ML20195F204: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:V UNITED STleTES
{{#Wiki_filter:V UNITED STleTES 4,c, p.*
.                4,c, p .*         r; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION                                         l
r; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
  <                  c
.. (1,*.y~
    .. ( 1,* .y~
c OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE.REGIOPg g h' ' % v */
OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE.REGIOPg g h'0 '*****
611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SUITt 1000 0
          % v */                                 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SUITt 1000 ARLINGTON, TEX AS 7M11 J5 FEB 25 AH B 44 February 21, 1985
ARLINGTON, TEX AS 7M11 J5 FEB 25 AH B 44 February 21, 1985
                                                                                    ' ' l.lVE5il l.
' ' l.lVE5il l.
E!ZCM.IEC MEMORANDUM TO:               Ben B. Hayes, Director Office of Investigation VIA:                         R.K. Herr, Director Office of Investigations Field Office FROS:                       Donald D. Driskill, Senior Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office
E!ZCM.IEC MEMORANDUM TO:
Ben B. Hayes, Director Office of Investigation VIA:
R.K. Herr, Director Office of Investigations Field Office FROS:
Donald D. Driskill, Senior Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office


==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
Intent / Willfulness to deceive / mislead OI Violation of TITLE 18, U.S. Code, Chapter 47 Rule 1001
Intent / Willfulness to deceive / mislead OI Violation of TITLE 18, U.S. Code, Chapter 47 Rule 1001 1.
: 1.     Cain A.       On November 20, 1984, Mr. James M. Cain, CEO, LP&L, executed a signed sworn statement, Exhibit (9), to the Office of Investigations sherein he stated that "no one advised me of this particular investigation (5-001-83(966])
Cain A.
which was cinducted during 1983."           In addition, Mr. Cain stated that November 20, 1984 was the first time that he had knowlege of that investigation.
On November 20, 1984, Mr. James M. Cain, CEO, LP&L, executed a signed sworn statement, Exhibit (9), to the Office of Investigations sherein he stated that "no one advised me of this particular investigation (5-001-83(966])
B.       On December 5,1984       Mr. William Cavanaugh, formerly Executive Vice President, LP6L, executed a signed sworn statement, Exhibit (11), to the l
which was cinducted during 1983."
Office of Investigations wherein he stated that during his employment with LP&L,             i during May and June 1983, that on "several occasions he generally discussed, with           1 Mr. Cain, the investigation (5-001-83(966)) and its impact on some existing                   l LP6L policies."
In addition, Mr. Cain stated that November 20, 1984 was the first time that he had knowlege of that investigation.
C.       On December 10, 1984,       Mr. James M. Cain, supra, executed a signed statement, Exhibit (15), which he provided to 01 wherein he stated, "I have since learned of a subsequent statement made by William Cavanaugh... "concerning this subject investigation (5-001-83[966]).           Mr. Cain stated that as a result of Mr. Cavanaugh's statement that "I have no recollection of discussing the details of any particular investigation with Mr. Cavanaugh."                           l l
B.
: 2.     Leddick A.       On November 20, 1984 during the interview of Mr. Cain, Mr. Leddick was present and stated to 01 representatives (Herr and Driskill) that he first became aware cf investigation (5-001-83[966]) on November 20, 1984.
On December 5,1984 Mr. William Cavanaugh, formerly Executive Vice President, LP6L, executed a signed sworn statement, Exhibit (11), to the Office of Investigations wherein he stated that during his employment with LP&L, during May and June 1983, that on "several occasions he generally discussed, with 1
B.         On December 6,1984, Mr. Leddick, while addressing Region IV management, stated that he only became aware of the investigation in question in November 1984.
Mr. Cain, the investigation (5-001-83(966)) and its impact on some existing LP6L policies."
C.
On December 10, 1984, Mr. James M. Cain, supra, executed a signed statement, Exhibit (15), which he provided to 01 wherein he stated, "I have since learned of a subsequent statement made by William Cavanaugh... "concerning this subject investigation (5-001-83[966]).
Mr. Cain stated that as a result of Mr. Cavanaugh's statement that "I have no recollection of discussing the details of any particular investigation with Mr. Cavanaugh."
2.
Leddick A.
On November 20, 1984 during the interview of Mr. Cain, Mr. Leddick was present and stated to 01 representatives (Herr and Driskill) that he first became aware cf investigation (5-001-83[966]) on November 20, 1984.
B.
On December 6,1984, Mr. Leddick, while addressing Region IV management, stated that he only became aware of the investigation in question in November 1984.
Present at this meeting was the Region IV Regional Administrator. Mr. R.
Present at this meeting was the Region IV Regional Administrator. Mr. R.
Martin, who executed a signed sworn statement (Exhibit 12) to OI confirming Mr. Leddick's remarks concerning the investigation. Later on the same             day, Mr. Leddick was asked to sign a sworn statement that was prepared by 8806240239 880615 PDR       FOIA
Martin, who executed a signed sworn statement (Exhibit 12) to OI confirming Mr. Leddick's remarks concerning the investigation.
* PDR                      /
Later on the same day, Mr. Leddick was asked to sign a sworn statement that was prepared by 8806240239 880615 PDR FOIA PDR
DOLEY88,-25.,,                                ,
/
DOLEY88,-25.,,


