ML20236V027

Forwards Eh Stier to Pr Clark Re Results of Investigation Re Allegations of Sleeping & Inattentiveness to Duty by Shift Supervisor.Names of Four Individuals Mentioned in Redacted Ltr Given.Gpu News Release Also Encl

ML20236V027
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	11/30/1987
From:	Blake E GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
CON-#487-4953 LRP, NUDOCS 8712040043
Download: ML20236V027 (48)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.i ef53 SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROkhE A pa.Tmt.Sw,. #NeLUD NG . 0FESSsCNAL CO..o.ATIONS 2300 N STREET, N. W.

WASH,NGTON. D. C. 20Q37 '87 ROM 663-8000 C -1 P3 01 s'au.av o .o,vs. . c samte..**uum. e. ,,o,o,,,,,,,,,,,,

i;:= t 2,;'".;*  :': a'?J:WIf. r.<o=.*=~<-

1.'"O!!"^o"=h!!c. "J.* 'ti : "'J"* OFFICE Of Sid!.IAP f '.~.~.N $aa' 7 ;".'7"J ",'e~a!"..*i. .c. " ll";  %".'.'".?fe 00CKEIING A SEHvlCE '"o"* * = = ao-" < "*

'"'* i t0,th fu.

. c. E'TJ" ".3#+ 1. e BRANCH ' " ^c " " , " , , . " ' , ' ' ' '

W. ~ *.~e=W::: .e  :,t :::::::.:. at

' ':t,";".".."."tt.'e;' 't,"" L ."I'A.Ve"" ,,ov',".a ',"',',L"'g,,,

n;ra':."?::2.'::. = c:::, w " ' -ea ~. ..a,~. . ,oa

" Mbia'tt' jai %. e 0;"' "#t.*/e**4?',P (' ' ' ' " * ' * *

"NT.',"".""t.t:

• e. n'A." !.e""," . n a co... .

. (mor) ras 37a 5 === 37e' MA*l.*"

..noo 13..,~1.*51.'e_ s. 6.

f.e"."

e ..n t, i.'.".%,1."

a m .. -

i %".'** G*JJ?e7 *. c EsT!,i." .*'t.',".?" . " " c'*^* "

Gli.'"t-::::'it  ;" :.i "*".*Du.

e "."o'. "?/he", *. ',1. c . . *s%'t .'t'."!J"*

e"*:'"; . **"" ......e M'".'a 'e"*at'

• T

.  : o"l~" W ;',"-lE- L' " ' L';t ~ '"

w.iTE. 8 DI.ECT D.AL NWM.E.

..-.e.. .

es . C (202) 663-8084 November 30, 1987 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l In the Matter of Inquiry Into Three Mile Island Unit 2 Leak Rate Data Falsification Docket No. LRP

Dear Mr. Chilk:

The Commission has pending before it, in this proceeding, the Presiding Board's May 21, 1987 Recommended Decision (LBP-87-15) and the Staff's July 20, 1987 Recommendations Regard-ing Individuals Associated With The Leak Rate Surveillance Testing Irregularities at TMI-2.

Enclosed, for the information of the Commission, is a redacted copy of a November 20, 1987 letter, with Attachments 1 and 2, from Mr. Edwin H. Stier to Mr. Philip R. Clark, President, GPU Nuclear Corporation. The letter and attachments present the

~

results to date of Mr. Stier's investigation concerning allega-tions of sleeping and inattentiveness to duty by a shift 0712040043 PDR ADOCK hoob20 PDR

4 l

SHAw, PITTM AN, POTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNERSMlP INCLyosNO PROFE55aONAL CORPO8tariONS Mr. Samuel J. Chilk November 30, 1987 Page 2 supervisor at TMI- 2. GPU Nuclear Corporation has filed an unexpurgated copy with the NRC Staff, with a request that it be withheld from public disclosure.

l Mr. Stier's letter and attachments contain the names of four individuals who are among the eight individuals identified with an exception to the Staff conclusion regarding the pre-accident individuals in the above-referenced Staff memorandum, July 20, 1987, at page 6. The four individuals, and their alphabetical designators used in the enclosure, are:

BB Congdon, J.

A Illjes, T.

B McGovern, H.

O Miller, A.

Also enclosed, for the information of the Commission, is a copy of a GPU Nuclear news release, issued today, which among other things reports that GPU Nuclear has dismissed the shift supervisor under investigation.

Respectfully submitted, Ernest L. Blake, Jr.

h Counsel for GPU Nuclear Corporation cc (w/ encl.): Chairman Lando W. Zech, Jr.

Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts Commissioner Kenneth M. Carr Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers Administrative Judge Sheldon J. Wolfe Administrative Judge Glenn O. Bright Administrative Judge James H. Carpenter Mary E. Wagner, Esquire Docketing and Service BranchV Harry H. Voigt, Esquire Smith B. Gephart, Esquire James B. Burns, Esquire Michael W. Maupin, Esquire Mrs. Marjorie M. Aamodt

4 e

.1 i

4 EDWIN H. STIER

• noas 5SioNAL AStociAfl0N LAW OpplCES 118 CLipsSTmest sousavicus New seassy one7e

.ea n # ,... . .

November 20, 1987 ,

Mr. Philip R. Clark President GPU Nuclear Corporation One Upper Pond Road Parsippany, New Jersey 07054

Dear Mr. Clark:

You have requested that I advise you of the status of our investigation concerning allegations of sleeping and inattentive-ness to duty by a shift supervisor at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 (TMI-2).

Aggkaround The allegations a. gainst the shift supervisor were brought to management onafter your attention an anonymous letter was received by TMI-2 j July 9, 1987. A copy of the letter also was received on the same date by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) resident's office. The July 9 letter referred to an earlier tions anonymous letter that had been received by Plant Opera-Manager j alleged that the s$upervisor of on April 8, 1987, in which it was "F" shift at TMI-2, 1

, had been sleeping on duty. />

alleged that The April letter furthur 0 had previously been made aware of the sleeping allegations.

It contained a demand that A ba relieved of his shift duties and threatened to bring the allega-tions to the attention of higher management and the NRC if he was not so relieved. ,

The letter received on July 9 stated that seven members of A 's crew would swear to having seen 4 asleep on more than one occasion, accused TMI-2 management of a cover-up, and threatened to call the news media, on July 14, 1987, a third anonymous letter was received by TMI-2 Director Frank Standerfer. It reiterated the allegations {

made in the previous letters concerning A 's sleeping and made other allegations against him, including inaccurate turnover briefings, ignorance of plant conditions, doing work in the control room for an outside business in which he had an interest, and taking extended plant tours during which he could not be promptly contacted by the control room.

Mr. Philip R. Clark November 20, 1987 Page 2 Investigation On Julyagainst allegations 10, 1987, you retained me to investigate both the 4 and GPUN management's knowledge of and responses to those allegations. The investigation was to be independent and under my exclusive control. You assured me that  !

GPUN personnel would provide their complete cooperation. You further instructed me to keep NRC representatives fully apprised of all of the evidence that we obtained.

Since then, we have interviewed more than seventy persons and taken more than thirty sworn depositions. We have also examined documentary evidence, including memoranda, diary entries, legs, personnel files, and computerized records of control room entries and exits.

Quality Assurance, Human Resources, Personnel from the and Labor Relations, Security, Licens-ing departments provided logistical support, assisted in the gathering of evidence, and were consulted with respect to rele-vant guidelines, procedures, and background information.

We have concluded the allegations against the phase of our investigation concerning fF ..

Summarized below are the principal findings from this phase of the investigation. Attach-ment 1 is a partial chronology, which provides a more detailed account of the allegations results of the investigation as they bear upon the against Ar .

(This chronology will be supple-mented in our final report to reflect additional facts relating to management's responses to these allegations.) Attachment 2 is a list of thefFwitnesses who testified to having personally observed asleep, " nodding off," or otherwise inattentive, together with a brief description of the substance of their testimony. The exhibits and transcripts referenced in the partial request. chronology are available for your inspection upon l

{

l Summarv of Findinas l A. Standards and Procedures for Resolvina Sleenine Allegations We have devoted considerable attention during the investiga-tion to the issue of what standard of proof is required to sub-stantiate an allegation of sleeping or inattentiveness to duty, and the related issue of what procedure is appropriate for investigating and resolving such allegations. These issues are particularly important to the evaluation of TMI-2 management's actions in response to the allegations.

i There is no single, clearly established standard of proof applicable to allegations of sleeping or inattentiveness to duty. In July 1987, however, following the discovery of areas in l

l

Mr. Philip R. Clark November 20, 1987 Page 3 the sit &,TMI-2 turbine operations building that may have been used for sleeping, Director C. wrote a memorandum con-taining guidelines for management personnel conducting tours, who might observe employees sleeping on duty. The sources for the guidelines in C 's memorandum were varied, and included experience legal considerations. grievance and arbitration proceedings and from union There was some disagreement among the witnesses as to how strictly some of the guidelines -- 22gt, obtaining more than one witness and observing the sleeping employee for two to four minutes tions. -- had been or should be followed in resolving allega-These divergent views will be analyzed in connection with the phase the of the investigation allegations. concerning mangement's response to With respect to 4 , however, differences in opinion about the amount, strength, or type of evidence needed to substantiate an allegation are not critical. Under any reason- l I

able standard of proof, the evidence was more than sufficient to support the conclusions described below.

