reactor operators at Waterford 3.

KFLLY stated that FRILOUX gave him the impression that LP&L was fully investigating the matter. KELLY stated FRILOUX had not provided him with any other information regarding the investigation, and that copies of this document had been provided to NRC Region IV management.

Inquiries determined approximately forty-five auxiliary reactor operators were in training for the NRC licensing examination of whom forty received their reactor operator licenses after successfully completing the examination. Further, of the five individuals originally implicated in the drug abuse allegations, two are currently licensed reactor operators at Waterford 3, one remains an auxiliary reactor operator at the site since he hasn't taken the licensing examination, one was discharged as a result of his admissions, and one terminated voluntarily.

16

t 4-84-043 List of Exhibits (1) k l

(2) NRC Resident Inspector G. L. CONSTABLE's Memorandum /7-08-83 (5)

(6) Louisiana Power & Light Co.(LP&L) Security Department investigation Report No. 5-001-83(966)/7-05-83 (7) Report of Intervidew With Wallace J. FRILOUX/11-19-84 (8) Statement of William C. HELSON/11-20-84

9) Statement of James M. CAIN/11-20-84

, (10) Transcript of Ross P. BARKHURST/12-04-84 (11) Statement of William CAVAHAUGH !!!/12-05-84 (12) Statement of Robert D. MARTIN /12-07-84 (13) Statement of Roth S. LEDDICK/12-06-84 (14) Report of Interview With Roth S. LEDDICK/12-06-84 (15) Supplemental Statement of James M. CAIN/12-10-84 (16) LP&L Letter /5-20-83 (17) James A. KELLY's Conversation Record /5-11-83 (18) Statement of Richard K. HERR /02-25-85

/ 7 )h 17 i ps&D 7 63 )

I wir IDLhil AlliY AGREEMENT I ne irrforma' tion that I w..h to provide in confidence to we U. S. Nuclear g :1atory Comission (NRC). I request an express pledge of confidentiality as )

I cu.oition of providing this information to the NRC,  ;

I will not provide this  ;

infom.6 tion voluntarily to the NRC without such confidentiality being extended to me.

l It is my understanding, consistent with its legal obligations, the NRC, by '

agreeing to this confidentiality, will adhere to the following conditions:

(1) The NRC will not identify me by name or personal identifier in any NRC initiated document, conversation, or comunication released to the public which relates directly to the infomation provided by me. I understand the tem i

{

  • public release" to encompass any distribution outside of the NRC with the oception of other public agencies which may require this information in futherance of their responsibilities under law or public trust.

(2) The NRC will disclose my identity within the NRC only to the extent  !

rec.uired for the conduct of NRC related activities.

{

(3) During the course of the incuiry or investigation the NRC will also make every l c:fert consistent with the investigative needs of the Commission to avoid actions

.nich would clearly be expected to result in the disclosure of my identity to p.rter.s subsequently contacted by the NRC. AT a later stage I understand that iven though the NRC will make every reasonable effort to protect my identity,

y ider.tification could be compelled by orders or subpoenas issued by courts of law, hearing boards, or similar legal entities. In such cases, the basis for grtr. ting this promise of confidentiality and any other relevant facts will be c:::-anicated to the authority ordering the disclosure in an effort to maintain ry confidentiality. If this effort proves unsuccessful, a representative of the NRC will attempt to inform me of any such action before disclosing my identity.

I also understand that the NRC will consider me to have waived my right to

<w.ficentiality

.y identity. if I take any action that may be reasonably expected to disclose I further understand that the NRC will consider me to have waived c.y rights to confidentiality if I provide (or have previously provided) infomation

  • o any other party that contradicts the information that I provided to the NRC or if circumstances to the NRC, indicate that I am intentionally providing false information Cther Conditions: (ifany)

I 1. ave read and fully und,erstand the contents of this agreement. I agree with its provisions.

'e sed .to on behalf of the US Nuclear Regulatory Comission h aM~'@nce mW'CU 1-J '

Signature Typed or Printed Name and Title sion 1.

f. t .

'7 h gg

-~~,----r -- ~- ,~w , . - - - -.-,----,-,-,-m v O'94

4-84-043 REPORT OF INTERVIEW WITH i

Ebasco .

Inc. at Waterford 3. Taft Louisiana, telepho lly advised NRC Senior Investigator Donald D. DRISKILL that he had recently received infortnation indicating that Louisiana Power & Light Co. (LP&L) Security Department personnel had, during the last year, obtained informat investigated drug use activity by Waterford 3 Reactor Operators.

stated he was told that LP&L management had ordered the investigatio discontinued and th took no corrective action against reactor operator personnel. Jtated he wa d one reactor operator was fired for his involvemen with drugs, stated he was told that the drugs involved were cocaine and maria .

perfonnel were .. Sarently notified concerning the investigation and had told LP&L to "handle it."

I lastly stated that Gary GROESCH of the Citizens for Safe Energy (a New rieans, Louisiana intervenor group), Government Accountability ,

Project (GAP personnel and a re for the New Orleans Times Picayune were aware o this informati L executed an NRC Confidentiality i Agreement on e

. v.

l

~.,

I

(

l h,,: EXHlBIT (1)

CONF IDEhll AllTY AGRE EMENT l'have infomation that I w. h to provide in confidence to v.e U. S. Nuclear

'tgulatory Comission (NRC). I request an express pledge of confidentiality as 2.

condition of providing this inferr.ation to the NRC. I will not provide this infor..ation voluntarily to the NRC without such confidentiality being extended

  • o me.