Memo to Ben B. Hayes                                 Mr. R. K. Herr and D. D. Driskill concerning his remarks to thera and to Mr. Martin about the subject investigation. At this time, Mr. Leddick made numerous changes to the prepared statement before signing his statement Exhibit (13). Mr. Leddick's corrections appeared to have contradicted his previous testimony concerning the investigation, to wit:     "I only learned of this investigation in November 1984" vs "I do not recall being advised of this investigation until November 1984."
Memo to Ben B. Hayes
* Mr. R. K. Herr and D. D. Driskill concerning his remarks to thera and to Mr. Martin about the subject investigation.
At this time, Mr. Leddick made numerous changes to the prepared statement before signing his statement Exhibit (13).
Mr. Leddick's corrections appeared to have contradicted his previous testimony concerning the investigation, to wit:
"I only learned of this investigation in November 1984" vs "I do not recall being advised of this investigation until November 1984."
Upon further questioning, Mr. Leddick stated that he made changes to his statement af ter having just reviewed the statement of Mr. Cavanaugh, which his lawyer, Mr. Aulick, presented to him a few minutes prior to the meeting with Mr. Herr.
Upon further questioning, Mr. Leddick stated that he made changes to his statement af ter having just reviewed the statement of Mr. Cavanaugh, which his lawyer, Mr. Aulick, presented to him a few minutes prior to the meeting with Mr. Herr.
Mr. Leddick stated that ha changed his statement based on Mr. Cavanaugh's statement wherein Mr. Cavanaugh asserted that he told Mr. Leddick about the investigation.
Mr. Leddick stated that ha changed his statement based on Mr. Cavanaugh's statement wherein Mr. Cavanaugh asserted that he told Mr. Leddick about the investigation.
C. On December 12, 1984   Mr. Leddick provided, via his executive assistant, Mr. Joseph Sleger, a copy of a May 20, 1983, letter entitled "Fitness for Duty Rule." Exhibit (16). This letter identifies the investigation in question. Mr. Leddick, on January 23, 1985, advised 01 that Mr. Cavanaugh had given him this letter which he placed in his office. Mr. Leddick stated that he did not read the letter and only recently discovered the letter in his office.
C.
D. Upon discussion with Mr. Leddick, Mr. Herr, in the presence of Mr. Aulick, Mr.
On December 12, 1984 Mr. Leddick provided, via his executive assistant, Mr. Joseph Sleger, a copy of a {{letter dated|date=May 20, 1983|text=May 20, 1983, letter}} entitled "Fitness for Duty Rule." Exhibit (16).
Leddick's attorney, asked Mr. Leddick, "Did Mr. Cavauaugh provide any documents to you recently?" Mr. Leddick responded, "No." Subsequently, during additional questioning, Mr. Aulick admitted that Mr. Cavacaugh had provided to him (Aulick) his (Cavanaugh's) statement that he had given to 01. Mr. Aulick further admitted       that he provided Mr. Cain's statement to Mr. Leddick just minutes before Mr. Leddick entered Mr. Herr's office. Subsequently, Mr. Leddick confirmed Mr. Aulick's testimony. Exhibit (14)
This letter identifies the investigation in question.
Barkhurst A. On November 19, 1984 Mr. William C. Nelson, Senior Vice President-Administrative Services, LP6L, executed a signed sworn statement Exhibit (8) to 01 wherein he stated that during the conduct of the subject investigation (5-001-83[966] in 1983, he learned that LP6L superv'sory personnel repeatedly advised reactor operator personnel that they did not have . cooperate with the investigators. Mr. Nelson further stated that he was upset with this and discussed his objections with Mr. Barkhurst, Plant Operations Manager, Waterford 3.       Mr. Nelson stated he was upset because of the "potential for interferring."     Mr. Nelson stated that it was his understanding that Mr. Barkhurst concurred with his views.
Mr. Leddick, on January 23, 1985, advised 01 that Mr. Cavanaugh had given him this letter which he placed in his office.
B. On December 5,1984, Mr. William Cavanaugh, supra, exe cuted a signed sworn statement Exhibit (11) to OI wherein he stated that during the course of the investigation in question that it came to his attention that one or more Operation Department personnel (reactor operators) had displayed a non-cooperative attitude towards the investigators. Mr. Cavanaugh stated that this upset him and he discussed the situation with Mr. Barkhurst.     Mr. Cavanaugh further stated that he told Mr. Barkhurst to instruct his personnel that they were to cooperate with the investigators.
Mr. Leddick stated that he did not read the letter and only recently discovered the letter in his office.
D.
Upon discussion with Mr. Leddick, Mr. Herr, in the presence of Mr. Aulick, Mr.
Leddick's attorney, asked Mr. Leddick, "Did Mr. Cavauaugh provide any documents to you recently?" Mr. Leddick responded, "No."
Subsequently, during additional questioning, Mr. Aulick admitted that Mr. Cavacaugh had provided to him (Aulick) his (Cavanaugh's) statement that he had given to 01.
Mr. Aulick further admitted that he provided Mr. Cain's statement to Mr. Leddick just minutes before Mr. Leddick entered Mr. Herr's office.
Subsequently, Mr. Leddick confirmed Mr. Aulick's testimony.
Exhibit (14)
Barkhurst A.
On November 19, 1984 Mr. William C. Nelson, Senior Vice President-Administrative Services, LP6L, executed a signed sworn statement Exhibit (8) to 01 wherein he stated that during the conduct of the subject investigation (5-001-83[966] in 1983, he learned that LP6L superv'sory personnel repeatedly advised reactor operator personnel that they did not have.
cooperate with the investigators.
Mr. Nelson further stated that he was upset with this and discussed his objections with Mr. Barkhurst, Plant Operations Manager, Waterford 3.
Mr. Nelson stated he was upset because of the "potential for interferring."
Mr. Nelson stated that it was his understanding that Mr. Barkhurst concurred with his views.
B.
On December 5,1984, Mr. William Cavanaugh, supra, exe cuted a signed sworn statement Exhibit (11) to OI wherein he stated that during the course of the investigation in question that it came to his attention that one or more Operation Department personnel (reactor operators) had displayed a non-cooperative attitude towards the investigators.
Mr. Cavanaugh stated that this upset him and he discussed the situation with Mr. Barkhurst.
Mr. Cavanaugh further stated that he told Mr. Barkhurst to instruct his personnel that they were to cooperate with the investigators.