B. Summarv of the Evidence 1.

Evidence of Sleenina and Inattentiveness to Duty 4 Twenty-one sleeping, "

witnesses testified to having personally observed nodding off," or appearing to be asleep while on duty. These persons included all of the control room operators (CRos) assigned to A 's shift prior to his bwing relieved of licensed duties in July 1987, all of the auxiliary operators (AOs) on that shift, former crew members, another shift supervisor, maintenance personnel, an Instrument and control technician, and CRos and Aos who had worked under on a temporary or " fill-in" basis. 4 Some witnesses made only one observation, while others testified to having seen 4 sleeping on numerous occasions over a period of years. The earliest observations occurred during the early 1980s, and the most recent on June 27, 1987. Most of the slaeping occurred during 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift but there were instances of sleeping on the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift, and at least one on a day shift.

Many instances of sleeping were quite brief, and can best be characterized by the term " nodding off." Others lasted several minutes or more. On a number of occasions, 4 was awakened intentionally by members of his crew or others who slammed books, set off alarms, shouted at him, talked loudly, or otherwise took action to rouse him. Indeed, long prior to the commencement of this investigation in July 1987, A. had acquired a widespread reputation for sleeping that extended well beyond his immediate' crew.

l l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ --_ D

Mr. Philip R. Clark November 20, 1987 Page 4 with,some of the more noteworthy incidents that could be dated reasonable certainty were the following:

a. Within two six-week cycles of April 13, 1985, machinists D and ously observed- 4 E simultane-visor's office.

asleep in the shift super-O and E , standing in that office, observed that 4 was motionless, both eyes were closed, and his head was propped up by his hands. D then yelled at 4 stating either, " Hey," or " Hey, A , wake up."

jerked his head up and looked startled. 4-D then told 4 that he, D , had just i

received three days on the street for the same d I

conduct. ( p had been suspended for three days in April 1985, for sleeping.)

b. On June 4, 1985, while giving AO checkout, F an sos 4 asked F a bizarre question that began with a matter pertinent to the checkout and ended with a reference to flying, then nodded off briefly, awoke, and asked F what they had been discussing.

c. On September 17, 1986, & was substituting for l "A" Shift Supervisor Cp on the 11-7 shift and, between 1:30 and 3:00 a.m., began nodding off at the shift supervisor's desk. CRos H and 1C both observed +

i .

falling asleep and began to talk loudly and slam l

books in an attempt to keep A awake. Later, they saw that # had fallen asleep again and they awakened him by simulating a diesel startup, which caused an alarm to sound.

d. During a turnover briefing on a 3-11 shift in September or October 1986, & fell asleep in front of the entire crew. After he was awakened, vt presented his briefing and repeated por-tions of the briefing that a CRO had just given to j the crew.

(

e.

On October 21, 1986, during an 11-7 shift, Aos f and K simultaneously observed VF asleep in the shift supervisor's office. CRO L made a similar observation on this occa-sion and also concluded that 4 was asleep.

T- began speaking in an increasingly loud voice about the need for shift supervisor to remain awake if everyone else was out working.

l

)

14

Mr. Philip R. Clark November 20, 1987 Page 5

,, 4 emerged from his office and asked: "What's un T .? " T" replied: "You are, 4.." There followed an angry confrontation finally, during which

• r accused A of sleeping, denied.

an accusation A 8 learned about this incident and, on October visited "F" Shift during the early morning 24, 1986, he hours. He spoke to members of the crew about the confrontation between A- and a- and later had a long conversation with fp about the incident.

f.

Shortly after midnight on June 27, 1987, while the "F" Shift was working 11-7, CRos /M and A/ observed /> asleep in the shift super-visor's office. pg i awakened by slamming a notebook on the floor. This /F incident happened within a few days after TMI-2 Manager Plant Operations O had warned d-about avoiding even the appearance of sleeping or inattentiveness.

In addition to sleeping, witnesses testified that 4  :

a. provided other shift supervisors with incomplete or misleading turnover briefings; b.

frequently took extended plant tours, during which he ignored attempts to page him, and was similarly unavailable while spending extended periods of time in the bathroom and on the telephonet c.

worked on non-GPON-related documents in the shift supervisor's office and elsewhere in the control room; and

d. was frequently unaware of plant conditions.

2. 4 'S Reseense to Evidence of Sle3Qg_,1Uld Inattentiveness to Duty i A

" nodded off"categorically during a shift. denied that he had ever slept or When asked if he could explain why members of his crew and others said he had done these things,

/L implied that certain crew members' personal dislike of him might explain some of the allegations. He also suggested that the crew members might have gotten the impression he was sleeping because he was in the habit of propping his head up with his hand while reading plant-related materials in his office, and he

_ U

Mr. Philip R. Clark November 20, 1987 Page 6

-pos'ition of his desk in the shift supervisor's office. ques,tioned how further contended that no one had ever attempted to awaken4him when he appeared to be sleeping.

1 Regarding other allegations, f said the following:

a.

Inaccurate Turnover Briefines -- He admitted that other shift supervisors had complained to him about his turnovers, but said that such complaints were not unusual among shift supervisors, and that he had found inaccura-cies from time to time in the turnovers given to him by other supervisors.

b. Extended Plant Tours -- A admitted that he spent substantial amounts of time outside the control room in the course of his duties but denied that he ever ignored pages or was, knowingly out of contact with the control room.

c.

Readina Enna - Non-Work-Related Materials in control 4 admitted that he had studied pilot training materials in his office during shifts, but said he did this during lunch breaks. He similarly admitted to having read financial documents pertaining to a lumber company in which he had an interest, but said this, too, was done during breaks.

d.

Lack of Knowledee of Plant conditions --

/b denied any recollection of giving per-mission to Fuel Handling Senior Reactor Operator P to begin core alteration at a time when 4 knew that a double door reactor building defeat was in progress. Additionally, 4 claimed that i he never on any occasion gave P I permission to conduct a core alteration without checking with the CRos.

4') responses to specific allegations are set forth with more particularity in the attached partial chronology.

C. Evaluation of Conflicting Testimony We attempted to resolve conflicts in the testimony given by l witnesses by considering the following: the opportunity each witness had to observe the matter under investigation, the possi-

Mr. Philip R. Clark November 20, 1987 Page 7 ble pias or intesw^e af the witness, the extent to which a wit-ness' testimony whe corroborated by other witnesses or by docu-mentary evidence, and the inherent plausibility or implausibility of the testimony.

tant. The nature of the conflict'was also impor-For times, dates, example, most witnesses had difficulty remembering and the order in which certain events occurred.

There were occasions when all witnesses, including e , agreed that an event had occurred, but, citing the disorienting effects of shift work, had widely divergent estimates of when it had occurred and whether it had occurred before or after another event.

Thus, confusion over dates and times was not by itself regarded as seriously undermining the credibility of testimony about the substance of an event. i The most twenty-one witnesses, significant conflict in testimony was between the 4 each of whom testified to having seen asleep, apparently asleep, or " nodding off" on at least one occasion, and

{

+

A , who categorically denied that he had ever done this during a shift. In arriving at the conclusions set forth below, we resolved this conflicting testimony in favor of the witnesses who said they had personally observed sleeping. 4 4 offered no convincing reason to believe that the witnesses who supported the sleeping allegations fabricated evidence against him because of personal malice or for any other reason. Indeed, A characterized as honest people nearly all of the witnesses against him, and this assessment was generally shared by other witnesses who had not themselves observed sleeping incidents.

between A Although there was considerable tension and the members of his crew, the sleeping allegations cannot plausibly be dismissed as the product of the crew's malice. In addition to the unanimity of 43 1986-87 crew on the sleeping issue, there were thirteen eyewitnesses who were not members of that crew.

time period encompassed by their observations, and the fact thatThe number o they occupied diverse concerted fabrication. positions at the plant belies any theory of Nor did the evidence support an inference that the crew members and others who saw yb apparently asleep were simply mistaken. The witnesses were questioned closely about their ability to observe sF and the basis for their belief that he was sleeping, and it was clear that they had an adequate basis for concluding that he was asleep or otherwise inattentive on many of the occasions they described.

/b

.It is also significant that no witness who worked with for prolonged shifts, refuted periods of time, particularly during 11-7 the allegations.

l All of the current and former

Mr. Philip R. Clark November 20, 1987 Page 8 CRog on his shift, himI, supported the allegations,who had the greatest opportunity to observe CRos who had worked for as did a substantial number of basis. 4 only sporadically, on a " fill-in" the sameThere time as were 4witnesses who had worked in the plant during and who never saw him sleeping, but these persons had far less opportunity to observe him than did the members of his crew and the " fill-in" CRos.

Finally, 483 testimony contained scant refutation of the allegations, and to some extent corroborated them. For example, while denying that he had fallen asleep during a turnover brief-ing that was estimated to have occurred in September or october 1986, 4 recalled the basic incident described by the crew and conceded Moreover, that he may have appeared tired on that occasion.

/F failed to recollect numerous key events to which others testified.

o Theseduring on June 24, 1987, included, whichfor example, a meeting with O

since the April 1987 investigation, asked A, forifthe he first time had been sleeping on duty.

D. Conclusions The evidence firmly supports the conclusion that 4 fell visor. on numerous occasions while on duty as a shift super-asleep These sleeping incidents date back to at least 1983, and possibly the 11-7 shift earlier, on the June most recent 26-27, incident having occurred during 1987. Together, these incidents were A- part of a longstanding pattern of activity exhibited by

, pursuant to which he repeatedly fell asleep, " nodded off," and otherwise displayed inattentiveness to his crew and othe.rs.

/F This pattern continued despite confrontations between and members of his crew over the issue of sleeping and despite several warnings, beginning in october 1986, by TMI-2 management.

This pattern was unique to sb . our investigation uncovered no evidence that any other shift supervisor was even rumored to have slept while on duty. It was clear that super-visors as well particularly as other during 11-7employees shifts. became tired while on duty, Others, however, reacted to fatigue in various ways that prevented them from either falling asleep and movingor appearing to do so, such as keeping busy or getting up around, rather than sitting motionless at a desk.