It is my understanding, consistent with its legal obligations, the NRC, by

< ;reeing to this confidentiality, vill adhere to the following conditions:

(1) The NRC will not identify me by name or personal identifier in any HRC f r.itiated document, conversation, or comunication released to the public which

-(lates directly to the information provided by ne. I understand the term

ublic release" to encompass any distribution outside of the NRC with the uception of other public agencies which may require this information in futherance of their responsibilities under law or public trust.

(2) The NRC will disclose my identity within the NRC only to the extent rt quired for the conduct of NRC related activities.

'3) During the course of the inouiry or investigation the NRC will also make every ifort consistent with the investigative needs of the Comission to avoid actions Mch would clearly be expected to result in the disclosure of my identity to j

t rsons subsequently contacted by the NRC. AT a later stage I understand that
  • \En though the NRC will make every reasonable effort to protect my identity, y identification could be compelled by orders or subpoenas issued by courts of hw, hearing boards, or similar legal entities. In such cases, the basis for

.ic nting this promise of confidentiality and any other relavant facts will be

(: municated to the authority ordering the disclosure in an effort to maintain

.y confidentiality. If this effort proves unsuccessful, a representative of ,

j

.ne NRC will attempt to infom me of any such action before disclosing my identity.

ilso understand that the NRC will consider me to have waived my right to or.fidentiality if I take any action that may be reasonably expected to disclose y identity.

I further understand that the NRC will consider me to have waived y rights to confidentiality if 1 provide (or have previously provided) infomation

' o any other party that contradicts the infomation that I provided to the NRC

r if circumstances indicate that I am intentionally providing false information
o the NRC.
sther Conditions: (if any)

I have read and fully understand the contents of this agreement. I agree with its provisions. -

'51 5 .

_ ai

'gr,.ed to on behalf of the US Nuclear Regul omissiorin accMp: , c. ..-

A:t. exer.pt.eas eReim.O.Nrr.m OCV 7 . N FOIA- 8- N T 0D f)v M'sion1.

,n SigTa ture

~

ODud,n.m7 Typed or Printed Name and Title f,J. g ( 3 )

I

~

  • 4-84-043 REPORT OF INTERVIEW WITH Wallace J. FRILOUX On November 19, 1984, Wallace J. FRILCUX, Corporate Security Manager, Louisiana Power & Light (LP&L), was interviewed by NRC Senior Investigator Donald D. DRISKILL and Richard K. HERR, Director, Office of Investigations Field Office, Region IV, at his office located at 142 '

Delaronde St., New Orleans, Louisiana, concerning the 1983 LP&L Corporate Security Department investigation regarding drug abuse activity by Waterford 3 Reactor Operators.

Upon request, FRILOUX provided NRC investigator:, (supra) a copy of subject investigation, identified as LP&L Security Department investigation number 5-001-83(966). Subsequent to NRC investigators' review of the report, FRILOUX was questioned regarding the discontinuation of that investigation. FRILOUX stated that the decision to halt the investigation was made by Ross BARKHU'lST, Waterford 3 Plant Operat'ans Manager, in mid-June 1983. He stated this decision was concurred with by William CAVANAUGH, former LP&L Senior Vice President-Nuclear Operations, and William NELSON, LP&L Senior Vice President-Administration and Services. FRILOUX stated NELSON is his imediate supervisor.

FRILOUX explained that the rationale BARKHURT presented in mit June 1983 as justification for "temporarily suspending" the investigation was th3t the Waterford 3 reactor operators were scheduled to take an NRC reactor operator licensing examination on about July 11, 1983, and that the investigation was directing their attention and causing stress.

FRILOUX stated that prior to the suspension of the investigation he was instructed to "redirect" the investigation regarding drug use to personnel (identified by BARKHURST) working in the Waterford 3 Maintenance Department (described in the cover letter of the investigationreport). FRILOUX stated that subsequent to conducting four interviews on July 5,1983, of Maintenance Department personnel (which disclosed no evidence of drug abuse activity) the investigation was suspended.

FRILOUX stated that on July 6, 1983, he met with NELSON, CAVANAUGH and BARKHURST and the decision was made to suspend the investigation.

FRILOUX stated he was never instructed to resume or complete the investigation. ,

I FRILOUX identified the LP&L Security Department investigators who conducted the investigation as Bernard K. MYERS, who was terminated in September 1983 for administrative reasons and Walter R. (Terry) POND.  ;

He explained that MYERS' temination resulted from excessive absen- l teeism. FRILOUX, when asked, stated that as head of the Security Department, he would have liked to have seen the investigation completed l despite LP&L management's decision.

/ EXHIBIT (7)  ;

b,/-, .

'D l

i

', 4-84-043 ,

s ,

c FRILOVX stated one individual who admitted on and off site use of $

marijuana was terminated and three other personnel who admitted off-site use of marijuana remain employed as Reactor Operators at Waterford 3. 1 FRILOUX stated that briefings of-NRC, regarding this matter, were i conducted by BARKHURST, l

i i

t 4

e a

, 'i i

a l

l l

l I

i l 1

EXHIBIT (7) 1

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20195F347&oldid=3040522"