Memo to Ber. B. Hayes                           C. On December 4, 1984, Mr. Barkhurst, Plant Manager, Nuclear Operations at Waterford     3, was interviewed with a court reporter present. Exhibit (10) When asked the question, "To your knowledge, were any of the supervisors of the reactor operators giving advice (not to cooperate with the investigators)," to wit:       Mr. Barkhurst WW answered, "To my knowledge, nobody was telling them not to cooperate."
Memo to Ber. B. Hayes C.
p y                    MLJ               P% rY CONCLUSION:
On December 4, 1984, Mr. Barkhurst, Plant Manager, Nuclear Operations at Waterford 3, was interviewed with a court reporter present.
RKH--Based on the above evidence, I do not believe that the evidence supports willfull intent on the part of anyone to lie to 01. However the evidence does reflect a conflict in testimony that was not totally resolved. Because of the cdAf flic t of testimony gives the appearance that a potential "wrongdoing" may         )
Exhibit (10)
have occurred among the executive managementf        I believe that a referral to DOJ would be appropriate.
When asked the question, "To your knowledge, were any of the supervisors of the reactor operators giving advice (not to cooperate with the investigators)," to wit:
DDD--In response to your request for my opinions relative to a determination as to whether 01 Case 4-84-043 should be forwarded to DOJ, I believe that a reasonable belief exists that both James M. Cain and Roth S. Leddick made statements, during the course of the OI investigations, which were intended to mislead and deceive the NRC. As a result of the conflicting statements made by both Cain and Leddick, I consider it our obligation and responsibility to refer this matter to D0J for prosecutive consideration.                                                   1 Our initial interviews with Wallace Friloux and William Nelson during this investigation disclosed to LP6L that OI was investigating the circumstances which led to the suspension of the LP6L Security Dept. investigation of reactor operator drug use and the reasons it was never reinitiated. When Cain and Leddick were interviewed, regarding this matter, on November 20, 1984, they were aware of the focus of the NRC investigation and they recognized LP&L's f ailure to resolve all the allegations presented in the initial Corporate Securit Dept. report. This personal opinion is supported by Cain's November 20, 1984, '         # statement wherein he stated he did not want the LP&L report to give the impression "that our corporate security investigators have been handcuffed in their activities at Waterford 3."
Mr. Barkhurst answered, "To my knowledge, nobody was telling them not to cooperate."
This unsolicited statement by Cain w:s an indirect admission that the report did give that impression. It is my opinion that Cain and Leddick recognized the incomplete status of the LP&L investigation and with the knowledge of the focus of the NRC investigation made a conscious decision to deny knowledge regardint the investigation. This decision, on their part, would ef fectually relieve top LP6L management of any responsibility for the utility's failure to complete the~
MLJ P% rY W W p
investigation. Cain made a sworn statement on November 20, 1984, denying any previous knowledge regarding the LP6L investigation. Leddick made verbal denials of knowledge regarding the LP6L investigation to NRC investigators on November 20, 1984 and to NRC Region IV management on December 6,1984.
y CONCLUSION:
RKH--Based on the above evidence, I do not believe that the evidence supports willfull intent on the part of anyone to lie to 01.
However the evidence does reflect a conflict in testimony that was not totally resolved.
Because of the cdAf flic t of testimony gives the appearance that a potential "wrongdoing" may
)
I believe that a referral to DOJ have occurred among the executive managementf would be appropriate.
DDD--In response to your request for my opinions relative to a determination as to whether 01 Case 4-84-043 should be forwarded to DOJ, I believe that a reasonable belief exists that both James M. Cain and Roth S. Leddick made statements, during the course of the OI investigations, which were intended to mislead and deceive the NRC. As a result of the conflicting statements made by both Cain and Leddick, I consider it our obligation and responsibility to refer this matter to D0J for prosecutive consideration.
Our initial interviews with Wallace Friloux and William Nelson during this investigation disclosed to LP6L that OI was investigating the circumstances which led to the suspension of the LP6L Security Dept. investigation of reactor operator drug use and the reasons it was never reinitiated. When Cain and Leddick were interviewed, regarding this matter, on November 20, 1984, they were aware of the focus of the NRC investigation and they recognized LP&L's f ailure to resolve all the allegations presented in the initial Corporate Securit Dept. report. This personal opinion is supported by Cain's November 20, 1984, '
# statement wherein he stated he did not want the LP&L report to give the impression "that our corporate security investigators have been handcuffed in their activities at Waterford 3."
This unsolicited statement by Cain w:s an indirect admission that the report did give that impression.
It is my opinion that Cain and Leddick recognized the incomplete status of the LP&L investigation and with the knowledge of the focus of the NRC investigation made a conscious decision to deny knowledge regardint the investigation. This decision, on their part, would ef fectually relieve top LP6L management of any responsibility for the utility's failure to complete the~
investigation. Cain made a sworn statement on November 20, 1984, denying any previous knowledge regarding the LP6L investigation.
Leddick made verbal denials of knowledge regarding the LP6L investigation to NRC investigators on November 20, 1984 and to NRC Region IV management on December 6,1984.