Regarding the other allegations against A ., the evidence supports the following conclusions:

.1. 4 more frequently than other shift supervisors provided supervisors.

inaccurate or incomplete turnovers to fellow shift The inaccuracy of these turnovers was caused in

Mr. Philip R. Clark November _20, 1987 Page 9 i par beg,t by 4') practice of completing his turnover sheets at the inning of the shift and thereafter failing to update them to reflect current plant conditions.

2.

one otherInsignificant addition to inaccurate instance turnovers, there was at least wherein displayed ignorance of or inattentiveness to plant conditions.4 Between 1986, March and May 4 gave approval to begin a core alteration despite his having been building defeatearlier was told by a CRO that a double door reactor in progress. One of the CRos caught the error before the core alteration began and, thus, at no time did these events constitute a violation of regulations.

3. 4 repeatedly, and for substantial periods, studied materials unrelated to his duties while in the supervisor's office and during at the shift supervisor's desk in the control room shifts.

These materials chiefly consisted of documents related in which spto piloting a plane and financial records of a business had an interest.

4. A's crew frequently had difficulty contacting him or gaining access approval for actions. to him for the purpose of signing papers or giving k's The reasons given for this included failure to respond properly to pages during long tours, his spending long periods of time in the bathroom, plant and his propensity to spend long periods holding the telephone receiver to his ear, but without appearing to speak to anyone.

evidence was inconclusive, however, as to whether A Thewas intentionally unavailable and as to whether he used plant tours as a pretext anonymous for sleeping, as suggested by the April 8, 1987 letter.

i during which he observed One witness described a specific instance A failing to respond to a page, but this incident determined occurred4near the control room and it could not be whether the control room. responded to that page by returning to In our final report, we will, in addition to incorporating the findings described above, address issues raised during the

second phase of the investigation, which focuses on GPUN management's concerning knowledge of and responses to the allegations A .

Ve y yours,, ,

lp?# -

/

Edwin H. S er EHS/kb Attachments I

e r

T b

w W

l 1

4 Attachment 1 PARTIAL CHRONOLOGY OF ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING

' SLEEPING AND INATTENTIVENESS TO DUTY BY A TMI-2 i SHIFT SUPERVISOR AND GPUN MANAGEMENT'S RESPONSES 1980 Ck , became "F" shift maintenance foreman and began to hear rumors that 4 , supervisor of "F" shift at TMI-2, slept on shift, especially during the first two nights of 11-7. At one time or another, he heard about 4 sleeping from everyone 1

on his crew. ( Q at 12, 14-15)

Since 1980, when 4 became a foreman, Auxiliary Operator (AO) R observed I

him on the telephone for as long as two to three hours many times. ( R at 48-50) i Feb. 1980 Control Room Operator (CRO) I S

began work at TMI as an Ao and immediately heard office.

the bathroom referred to as 4 's

( JT at 4, 33-34)

Sept. 1981 AO ~F began work at TMI and began to hear rumors of d 's sleeping or inattentiveness to duty. It was common knowledge among the crews. ( 1- at 8-9)

Oct. 1981 - 1985 Machinist Lt ,

who worked on "F" 1

shift from 1981 to 1985 and sporadically since then, heard that (

4 was onless than alert on  !

the job and that he slept shift. R saw 4 studying flight charts at his desk, usually on the 11-7 shift, between onc and ten  ;

times. When L( needed to have a togging i

order or work package signed by 4 and was told 4 was in the bathroom, he knew from past experience to wait two hours before returning. On an 11-7 shift, L( could count on A being in the bathroom between 1:00 and 3:00 a.m. ( g( at 3, 7-12)

Oct. 1982 - AO ;f saw i

Oct. 1986 4 least forty times. About 95 percent of the sleeping at time, it was on the 11-7 shift, generally during the first few nights. ( Jr at 1

12-17) 4 ') Resconse: A believes that AO CF said this i because ;T did not like ,4 .

A thinks T either had personal problems l

l j

1 l

or did not like fr , or both. (A I

Vol. 2, at 20, 33) 1 1983 - July 6, AO V saw I

,1987. JP sleeping between

' five and ten times, all on the 11-7 shift except one, which occurred on the 3-11 shift.

From 1983 to the beginning of 1986, a couple of times a shift week, V also saw on the phone for two or three hours, not A 1' speaking,

( y in the shift supervisor's office.

at 9-18) ,

Beginning 1983 - {

AO kV saw mid-1984 nodding off between '

three Jk and six times o(n the 11-7 shift.

sitting at his desk in the controlHe saw room, with his eyes closed, his head would go down, and then he would jerk it up. The  ;

nodding off lasted fifteen to thirty seconds, t NQ at 5-8, 10-11)

OS {

Resoonse: yb has noasrecollection no knowledge to why Ao ofVVthese events and these impressions. would form A believes that Ao v/ is an honest perso,n. (4 , vol. 2, at 34-35) i Prior to CRO X l Aug. 1983 away, observed from about fifteen feet 4 sleeping at the shift i i

supervisor's (SS) desk in the control room.

Someone saw 4 had told him to look at A restin and he back, mouth open,g back in and eyes closed. his chair, his head at 6-10) ( X 4'S Resnonne: #(

believeshasCROno recollection X

of this event and is an honest employee.

( A Vol 1, at 67-68, Vol. 2, at 26)

Sept. 1983 CR0 M began work at TMI and a couple of weeks, began to hear rumors, that within A was sleeping or appeared to be sleeping on the job. M characterized /('s sleeping as common knowledge throughout the operations department. I M at 54-56)

Oct. 1983 - AO r , as a CRO trainee on "F" shift, Oct. 1984 often observed 4 stare. At such times, dazed with a blank repeat what he had said to 1- would have to i 4 . 9F also observed Ar. staring into space once or twice a night and three or four nights cut of an 11-7 or 3-11 shift week. He also saw et on the telephone, not saying anything,

- for a couple of hours. The long telephone incidents occurred a couple of times during an 11-7 week. Often, when /F was taking pilot training, perhaps almost every night, l 1- observed him studying his pilot '

materials in the shift supervisor's office.

4. spent as many as six hours on a 3-11 or 11-7 shift studying such materials. ( T' i at 9-18)

_ d'5 Resoonse: dt does not recollect looking at flight maps for that amount of time although he t talked about flying with 'T' and may have shown him maps because 9I either was going for his pilot's license or had flying experience. A also says he was not studying flying until about October 1984. He says that person.

-r is a generally honest

( /r Vol. 1, at 67, Vol. 3, at 29-31) 1984 CR0 A/ h about first recollection of hearing

/h's inaccurate turnovers. (p '

at 162)

By 1984, according to CR0 L. , every-one in Unit 2 operations had heard about A 's sleeping. During that year, L.

first saw 4 sleeping on duty anc it got worse over time.

L. saw h, sleeping one dozen times at his desk in the shift supervisor's office from 1984 to 1987, and one dozen times at the SS desk during the same time period. One such i

time, L took a piece of paper from A's hand, photocopied it, and returned it '

while 4 slept. ( L. at 36, 40, 44, 47, 72) 4*5 Rannonse: A has no recollection of sleeping in (

L.'s presence although he is sure he l k,,,ared tired at times. He does not remember the photocopying incident. {

At believes j L- to be a generally honest person.

( A Vol. 1, at 65, Vol. 3, at 11-12)

In 1984, machinist - D heard rumors that 4, was hard to keep awake on backshift, spent a lot of time in the bath-room, and was hard to contact on backshift.

The bathroom was called A 's second office. ( D at 18, 25)

I l

-4 -

During 1984, CRO R then an AO, was called to come in for an 11,-7 shift and  !

@ spoke to him strongly about not falling asleep awake.

and how important it was to stay

( H at 38-39)  !

Sept. 1984 Y. Radiological Control Technician (Rad Con Tech), needed 4(s signature on paperwork, but room.

A. was not in the control An Ao said he would show Y how to find 4 on the 11-7 shift, and.took him to a two-story maintenance structure on the turbine deck. The maintenance office on the second story was locked and the lights were out. No one responded to banging on the door so the Ao took Y to a page phone 60 yards away, paged A twice, and hung up the phone.

Two minutes after they had banged on the door, they returned to the maintenance office and the door was unlocked, the lights were on, and /F was sitting behind the partition. Y had been told that A slept office.

on night shift, often in the maintenance-Y says it was common knowledge among Aos that A, slept on night shift.

(Y at 3, 10-20)

A'S Resnonsg: A has no explanation as to why "F" Shift Aos told Rad con Tech Y that A could be found in the maintenance office o.n 11-7 shift nights.

the specific events. He also has no recollection of

( A vol. 2, at 31-33)

Oct. 1984 - AO June 1985

saw A. doze off once or twice d.uring each week of 11-7.

Occasionally, this occurred on the 3-11 shift. ( F at 17-19) j A3 Rannonse: A. has no recollection of these events and no knowledge as to why AO k F would have '

these impressions. A believes F is an honest employee. ( A Vol. 1, at 84, Vol. 2, at 35) l Dec. 1984 or Ao F began to hear rumors of A Jan. 1985 spending long periods in the bathroom. The rumors continued up to July 1987. F also noticed that A, was repeating the CRos' turnovers, which continued until July 1987, and that spent a lot of time on the telephone. (A F at 36-43, 52-56) 1984 - 1985 CRO M  !

first saw 4. tired and nodding  !

\

off when Jh substituted for ' I bl') shift foreman at the time. (M at 50-54)

The first time that CRO M believes he observed 4 sleeping was 1984 - 1985, which was when 4 started acting like he did not care any more. In approximately 1985, sleeping became a regular affair.

( 4's M at 39-40)

Machinist D saw h. looking like he had just awakened three to four times durina the 3-11 and 11-7 shifts. He observed A.

from a distance of about four to six feet and noticed that his eyes were bloodshot and glassy. A also spent extended periods of time, up to two hours, in the bathroom and extended periods of time, up to one hour or so, listening on the telephone. ( 0 at 20-23, 24-28, 30-31)

Prior to 1985 At some 1985, time Unit 1 between A0 the 1979 accident and AA was bringing fire system paperwork to the Unit 2 control room during either the 3-11 or 11-7 shift. He stopped in front of the windows separating the corridor and saw from the shift supervisor's office A at his desk facing the control room with his right hand covering his face and supporting his head. AA banged his hard hat on the window. A did not respond but someone in the control room, beyond the office in which A was located, heard the noise, turned to face AA , and came and took the papers from A4

( k at 5-20)

- 4's Response: & states that he might not have moved, I but might have told his CRos to open the control room door. Normally, however, he ,

would have looked to see who was banging.

( A. , Vol. 2, at 36-37)

During these years, in conversations with Unit 2 Aos and CRO L , with whom he car-pooled, As4 heard stories about sleeping or inattentiveness. Rumors continued into 1987. ( AA at 20-23) 1985 Machinist E saw sy sleeping, with his eyes closed, up to four times at his desk in shift supervisor's office and believes A disappeared from the control room

'during 11-7 as a standard practice. E remembers that /F was often in the bathroom and the longest time he can remember is three hours. E also saw A working

,, on flight materials.

(E at 6-8, 14-20) 1985 - July 1987 CRO S times with , who was on shift possibly a dozen A , saw him nodding off once or twice in the control room or at his desk in the shift supervisor's office. S believes it was 1986 when he saw 4 nodding off at the shift supervisor's desk in the control room. 4 was bent over the desk, reading material in front of him, head tilted over, nodding, eyes closed or flutter-ing. When $ saw him in the shift supervisor's office, . &'s head was down, he was not moving, and his eyes were closed.

( S at 5-17)

/P3 Rasconse: d has no recollection of this event although he says that, if he had been at his desk in the shift supervisor's office with his head on his hand, and his head had been down, his eyes would not have been visible.

( k Vol._2, at 37-40)

- SS supervisor, 90 received inaccurate turnovers from 4 approximately two-thirds of the time. S also knows Shift supervisor C.C, wrote A- a note, probably during the last couple of months A was on shift, about inaccurate turnovers. ( S at 18-23) 1985 - Present cRO H heard rumors about 4 sleeping from CRos L. M M and the AOs. A) Cold 4 about the difficulty in finding 4. , his ex, tended times in the bathroom, his sleeping on shift, and the CRos doing A's job for him. The bathroom inci-dents occurred more often than the sleeping, according to A/ . u frequently could not find A . Occasionally, # said he 1

had to do A's turnover because 4 did not know what was going on or was not present in the control room. Stories from the other CRos were similar. H has heard every shift supervisor complain about A 's turnovers. DD also heard that, when A became a shift supervisor, he delegated a lot of his tasks to his CRos without giving any follow-up support or advice. ( H at 20-22, 27-31, 42; DD , at 19-21)

i

-7 -

Jan. - Apr.

1985 At some time during this period, at a party at the Mariner restaurant, Plant Operations Manager B , in a conversation with

Ao IT' , asked how things were on "F" shift. This was the first time ~T~

raised 4% problems with ,

F 6 . Ao perhaps for remembers it as a licensing party, EE , among others.

( Et received his SRO license on April 30, 1985.) tr lasted about a minute.estimates F4 the encounter recollec-tion N>

is that sleeping was mentioned as one of Or problems, but was not a major point.

6's does not recall specifically response but believes it was something to the effect that he would see what he could do or would speak with & .

According to T: 8 did not seem surprised and made a comment to the effect that he kept 4 with them because they could keep an eye, on him or keep him out of trouble. II believes B did do something because CRO L. told him shortly after that that 4 was giving out more work because Cr had complained to B about 4 .

f IT at 88-93; F at 63-68)

This is the only time CRO A/ recollects anyone speaking to 9 abo problems prior to January 1986,ytbut A'sit is N's impression that B was repeatedly informed during 1986 and 1987, particularly by AOs. ( 6/ at 108-09, 117)

After Apr. 1985 Machinists D and E , through the corridor windows, observed A asleep for 10 to 15 seconds. D apparently said to G ,

"There the asshole is, sleeping again." D and EL walked into the control room and into the shift supervisor's office and saw A, -- eyes closed, motionless, head propped up by his hands.

) yelled, " Hey," and A woke up, startled, his head jerking up. ( E l

remembers D yelling, " Hey, A , wake up.") D said, "I just had three days in the street not too long ago for that shit."

1. M places this conversation in December 1985.

i

( V at 108-09)

~

-8 -

It was_a 3-11 or 11-7 shift. D later told his foreman, Q , about the j incident. GD at 7-14: E at 9-13)

{

At Response: A,

' has no recollection of this event and does not know why they would lie about it.

Machinist p is a generally honest person and A_ has never known l him.

D. to lie to l

( A , Vol. 1, at 84-85, Vol. 2, at l

40-43)

June 1~985 - 1986 During the time A, was studying for his l pilot's license, CRO VF heard tapping on the control room window on a night 4 was substituting for his shift supervisor.

According to FF , Ao cG was pointing at A , whose chin'was down on his chest-and who looked asleep. A) flight materials were spread out in front of him in the shift supervisor's office. They observed A asleep for about ten minutes before, according to FF the door and A

, CW,'

kicked the wall or picked up his head slowly, his eyes got big, his mouth dropped open, and he away.

started putting his flight materials GG does. net recall an event in which he kicked the door to awaken A.

(FF at 17-22; see also CWS at 18)

June 4, 1985 A gave Ao F a Submerged Domineralizer F

System (SDS) checkout, asking a question which concerned SDS and flying. A, said, "'I was up at SDS walking along the west side of the pool . . .

and some guy coming in for a landing comes in low and gives you a half hair cut.'a nodded off briefly, with his eyes closedA. and his chin on his chest, then snapped his head back up, and asked F what they had been discussing. ( F at 9-17; F Exh.

1)

,.,d3_...Responsa; A has no recollection of this incident.

( A. , Vol. 3, at 31-36)

Sept. 1985 CRO H , upon entering the CR0 training program, heard about A4 established reputation for sleeping on shift, inattentive-ness to duty, and not doing his job. ($

at 20-21, 26-27)

In September 1985, when B formally offered AO M a CRO position and told him it would be on "F" shift, Af expressed

-9 -

hesitation because problems on that shift of what withhe had heard about A .

8 acknowledged with A that there were problems working but neither man was more specific about the nature of the problems.

At this time, M began to notice A frequently on the telephone, sometimes for an hour or more, most often on the 7 to 3 shift on weekends and the 3 to 11 shift. 4 did not seem to be saying much. ( A/ at 82-88, 115-21)

Late 1985 CRO 61 first saw A sleeping, crouched over his desk in the shift supervisor's office. ( A/ at 57-59)

Late 1985 - A.

Oct. 1986 would come to work with pilot's maps and books that he would study at night.

AO V came to the shift supervisor's When office to return the previous day's reading, A would be in a slouched position with hisVeyes closed and would not acknowledge

, standing five feet from him for thirty seconds to a minute. ( V . at 18-24)

After 1985 During the time AO AA had key card access to the Unit 2 control room, he saw sitting at the shift supervisor's desk in&the control room looking at flying information in a magazine format. ( AA 1

at 24-28) 1986 - beginning CRO M saw notes from 1987 8 to tellina him he had done something wrong.A.

(* M at 164-66) 4 's Resnonse: A 6 has no recollection of notes from regarding inaccurate turnovers, but does recall that he showed M a note from another shift erroneously blaming "F" shift for something. He believes A/ to be a generally honest person. ( A , vol. 1, at 62-63, Vol. 3, at 51-52) l 1986 Rad Con Tech school, once Y saw , 4-an aviation buff in high in the shift supervisor's office. reviewing flight maps

( f at 22-25) 1986 - July 1987 AO AA. heard rumors of A. dis-appearing in the plant. ( AA at 32)

i Beginning CRO FF of 1986 heard a rumor that

• 4 was asleep more at 11, 13) than he was awake during training. ( FF Jan. - Oct. 1986 At some time during this period, when 6

was office, CRos walking into the shift supervisor's L M and Al alluding to were h/

/F5 problem staying awake and said it was a problem that needed to be addressed. B nodded affirmatively.

(' M at 111-13)

At some time during this period, when A was substituting for SF JL on an 11-7 shift, AO G6 observed 4, in the shift supervisor's office, first from the corridor and then from the office, motionless, with his head on his chest. GG called, j

" A ," three times, more loudly the second and third times. 4 did not respond so GG CRos instead of 4, took care of his business with the

. (* G6 at 8-14)

Feb. - June 1, 1986 Several times, Fuel Hangling Senior Reactor Operator (FHSRO) r brought to b's attention that A would work outside the procedures and fail to follow a procedure or to have appropriate paperwork in place (process instructions and data sheets, for example). B's response was that P should keep an eye on

(' P 4 .

at 37-39)

Mar. - May 1986 FHSRO P called the control room on a 3-11 shift during this period to get permis-sion to conduct core alteration and 4 gave it, not remembering that CRO A/ had told him that building defeat in progress. CRO L there was a double door reactor called P back to tell him not to proceed. The CROs and P decided to coordinate from A all future authorizations needed through the CRos. (f f at 24-28; Al at 30-37; L , Vol. 2, at 45)

A'S Resoonse: 4 has no recollection of this event or of knowing of an agreement to coordinate future authorizations through the CRos, although that is the way he would prefer it. ( A , Vol.