4 CONCLUSION (Continued) on December 5, 1984 and January 22, 1985, William Cavanaugh advised 01 investigators that he apprised both Cain and Leddick of the LP&L investigation. Cain and Leddick each amended their previous statements regarding their knowledge of the investigation upon learning of the statement made by Cavanaugh. Neither denied the verocity of Cavanaugh's statement, but each stated he did not recall being briefed by Cavanaugh. Additionally, Ross Barkhurst, on December 4, 1984, stated he advised Leddick about the LP6L investigation.                                               It is my personal opinion both Cain and Leddick amended their original statements using a loss of memory as the only defense available aside from saying Cavanaugh was not truthful.
. 4 CONCLUSION (Continued) on December 5, 1984 and January 22, 1985, William Cavanaugh advised 01 investigators that he apprised both Cain and Leddick of the LP&L investigation.
It again is my opinion that neither Cain nor Leddick would have forgotten being briefed concerning the LP6L investigation which was a matter that could have, even in 1983, had serious impact on the LP&L licensing schedule. Fur the rmore ,
Cain and Leddick each amended their previous statements regarding their knowledge of the investigation upon learning of the statement made by Cavanaugh. Neither denied the verocity of Cavanaugh's statement, but each stated he did not recall being briefed by Cavanaugh. Additionally, Ross Barkhurst, on December 4, 1984, stated he advised Leddick about the LP6L investigation.
the issues brought about as a result of the LP6L investigation, such as the termination of one auxillary reactor operator (ARO) the counselling and rehabilitation                                                                                         '
It is my personal opinion both Cain and Leddick amended their original statements using a loss of memory as the only defense available aside from saying Cavanaugh was not truthful.
of two other ARO's, the subsequent urinalysis given approximately four times during the 1983-84, the strengthening of LP6L fitness for duty policies and the internal corporate controversies relative to LP6L's right to dictate off-duty conduct of                                                                                     !
It again is my opinion that neither Cain nor Leddick would have forgotten being briefed concerning the LP6L investigation which was a matter that could have, even in 1983, had serious impact on the LP&L licensing schedule.
employees, require an employee to submit to polygraph examination and require employees to submit to unannounced urinalysis testing, make it dif ficult for me                                                                                   ,
Fur the rmore,
to believe that top management was never made aware or does not recall being made                                                                                   !
the issues brought about as a result of the LP6L investigation, such as the termination of one auxillary reactor operator (ARO) the counselling and rehabilitation of two other ARO's, the subsequent urinalysis given approximately four times during the 1983-84, the strengthening of LP6L fitness for duty policies and the internal corporate controversies relative to LP6L's right to dictate off-duty conduct of employees, require an employee to submit to polygraph examination and require employees to submit to unannounced urinalysis testing, make it dif ficult for me to believe that top management was never made aware or does not recall being made aware of the LP&L investigation.
aware of the LP&L investigation.
}
                                                                                                                                                                            }
i I
I i
. -,,. _ _, -. -.,,. _.,,._.}}
l 1
l II 1
                        - . - - - - - - . . . . . _ - - - - , - - . , . . . _ . - . . . . .      . . _ -  - - - . . , _ . . . - , , . _ _ , - . - . , , . _ . , , ._.}}