3, at 75-78)

Spring 1986 Instrument and Control (IEC) Technician HH discussed A with II . and

s rJ~ because he thought A was i spending a lot of time in the IEC shop and suspected 4 was going through people's papers.

4 He also talked about the extra work

" assigned that he thought unnecessary and that interrupted other things that needed to be done. He did not discuss AS sleeping with Oti er 1: 31 i

HH

. IF3 told j that other people had had trouble with '

4 and that was the way it was. ('HR at 40-48) i About May 1986 S met with THSRO P to tell him that, to round out the shift, P and FHSRO KK were switching shifts.

( P at 5-7)

Several Days FHSRo F' met again with Later - May 1986 9 who told him the switch was made to match up better experiences. P expressed his displeasure and told 6 that switching was not P

going to make the shift any better.

( at 7-8)

Mid-May 1986 FHSgo f P

demanded to know from was worried the that reason for the switch because he S believed P had problems working with people or questioned his competence. 9 implied that the reason the change was being made was that A. did not like working with P ,

and did not.like being confronted by him.

( P at 8)

$) Response A does not recall that he disliked working with P or disliked being confronted by him. ( A , Vol. 3, at 79-82)

Spring or Summer IEC Tech 4H was checking through Hesith 1986 Physics, coming from a job, and 4 came behind him. k ses paged and did not respond, although there was a phone nearby.

The page was clearly audible to HH , who was about sixteen inches from A .

According to HH , 4 could have gone back to the control room, about three minute's walk, instead of picking up the phone.

( WH at 53-57)

Spring - Fall During this period, AO K 1986 saw h working on pilot's materials. (K at 64)

June 18, 1986 Although he had not requested a transfer, FHSRo P was reassigned from "Fa Shift

l l

1 to "C" Shift with THSRO KK going from "C" Shift to "F" Shift,because of personality problems with 4 B.

that A told KK '

and P did not get along

and that (40s personality and disposition were best suited to'get along with A. .

KK agreed to the switch because he was willing to do whatever he could to make it easier for everyone, although he did not really want to leave "C" shift.

at 3-5; ( P KK at 23-25)

July 1986 AO  % began to notice d asleep on the 11-7 shift, days. Normally, usually during the first four A. was asleep with material laid out in front of him, occa-sionally flight maps. ( K at 21-25)

July 1986 -

Feb. or Mar. 1987 At some time during this period, SF 2 present for in-plant training, saw A. on ,

the 7-3 shift sleeping at the shift super-visor's desk inside the control room. ( mt at 6-10, 13)

A 'S Resoonse: 4 believeshas SF no2 recollection of this event.

to be a generally honest He person who has never lied to him. ( A ,

Vol. 1, at 21, Vol. 2, at 44)

July - Dec. 1986 At some time during this period, AO K first discussed 4) sleeping with 9

(' K at 38-39) .

Sept. 17, 1986 h was substituting for "A" shift supervisor G on the 11-7 shift, having worked the 7-3 shift Tuesday morning.

Between 1:30 and 3:00 a.m. A. began nodding off at his control room desk, slumped down in his chair, his head bobbing up and down, chin going toward his chest. CRos

. H and JC decided to keep him awake and talked loudly and slammed books.

A. may have realized he was nodding off when he heard the sounds and caught himself.

Later, A, moved to the communications desk and looked at the required reading book.

at H ., and had been talking A

and then JC and H began to converse just with each other. Between one and five minutes elapsed and C saw A laaning to the left side, chin close to his chest, both eyes closed. 11 remembers A. not slumped over, but G remembers his head face down, either right on the desk or a

couple of inches off it. JC and observed H A for about two minutes before they decided to simulate starting a diesel, which involved alarms and flashing lights.

', A quickly rose out of his chair and appeared scared. Either 30 or H said that the diesel had started but, by the time A s got to his feet, they told him they were only kidding. A said nothing and went either to the shift supervisor's office or to the shift supervisor's desk in the control room. He did not, however, sit back down in the chair. A said nothing then or at any later point concerning the 3 l

incident. A was supposed to substitute for Cp for the next two nights, but 9 took the shifts. ( Q at 6-20, 22-26, .T. at 5-16, 47-48) l Ns Resogngs: A ever being has no recollection startled of this event by a simulation of theor of diesel starting. He does not remember 9 taking the other two shift nights and has no knowledge as to why UC and H would lie about this event. (' A , Vol. 2, at 44-47)

Fall 1986 At some time durina this period, after CRos LL , AU4 ., and FF had relieved the "F" shift CRos, who had left, they were in the control room talking and looked at A, ,

who had not been relieved, at the shift super-visor's desk in the control room.

asleep. According to FF A_ was

, LL. picked up a trash can and, just as he started to slam it down, A woke up. LL said hallo to A , who did not reply. (FF at 22-23) 4 's Resoonse: 4 has no recollection of this event and no knowledge as to why CRO FF would lie about it. ( A. , Vol. 2, at 47-48)

After A returned from vacation, he shcwed LL a map of some land he had purchased and LL understood that A was a silent partner in Zeager Brothers Lumber Mill. He heard rumors but never saw 4, working on Zeager Brothers materials. (' LL at 12-14)

Sept. - Oct. 1986 At some time during this period, at approximately 3:10 p.m., A was sitting near the log book desk while CRO M , to his left and a bit in front of him, was reading aloud his turnover for the shift they

- 14 -

were beginning. After about two minutes,.

N did not hear any reactions from A so he turned and A's eyes were closed and his CRO head L

was tilted to one side. (From where

was standing, A, appeared to have his head on N's shoulder, although'he did not.) When M spoke more loudly to him, L

( jerked up and opened his eyes.

was also present.

The Aos came in for turnover at 3:15 p.m.,

hl began speaking, and, after two or three minutes, saw that A , sitting behind the shift supervisor's desk, again had his. head on his chest and his eyes shut. Aos R , K ,

dF , V ,, and F present. were probably (According to M , one Ao may have been missing.) When everyone laughed after Al boring, A asked if his turnovers were opened his eyes.and- N continued. (' CF does not recall the comment; he recalls that A was awakened by the O telephone call".) ( N at 37-47, Vol. 2, at 26-27; L at 48-52; CI at 54-62; R at 6-11; see also F at 25-3o; Exh. 7)

A's Rasmonse: A. has no recollection of an incident in which he had his eyes closed during a turnover,-but does remember appearing tired during one turnover. He says he was alert enough to carry out his duties. ( A, , Vol.

2, at 56-57)

After N finished, A began his briefing and repeated some of what A/ had said. At did not pay attention while 4 was repeating material, and when 4, asked him to pay attention, everyone laughed. At some point, one of the Aos yelled that h was repeating what A/ had said but h, did not acknowledge the comment.

CRos L. and M were also present.

(~ Al at 47-49, Vol. 2, at 26-27; CI at 62-65; see also Exh. 7; F at 3o-32)

According to @ , either that time or during another turnover, L answered a phone call from o and told o if he wanted to talk to A he'd have to wake him up.

According to Cr _, AL did not take the call. V recalls that A did take the call and that apparently .12_ thought L4 remark was a joke. L recalls

that during it.

A took the call and fell asleep

( K at 14-20, 36; Or at 57-58, 60-61; V at 35-39; L at 48-53)

At 8a flag football game during this period, told CRO 3; that S had to go to work uprising on that night to calm a revolt or A '3 shift. ( 31 at 42-44)

Oct. 1986 - CRO M saw A l Apr. 1987 nodding off more than siy times during turnover briefings and then

_ M, would repeat precisely what the CRos had said. Typically, A, would be sitting at his desk in the control room, but occa-sionally he would be over at the CRO's desk, called the log in or log book desk. On one occasion, A slept motionless for one minute close to Al during A/'4 turnover briefing to the Aos. Al log book desk. was at the CRO Ni was sitting between the shift supervisor's office and Panel #1.

Al did something to wake A up and someone made a comment about sleeping, which 4 denied or ignored. ( A% at 31-35)

A 's ResDonse: A, has no recollection of this specific event or of ever sleeping or nodding off during any turnover briefing. A believes A4 to be a generally honest person who has never lied to him. ( 4 , Vol. 1, at 64, Vol. 2, at 48-50)

Oct. 20-21, 1986 At some 3~

time between 2:00 and 4:30 a.m., Aos

_ and K , for about fifteen seconds, observed A sitting at his desk in the shift supervisor's office, facing the control room, motionless, slumped over with his head down. They were in the corridor and then entered the control room and observed A i still actionless and with his eyes closed.

CRO L had also observed A in the shift supervisor's office and considered him to be sleeping. CF _ then spoke with the i

1. Although AO 3~ _ testified that this event occurred I on the 11-7 shift which began on Sunday, October 19, and ended on Monday, October 20, the list of events recorded by the security computer does not show Aos IT , and K together during the morning of October 20. The in the control room list of events, however, does show that they were'in the control room on the morning of October 21 from 4:42 a.m. to 4:46 a.m.

=s CRos present about the job for which he had gone to the control room.

(About two minutes elapsed A

between the time he first observed and he began talking to-the CRos.)

After he and K completed their business with the CRos, during which he observed A , who remained motionless, three or four times, r began speaking more loudly about how the shift supervisor should stay awake if everyone else was out working.

A came out of his office and CF  :

thought his eyes looked bloodshot. K says he was stretching and yawning. Five to ten I minutes had elapsed since :T and K had first seen A sleeping. A asked

{

what was up, Or said A, finally was, and an argument that lasted ten to fifteen minutes ensued.

reading not sleepingA and saidPhe hadaccused been him of lying.  % CT , and K walked toward argue. the control Toward theroomend, door K and continued to at 6, looked straight and told him he had been sleeping.

About time twenty-five minutes elapsed between the

-f first observed A and the

' time he and K left the control room. This is the last time II saw A_ sleep-O GF ing. at 19-32; X at 30-33; L at 54-58; see also M at 14-18)

Ah Resoonse: 4 CF remembers an incident in which AO

_ accused him of sleeping and threatened to turn him in, but recollects that

~f . was referring to his belief that A. was asleep on en earlier occasion when he had just returned from a camping trip and appeared tired. A believes that if he was at his desk, he was working on pap,erwork during the time Aos L

GF _ ana K and CRO claim to have seen him asleep.

considers X to be a generally honest A person. ( A. , Vol. 1, at 82, vol. 2, at 50-54, Vol. 3, at 98-99)

That same morning, A told B he had had an argument with 3' . on the night shiftITand that it had been taken care of.

( . at 33-34)

According to FF , SF 1L had heard A telling S that he was having a problem with a particular Ao, meaning dr ., but that he could handle it. When A left the i room, 3L told 8 that he thought

l .

\ .

A was the problem. FF I 21 mentioned sleeping. does not know if

( FF at 15-16, 48-49)

After Oct. 20, Shortly after the incident between AO

1986 and A. , when CRO CF ,

Al and d were alone in the control room, N told that, if he felt drowsy, he should do A paperwork, take a tour of the plant or do anything to keep himself alert. A.

responded that he was not sleeping. ( M at 102-03)

Either shortly after the incident with CT and E or in January 1987, had his wife call him to help him remain4.

alert, according to the CRos. ( CF at 84-85)

Oct. 20-24, 1986 During this period, there were requirements for a procedure for processing water through the SDS that could not be met and ~'h trying to avoid following the procedure. was He and AO CI' had another heated exchange during which CF _ accused sleeping and lying his way out A. of it. ofAO 9 and probably I&c Tech HH were there. A Cr called , a liar and told himN he was "show-boating it," according to

(' A) at 18-21, 26)

A's Resoonse: A, does not recollect this event, but does recollect tr other occasions during which AO accused him of sleeping. A j

states he did not try to avoid following procedures with respect to the SDS, but there were times when he and JF argued about procedures. ( A , Vol. 2, at 54-56) l Oct. 24, 1986 On the 11-7 shift,  !

B had a long discus- I sion with 4, concerning "F" shift morale and the need for improvement by November 7. l 1

Manager Plant Operations O also had a discussion with A. . (Exh. 5, at 3, Exh.

6)

According to AO CF , the Wednesday evening after his encounter with 4_ at about 11:00 p.m.,

B came to AO Central to clarify what had occurred. The Aos present, K. , R , F , V _, and If , suggested putting 4 en a dif-farent shift. B said it would not be fair to the other shifts. Someone suggested

switching A with EE ., the scheduler, and B it with EE said he had discussed and that EE .did not even consider it. B said he would come

in when A, was on back shift, but he came in the last two nights and A, was always more alert at the and of the week. Following his conversation with the AOs, 9 spoke in the shift supervisor's with A office. (- G~ at 35-41, 93;- F l

57-63; V at l at 54-57; Exh. 5; see also' K l at 52-55) (R placed this in approximately February 1987. ( R at 22-25))

h, spoke with AO F about problems l

regarding A) manaaement style but not about sleeping. F had the. impression that B had told A, to apologize to his crew. (- F at 84-88; Exh. 7)

Ar spoke with AO V , who was' working at SDS. about how A, could do a better job. V _ told him to stop sandbagging surveillance but did not bring up sleeping because everyone knew what had happened and he thought 4, knew he was sleeping. ( V at 28-31; Exh. 7)

Oct. 27, 1986 4: met with CRO A/ regarding the problems on the shift. A/ does not remember the meeting specifically, but has spoken to 4, about most of the comments listed, including giving reasons for assigning jobs and not putting out extra surveillance just to keep crew busy when they have more than enough already. ( M at 92-102; Exh. 7)

Oct. 28, 1986 k met with AO R , who told him that there was friction during turnovers, in part because 4 often repeated what others had said. (' R at 16-20; Exh. 7)

CR0 L told A that if he got busy-he would not be so sleepy or bored on back shift but that, if asked, he would have to tell management & was sleeping. ( L ,

vol. 2, at 20-23; 323 Exh. 7)

Oct. 30, 1986 CR0 At spoke to 4 ab'ut o problems with A 's management, including tensions and repeating at turnovers. b4 told A to listen and not be sleeping or off in his own world. (' Ai at 76-77; Exh. 7)

After Oct. 1986 Rumors about A. sleeping in the I&C shop began. ( CF at 76)

Nov. 4, 1986 4 met with AO

3' , who told him his only problem with A, was sleeping at night. 4 denied sleeping but told Cr . that he would try to be more concerned and that if there were any problems. should come to him Jr

( Gr at 42-47; Exh. 7)

Nov. 28 The most recent incident during which AO K Dec. 5, 1986 saw h asleep occurred in this period. It was an 11-7 shift cycle. (~ K at 26; Exh.

3)

A 's Resoonse: A thought he was on vacation at this time, but company records showed that he was on vacation only the first three of the seven nights of this shift. ( 4 , Vol. 2, at 57-58)

Dec. 13, 1986 At a Christmas party, AO K told B that /b was still sleeping and B said he had spoken tohad been 8afraid of that because no one since about October.

( K at 26-28) 1987 CRO L saw Jb asleep once every midnight shift week during 1987, with the possible shifts.

exception of the April and May

(' L , Vol. 2, at 4, 7-8) 4'S Resnonse: A

( A has no recollection of these events.

, Vol. 2, at 58-59)

Early 1987 A. began leaving the control roon quite a bit, although prior to the AO 3- inci-dent he seldom left the control room. . He was gone for extended periods and the CRos had trouble paging him. (* L , Vol. 2, at 31-32)

Jan. 1987 During an 11-7 shift, AO Cr was having some problems with the equipment at Epicor and A. came from the control room. He sat down on the console and his head began to bob and his eyes fall back in his head. This continued RR for about a minute before I&C Tech came in and the noise of the door opening made k, alert. IT , left HH and 4 and went to eat lunch.

(' CF _ at 67-70)

_ A'5 Resnonse: A

(' t has

, Vol.no2,recollection of this event.

at 59-60)

Jan. -

Feb. 1987 A. was substituting for SF 25 on an 11-7 shift, morning and,probably Saturday night - Sunday for about three hours during the shift, his head would go down on his chest and, about thirty seconds later, pop back up. 4 was sitting at the shift super-visor's desk in the control room. According to CRO FF , maintenance foreman MN came in and asked A if it was a rough night and 4 acknowledged that it was.

That same night, A . was out in the plant for a couple of hours. (FF at 24-26, 28)

A's Response: 4 4, has no recollection of this event.

( , Vol. 2, at 60)

Jan. - Mar. 1987 FHSRO KE first began to hear rumors of At sleeping. (WOL at 20-21)  !

SS )

Db first heard rumors of 4, sleeping or doring in his office. During the same time, Db heard from a CRO that in the control room, was stud k. ,

j prepare for a flight license.ying After uatarialshe heard to the first sleeping rumor, DD , confronted A , who denied he had been sleeping.

()b at 10-12, 14-15, 22-23) 4 ') Response: k remembers that SS AD , may have confronted his regarding sleeping, but has no specific recollection.

be a generally honest person. He considers DD _ to

( 4 , Vol.

1, at 24, Vol. 2, at 60-61)

Jan. - July 1, At some time during this period, CRO l-1937 told AO k4 that h was working on

, materials from the zeager . Lumber Company on the job. ( AA at 33)

Jan. - July 1987 SS )D and SS C.C made copies of A) turnovers,. highlighted the inaccurate items, and left them on A 's desk or in his mailbox. On one occasion, CC copied A 's ' shift foreman's logbook where an entry contradicted the turnover, and stapled them together. DD _ taped highlighted inaccurate turnovers onto book cabinets around 4) desk in the shift supervisor's office and also spoke to 4 , whose response was to the effect of okay. According to D) , it was

. common that knowledge among other shift supervisors

/Ps turnovers were more inaccurate than those of the others. ( CC at 53-57; Db _ at 44-54; see also LA at 19-20;

.= M at 160; FF at 30)

/f5 Resnonse: k recollects C.C bringing an inaccurate turnover to:his attention by leaving him some sort of information in 1986. He also recalls Db leaving a highlighted A, , vol.

turnover taped up in his office.

( 3, at 46-49)

Feb. 20-27, 1987 Sometime during this week of 11-7 probably toward the beginning, AO F came out of the control room and walked by ths window in the hallway that looks into the shift super-visor's office. He saw A, motionless at his desk, with his head down. F saw i

(

closed. right profile and his right eye was h.'s He observed /E for a maximum of a minute. This was F 's most recent observation of A, sleeping. (8 F at 19-25)

A 's Resnonse: 4 does not believe it is possible to see his fac3 or even his profile from the corridor looking through the windows into the shift supervisor's office and, therefore, an employee would not be able to see whether even one of his eyes is closed. A does acknowledge that, if he turned his body or head, then his profile would be visible from the corridor. ( A Vol. 2, at 62-66)

Feb. - Mar. 1987 SF lt told B about A he should do something of shortly after overhearing members )

A's cTew talking about documenting  !