Latest revision as of 18:46, 10 December 2024

Summary of Results of Investigation 5-001-83(966).Concludes That Reasonable Belief Exists That Jm Cain & Rs Leddick Made Statements,During Course of Investigation,Intended to Mislead & Deceive Nrc.Prosecution Suggested
ML20195F204
Person / Time
Issue date: 02/21/1985
From: Driskill D
NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI)
To: Hayes B
NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI)
Shared Package
ML20195E886 List:
References
FOIA-88-25 NUDOCS 8806240239
Download: ML20195F204 (4)
v • d • e


Text

V UNITED STleTES 4,c, p.*

r; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.. (1,*.y~

c OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE.REGIOPg g h' ' % v */

611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SUITt 1000 0

ARLINGTON, TEX AS 7M11 J5 FEB 25 AH B 44 February 21, 1985

' ' l.lVE5il l.

E!ZCM.IEC MEMORANDUM TO:

Ben B. Hayes, Director Office of Investigation VIA:

R.K. Herr, Director Office of Investigations Field Office FROS:

Donald D. Driskill, Senior Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office

SUBJECT:

Intent / Willfulness to deceive / mislead OI Violation of TITLE 18, U.S. Code, Chapter 47 Rule 1001 1.

Cain A.

On November 20, 1984, Mr. James M. Cain, CEO, LP&L, executed a signed sworn statement, Exhibit (9), to the Office of Investigations sherein he stated that "no one advised me of this particular investigation (5-001-83(966])

which was cinducted during 1983."

In addition, Mr. Cain stated that November 20, 1984 was the first time that he had knowlege of that investigation.

B.