A's sleeping and after hearing @ ut the AO CF incident, and seeing M sleep-ing. (' t at 11-12, 14-15, 17-18;l see also A& M at 31-32; FF at 13-16)

1. This occurred a couple of days before 6 came in on the 11-7 shift, interviewed the Aos, and made an unannounced visit to the control room, but it is unclear which visit. (2 at 17-18) AO 3~ placed it at a day or two following his October 1986 exchange with 4, . ( 3" _ at 34-35) AO FF who' said SF 1L told his CRos about it, placed it in November ,

or December 1986. ( FF at 14-16)

After Mar. 31, 1987 Shortly CRO M afterspoke the Peach Bottom shutdown order, to A, about the shutdown and how important it was to stay awake and 4 agreed. (' M at 104-06)

A's Rennense:  % recollects such a conversation, but says he denied he was ever sleeping. ( A Vol. 2, at 66-68) ,

The last time CRO MM saw 4 nodding off was after the Peach Bottom order. A, was at the shift supervisor's desk in the control room, and his head would come down to his chest and he would jerk it up. MM~

observed him for perhaps fifteen minutes.

This was a typical situation when M A\ came in early for his 7-3 shift that had been going on for two to three years. ( htA at 7-15)

A 's Rennonse: A  !

says it is unlikely he would be asleep at that time soause of the level of activity in

(

the control room prior to shift change.

A Vol. 2, at 68-69)

Spring 1987 CRO _ M saw /p Company books.

working on Zeager Lumber He subsequently saw the books but did not see 4 working on them.

M

( at 167-69)

Late Spring 1987 CRO LL heard that SS C4 A

turned over to j that a dewatering system tank was ready to be pumped but k 's turnover to SF 7t said that the pumping would have to wait until ,

the tank got up higher. cc gave LL the impression that it was an oversight on j 1

Afs part. ( LL at 17-19)

Mar. - July 1987 FHSRO KK heard rumors of 4 dis-appearing for long periods. ( %K at 30-31)

Apr. 8, 1987

$ received the first anonymous letter (Exhibit 9), in which the writer referred to A's sleeping, the shake-up at Peach Botton, and threatened to go to the NRC.

(Exhs. 9, 10)

Apr. 9, 1987 6 came into the control room at about 4:30 a.m. and asked where A. vas. CRO M said he had left about ten minutes earlier on a plant tour and S went to find him. S returned shortly after A did and they spoke in the Technical Support center. O showed A the anonymous letter and interviewed the shift.

- __ - - - _ - O

- 23 -

According to F 's memo on these meetings, seen 4 most of the men told him they had sleeping on duty at some time in the past and that they would swear to.it.

' Most also said k. seemed to be making more of an effort to remain alert since December, although one person claimed to have seen At sleeping since then, and.that 4 took extended clant tourz of up to two hours. O told the shift members that the ombudsman was the proper forum for claims such as those in the letter. ( Al 66, 121-22; Exhs. 11, at 2, at 11-12, 12, 16, at 1-2)

M was interviewed for fifteen to twenty minutes by 8 ,

who showed him the anony-meus letter. Al was shocked when he saw the letter because he was concerned someone would write the NRC. Al thinks the main purpose of the meeting was for 8 _to 6 tell the employees to contact the ombudsman if they had any problems. # was surprised that B qave the impression he did not know about A 's sleeping, but N told S only that it was a definite problem. ( M said 8 may not remember LS earlier comment about A 's sleeping.) They also talked about Peach Botton and about k being unreach-able. B asked if Al had times and dates of the sleeping incidents. N had kept notes but had thrown them out when seemed to be doing better. ( hl at 121-37, Vol. 2, at 24-25, 34)

CRo M met with 8 for ten to fifteen minutes. 6 took no notes but seemed very upset. At told B that k was doing better but was still i sleecina.

hi B asked for dates but had none. They also discussed paging  ;

problems. ( h1 at 80-84)

AO- 3' was shown the anonymous letter by B in the Technical Support Center.

Cr told 0 he did not know about the extended plant tours, but that the remainder of the letter appeared accurate.

S looked like he did not know what cF was talkinel about when cr* said he had told 9 about fL's sleeping two and a half years before. 6 dropped the issue of knowledge after 3' ,

referring to AO F , said he had a l l

- 24 -

witness CF to the conversation. 6 told he needed would never hold up and d dates because otherwise it for slander. On this morning, could sue him CF first

' heard that the nickname for 4 's crew was the Peach Bottom Crew. ( Cf , at 73,94-102, 134-35)

In his interview with 9 , F first saw the anonymous letter. He said A had been doing better but forgot about the February 1987 incident and about mentioning he had spoken to B about A- two years earlier. 6 seemed concern.ed, told F it was hard to prove A was sleepin F times. g,( and F asked if at 6-7, had dates and I 70-75)

AO met with 6

\/

in the Tech Support Center and said he wculd swear in court he had seen Ar, sleeping more than once. O appeared nervous and visibly upset. ( V at 64-70)

IEC Tech HH was asked by 6 if he had seen 4 sleeping or if A was unavailable for long periods.

to both questions although he had seensaid HH A

no in the I&C shop asleep or appearing to be asleep at some time in 1987. i Prior Al topointed April 1987,A to in the andcontrol room, HH saw him at the shift supervisor's. desk in the control room, eyes closed, head bobbing. After HH had observed him for less than a minute, A got up and went into the bathroom.

(' Rin at 23-40)

A's Resoonse: A has no recollection of this incident in the HHcontrol room and has no reason to believe is not an honest employee. ( A. ,

Vol. 3, at 15-17)

AO K also was interviewed by 9 for fifteen to twenty minutes'and saw the anony-mous letter for the first time. 6 asked if X had seen A sleeping on that 11-7 week and K said he had not actually seen A asleen. It was K 's understand-ing that 8 asked only about the April 3-10 period. (' K at 7-13)

AO R first saw the anonymous letter when 4

1

$ called him into the Tech Support Center A 's and asked him about it and about sleeping. j R told him he had seen

% sleeping but did not have dates and

.. times. ( R at 21, 32-35)

Apr. 10, 1987 k , at his request, spoke to Site Opera-tions Director 00 (' C '

predecessor), who said management was ready to stand behind him. (Exhs. 12, 13, 14)

(

After Apr. 1987 A approached AO 11-7 shift, after K at SDS, maybe on an B had interviewed K

, was apologetic and said he would try to change his ways and that he hoped there were no hard feelings. K said his problem with 4 was his sleeping on shift, which A denied. ( k at 41-44, 51)

Apr. - June 1987 CRO At observed 4 nodding off with his eyes closed at least six times, either at the shift supervisor's desk in the control room or at N3 own desk in the shift supervisor's office on both the 3-11 and the 11-7 shifts. ( M at 18-19)

_ _ d *s Response: 4

( A, has

, Vol. no 2, recollection of these events.

at 70)

May or June 1987 When six operators were moved to Unit 1 and the shifts were shuffled, AO R asked S why he was not being moved.

told R 6 he was the most tolerant operator and that S wanted to keep him with 4 . ( R at 51-52)

June 1987 FHSRO KK objected when A used one of K K's defueling operators for a job inside containment that KK considered not well thought out. ( KK at 25-26)

About June 23, FHSRO P . talking to IEC Tech 44 1987 learned that R4 had seen ,

A sleeping a couple of times in the IEC shop, but had failed to tell management about it during the April 1987 investigation. The incidents seemed to have occurred shortly before April 1987. P decided to talk to PP manager of the Safety Review Group (SRG). ( F at 40-44; &N at 59-60, 62-64)

Afs Resoonse: 4. has no recollection of sleeping in the I&C Shop and says that it would be difficult

4 because all the chairs are of the high pedestal type. ( f , Vol. 3, at 13)

June 24, 1987 FHSRO 9 told SRG ff about I&C Tech NH4 story.

PP said he knew of no such April sleeping investigation involving A , but would check with Director of Licensing and Nuclear Safety ff CK2 , his boss.. Later that day, told F that neither cgo norinvestigation.and an Unit 2 Director Trank that Standerfer P knew of needed to talk to Site Operations Director C P

. (

at 44-46; Exhs. 18, 19)

P met with. C , who had been informed of Pi allegations by ess to tell him about HHS story about A.

sleeping. C.

concluded that the incident pre-dated April 1987, and said he would talk to R4 again. ( P at 49-so:

Exh. 21)

HH met with C and O , who told RH they knew he had seen A in the IEC shoo and had not told 9 about it.

WH said he did not want to get involved.

( BH at 64-68)

After the meeting with 44 O the control room and spoke with A, went to According to O , he strongly expressed to A the seriousness of sleeping or inatten-tiveness or the appearance of either. A said that he understood and was being careful to avoid the impression of such behavior. He

' also said he may have been tired during past 11-7 shifts, but had not been sleeping. (Exh.

20, at 1)

June 25, 1987 C informed Standerfor of what he had learned in the interviews and recommended that the investigation be terminated because it concerned second-hand information about a previously documented incident. Standerfor agreed and requested additional surveillance of d's shift for a short time. (Exh. 21, at 1)

June 26, 1987 FHSRO P again talked to C , vno told him he was satisfied about the investiga-i tion and that no one was willing to swear that I they saw A sleeping. ( f at 50-54) l

)

June 26-27, 1987 OnL the sawfirst night of the 11-7 shift, CRO A sleeping around 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. and observed him for five minutes

' through the glass windows looking into the shift supervisor's office. Between approxi-mately 12:30 and 3:00 a.m., CRO M the shift supervisor's office and found entered 4 motionless with eyes closed. When his head N

on his hands and his reentered the con-trol room shaking his head, with a sour look on his face, . bA said something to the effect of "is he in there sleepina again?" and h/ answered yes. Upset, Ai got up, walked observed into the shift supervisor's office, k for approximately twenty seconds sitting at the desk, not moving, right eye closed, elbow on the desk, and hand cupping his chin or behind his chin to hold his head up. Ai walked outside the shift supervisor's office, picked up a big black binder, and slammed it on the floor of the control room in front of the shift super-visor's door. Twenty seconds later, 4 ambled out and asked whether anyone was having trouble stayina awake tonight. No one responded.