On December 5,1984 Mr. William Cavanaugh, formerly Executive Vice President, LP6L, executed a signed sworn statement, Exhibit (11), to the Office of Investigations wherein he stated that during his employment with LP&L, during May and June 1983, that on "several occasions he generally discussed, with 1

Mr. Cain, the investigation (5-001-83(966)) and its impact on some existing LP6L policies."

C.

On December 10, 1984, Mr. James M. Cain, supra, executed a signed statement, Exhibit (15), which he provided to 01 wherein he stated, "I have since learned of a subsequent statement made by William Cavanaugh... "concerning this subject investigation (5-001-83[966]).

Mr. Cain stated that as a result of Mr. Cavanaugh's statement that "I have no recollection of discussing the details of any particular investigation with Mr. Cavanaugh."

2.

Leddick A.

On November 20, 1984 during the interview of Mr. Cain, Mr. Leddick was present and stated to 01 representatives (Herr and Driskill) that he first became aware cf investigation (5-001-83[966]) on November 20, 1984.

B.

On December 6,1984, Mr. Leddick, while addressing Region IV management, stated that he only became aware of the investigation in question in November 1984.

Present at this meeting was the Region IV Regional Administrator. Mr. R.

Martin, who executed a signed sworn statement (Exhibit 12) to OI confirming Mr. Leddick's remarks concerning the investigation.

Later on the same day, Mr. Leddick was asked to sign a sworn statement that was prepared by 8806240239 880615 PDR FOIA PDR

/

DOLEY88,-25.,,

Memo to Ben B. Hayes

  • Mr. R. K. Herr and D. D. Driskill concerning his remarks to thera and to Mr. Martin about the subject investigation.

At this time, Mr. Leddick made numerous changes to the prepared statement before signing his statement Exhibit (13).

Mr. Leddick's corrections appeared to have contradicted his previous testimony concerning the investigation, to wit:

"I only learned of this investigation in November 1984" vs "I do not recall being advised of this investigation until November 1984."

Upon further questioning, Mr. Leddick stated that he made changes to his statement af ter having just reviewed the statement of Mr. Cavanaugh, which his lawyer, Mr. Aulick, presented to him a few minutes prior to the meeting with Mr. Herr.

Mr. Leddick stated that ha changed his statement based on Mr. Cavanaugh's statement wherein Mr. Cavanaugh asserted that he told Mr. Leddick about the investigation.

C.

On December 12, 1984 Mr. Leddick provided, via his executive assistant, Mr. Joseph Sleger, a copy of a May 20, 1983, letter entitled "Fitness for Duty Rule." Exhibit (16).

This letter identifies the investigation in question.

Mr. Leddick, on January 23, 1985, advised 01 that Mr. Cavanaugh had given him this letter which he placed in his office.

Mr. Leddick stated that he did not read the letter and only recently discovered the letter in his office.

D.

Upon discussion with Mr. Leddick, Mr. Herr, in the presence of Mr. Aulick, Mr.

Leddick's attorney, asked Mr. Leddick, "Did Mr. Cavauaugh provide any documents to you recently?" Mr. Leddick responded, "No."

Subsequently, during additional questioning, Mr. Aulick admitted that Mr. Cavacaugh had provided to him (Aulick) his (Cavanaugh's) statement that he had given to 01.

Mr. Aulick further admitted that he provided Mr. Cain's statement to Mr. Leddick just minutes before Mr. Leddick entered Mr. Herr's office.

Subsequently, Mr. Leddick confirmed Mr. Aulick's testimony.

Exhibit (14)

Barkhurst A.

On November 19, 1984 Mr. William C. Nelson, Senior Vice President-Administrative Services, LP6L, executed a signed sworn statement Exhibit (8) to 01 wherein he stated that during the conduct of the subject investigation (5-001-83[966] in 1983, he learned that LP6L superv'sory personnel repeatedly advised reactor operator personnel that they did not have.

cooperate with the investigators.

Mr. Nelson further stated that he was upset with this and discussed his objections with Mr. Barkhurst, Plant Operations Manager, Waterford 3.

Mr. Nelson stated he was upset because of the "potential for interferring."

Mr. Nelson stated that it was his understanding that Mr. Barkhurst concurred with his views.

B.

On December 5,1984, Mr. William Cavanaugh, supra, exe cuted a signed sworn statement Exhibit (11) to OI wherein he stated that during the course of the investigation in question that it came to his attention that one or more Operation Department personnel (reactor operators) had displayed a non-cooperative attitude towards the investigators.

Mr. Cavanaugh stated that this upset him and he discussed the situation with Mr. Barkhurst.

Mr. Cavanaugh further stated that he told Mr. Barkhurst to instruct his personnel that they were to cooperate with the investigators.

Memo to Ber. B. Hayes C.

On December 4, 1984, Mr. Barkhurst, Plant Manager, Nuclear Operations at Waterford 3, was interviewed with a court reporter present.

Exhibit (10)

When asked the question, "To your knowledge, were any of the supervisors of the reactor operators giving advice (not to cooperate with the investigators)," to wit:

Mr. Barkhurst answered, "To my knowledge, nobody was telling them not to cooperate."

MLJ P% rY W W p

y CONCLUSION:

RKH--Based on the above evidence, I do not believe that the evidence supports willfull intent on the part of anyone to lie to 01.

However the evidence does reflect a conflict in testimony that was not totally resolved.

Because of the cdAf flic t of testimony gives the appearance that a potential "wrongdoing" may

)

I believe that a referral to DOJ have occurred among the executive managementf would be appropriate.

DDD--In response to your request for my opinions relative to a determination as to whether 01 Case 4-84-043 should be forwarded to DOJ, I believe that a reasonable belief exists that both James M. Cain and Roth S. Leddick made statements, during the course of the OI investigations, which were intended to mislead and deceive the NRC. As a result of the conflicting statements made by both Cain and Leddick, I consider it our obligation and responsibility to refer this matter to D0J for prosecutive consideration.

Our initial interviews with Wallace Friloux and William Nelson during this investigation disclosed to LP6L that OI was investigating the circumstances which led to the suspension of the LP6L Security Dept. investigation of reactor operator drug use and the reasons it was never reinitiated. When Cain and Leddick were interviewed, regarding this matter, on November 20, 1984, they were aware of the focus of the NRC investigation and they recognized LP&L's f ailure to resolve all the allegations presented in the initial Corporate Securit Dept. report. This personal opinion is supported by Cain's November 20, 1984, '

  1. statement wherein he stated he did not want the LP&L report to give the impression "that our corporate security investigators have been handcuffed in their activities at Waterford 3."

This unsolicited statement by Cain w:s an indirect admission that the report did give that impression.

It is my opinion that Cain and Leddick recognized the incomplete status of the LP&L investigation and with the knowledge of the focus of the NRC investigation made a conscious decision to deny knowledge regardint the investigation. This decision, on their part, would ef fectually relieve top LP6L management of any responsibility for the utility's failure to complete the~

investigation. Cain made a sworn statement on November 20, 1984, denying any previous knowledge regarding the LP6L investigation.

Leddick made verbal denials of knowledge regarding the LP6L investigation to NRC investigators on November 20, 1984 and to NRC Region IV management on December 6,1984.

. 4 CONCLUSION (Continued) on December 5, 1984 and January 22, 1985, William Cavanaugh advised 01 investigators that he apprised both Cain and Leddick of the LP&L investigation.

Cain and Leddick each amended their previous statements regarding their knowledge of the investigation upon learning of the statement made by Cavanaugh. Neither denied the verocity of Cavanaugh's statement, but each stated he did not recall being briefed by Cavanaugh. Additionally, Ross Barkhurst, on December 4, 1984, stated he advised Leddick about the LP6L investigation.

It is my personal opinion both Cain and Leddick amended their original statements using a loss of memory as the only defense available aside from saying Cavanaugh was not truthful.

It again is my opinion that neither Cain nor Leddick would have forgotten being briefed concerning the LP6L investigation which was a matter that could have, even in 1983, had serious impact on the LP&L licensing schedule.

Fur the rmore,

the issues brought about as a result of the LP6L investigation, such as the termination of one auxillary reactor operator (ARO) the counselling and rehabilitation of two other ARO's, the subsequent urinalysis given approximately four times during the 1983-84, the strengthening of LP6L fitness for duty policies and the internal corporate controversies relative to LP6L's right to dictate off-duty conduct of employees, require an employee to submit to polygraph examination and require employees to submit to unannounced urinalysis testing, make it dif ficult for me to believe that top management was never made aware or does not recall being made aware of the LP&L investigation.

}

i I

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

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20195F204&oldid=4120490"