A b4 could not believe that was sleeping even after the Peach Bottom incident. (' Al at 11-14; N at 61-66; L , Vol. 2, at 5, j 12-14) l A's Resconse: 4. recollects on some night during this 1 I

shift that CRos Al and At did come into the shift supervisor's office, but A was awake.- A did not acknowledge them',

even though B had told k to acknowledge such employees, because employees often came into the office for business reasons. ( A, , Vol. 2, at 70-77)

June 27 or 28, CRO LL. saw 1987 /b at about 6:30 a.m. with his chin on his chest and his eyes closed, but L L- did not believe he was asleep. ( LL at.5-7, 9-11)

June 29, 19871 4 left the control room at about 3 a.m.

and, at 5:30 a.m., CRO Al got a phone call from a fire protection trainer instructor who wanted to run a fire drill, which required the

1. This date is based upon an interview with ER l

1

________.__--a

permission of the shift foreman. N tried unsuccessfully to page A- several times in about a twenty-minute period. A-returned the page but asked for CRO Lfinally

He gave his permission for the drill. At .

about 6 a.m., C) came in, then went back out, and returned just behind 4- Accord-ing to N ., 4 respond when looked. bad and did not Al said, within O's hearing, that he had been paging A-cessfully for fifteen or twenty minutes. unsuc- At about 6:30 a.m., A, told M he had  ;

been at SDS and could not hear the page '

because of a fan. ( A/ did not know what fan A meant.) 4 said he had then gone to Epicor but then said he had not been there. (' A/ thinks that he changed his mind because they were processing at Epicor and

( Alsomeone would have at 69-80; L seen him there.) >

, Vol. 2, at 34; 111 Blag M at 51-54)

_ - - N's Resoonse: A recollects that he gave RR permission by phone for the drill at RR some time during the shift and that he saw remembers later tellingoutsideAl the control room. He he had been at Epicor but does not recall changing saying he was at SDS. He also recalls saying his story and that apparently the page was not working at Epicor.

He does not recall returning the page and asking for L . ( A , Vol. 3, at 4-11)

Also on June 29, PP _ spoke with FHSRO P and confirmed that p's concerne had been resolved satisfactorily.

(Exh. 18)

July 1, 2, 3, Each night, C I 1987

, O , or 6 j characteristically came in early, at about 4:30 or 5:00 a.m. ( c. was in at about 5:30 a.m. July 3.) (. r , at 111-12; Exh. 23, at 1) .

July 2, 1987 FHSRO 9 ran into AO Cf at 6:45 a.m. and if told him that /b slept i on duty and that IT , would swear to it.

( P at 57-59)

At their P

third meeting in several days, told C about the CT '

exchange and C, assured P that everything was covered, the case was closed,

and everyone had been talked to. c'

. con-tacted C) and made arrangements for the two of them to interview Tr and A on July ~3. ( P at 65-67; Exh. 22', at

,- 1)

July 3, 1987 0 and C. met with 4 .

(Exh. 23)

At about 6:30 a.m., CL and O asked 7.o AO If to meet with them in C% office.

R , as union steward, accompanied ,

If but was told by (_ that it was more O

personal and he should wait outside.

and asked about the October 1986 incident Cr described it, but c. and O were more interested in post-April 1987 sleeping incidents. They suggested company policy had changed at that time regarding sleeping and -f assumed the policy was to fire individuals caught sleeping, but had seen no memorandum to that effect and did not understand why April was so important to them. CF told them /f had been doing better until that week and told them about hi dropping the book and taking more tourg. 6 did not think CF also told them he M was malicious in his sleeping and that'ha should be removed from shift work 117-22; N not fired. ( ar at 103-11, at 40-43)

O and C interviewed CRO ..N for about twenty minutes in G,4 office. Al told them .A was sleeping and had been asleep in the last week (referring to the notebook incident). c_ told N that management was aware of problem.with A and was taking action to correct it. (' N at 67, 137-46, 150-51, Vol. 2, at 25-26)

CRO M met with C. and C at 7:00 a.m. for thirty minutes. A4 made his own notes. Ai gave O and CL the yellow tab with the June 26 date on it to document the last time he had seen A sleeping and described A. on that occasion as not moving, with at least his right eye closed. They asked if Ai touched him and Ai said no. O lectured . A4 on what was sleeping. At told them that M also saw A sleeping. M 's impression of C and O , based upon the conversation with them and also based upon the O / CL notes, is that management i

- so -

believed that 4 's crew was out to get him. ( At at 90-101; A4 Exhs. 1 & 2)

July 6, 1987 FHSRO KK met with O and C. in connection with the allegations. gg investigation of sleeping

( at 31-35)

July 7, 1987 CRO M to sixty minutes at 7:45 a.m.again for thirty met with O 41 had asked for that O a meeting-because he was very upset and C questioned his integ-rity. He told o that he did not want.

A back on theO shift or he wanted off A 's shift.

conflicting information about said that there was d *s per-formance and that they tended to believe A because he was a religious man.

Ai expressed concern that all the CRos t

would get fired if A but O were caught sleeping said that would not hap c) said that at 106-112; they would do something. pen.( At Aj Exh. 3)

July 9, 1987 A second anonymous letter, this one to Standerfer, was received. The letter accused TMI-2 management of a cover-up, threatened to call the news media, and said that seven ,

people would swear to having seen A asleep on more than one occasion. (Exh. 29)

CRO // met again with instigation. -AO R .., union steward, O , at A/'I present.

was also O spoke about defining sleep and how he thought someone in the positions described was not comfortable enough to sleep, I but would choke. He also said that a religious person and would not lie. A At was  !

said ' h had his eyes closed and was motionless for an extended period and A/

thought he was asleep. (' A/ at 146-49, Vol. 2, at 36-37; R at 38-40, 42)

C statusnet of thewith Standerfer and reviewed the investigation with him. C suggested that one of them talk to the NRC and Standerfer told C to go. c briefed John Thomas of the NRC on July 9. That evening, for about two and a half hours, C , CD , and $ discussed the information and C concluded that they could not determine whether A had been sleeping but, because of the working relationship problems on the shift, A should be replaced with another SRO. At about i

10:00 p.m., Standerfer called C- at home and said that the NRC had called GPUN President Phillip Clark and that an investiga-tion by GPU Security would begin the next morning. (Exh. 22, at 2)

July 10, 1987 4 was relieved of licensed duties pending the outcome of the sleeping investigation (Memorandum from c. to 4 (July 22, 1987))

O crossed out a night order book entry that said supervisors were allowed to sleep at work but not in beds. (Exh. 28)

July 14, 1987 A third anonymous letter was received, this time by standerfer.

It mentioned A 's falling asleep at 3:00 p.m., inaccurate turn-overs, Zeager Brothers Lumber Co., extended plant A

tours, and other allegations against I The letter was eight. handwritten pages and listed as those who could tell Standerfer about the allegations N ,

1 , L , R , M i, K, V , and UF .

(Exh. 30)

July 28, 1987 <- wrote a memorandum to Management Tour Personnel concerning the beds that had been found and sleeping. guidelines if anyone was found These guidelines included getting a second witness, observing the individual for two to four minutes, and calling to the individual. (Exh. 32)

Aug. 3, 1987 4 was suspended with pay pending the outcome of the sleeping investigation.

(Memorandum (Aug.

from F. Standerfer to Ar 3, 1987))

1 i

l i

1

1 i

.A t

1

, < s e-ct er N!

j Il l

1 i

l a

i l

A

{

t Attachment 2 Summary of Sleee-Related Personal Observational 7- Observed k (SF) sleeping in control room once between July 1986 and Feb. or Mar. 1987.

JC With H ., observed (CRO) k sleeping in control room on Sept. 17, 1986, diesel alarm incident resulted, bl First observed 4 nodding off 1984-85; first (CRO) saw dr sleeping late 1985; then saw him sleep-ing during turnover briefing incident in front of crew, Sept.-Oct. 1986, and with M notebook incident in shift supervisor's June 1987 office.

Gd5 Observed A sleeping one time in shift (AO) supervisor's. office during 1986.

X Observed h (CRO) sleeping once in control room prior to Aug. 1983.

F Observed A. dozing off 1 or 2 times during each (AO) week of 11-7 between Oct. 1984 and June 1985, at SDS checkout, June 1985, and at turnover briefing inci-dont in front of crew, Sept.-Oct. 1986; saw A sleeping once during week of Feb. 20-27, 1987.

H With 7C , observed 4 sleeping in control (CRO) room on Sept. 17, 1986, diesel alarm incident resulted.

D With EE , observed A asleep in shift (Machinist) supervisor's office after Apr.1985.

bbH Observed A. possibly asleep in I&C shop 1987; (IEC Tech) also observed 4 dozing in control room after Al pointed A out to BM .

i L. First observed h sleeping during 1984; saw (CRO) 4, sleeping in shift supervisor's office 12 times and at SS control room desk 12 times during 1984-87, including photocopying incident, Sept.- 4 1

Oct. 1986 turnover briefing incident in front of crew, and June 1987 notebook incident.

1. Citations to the depositions from which this information is. drawn are contained in the partial chronology that is Attachment 1 to this letter. The partial chronology also describes the allegations in detail.

1 m_n_ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ . _ - - - . _ . _

L 3 9

NUM When came on duty, typically observed A.

(CRO) nodding off at end of 11-7 shift, last observation occurred after Mar. 31, 1987, but had been going on for 2 or 3 years.

At First observed A (CRO) A/

sleeping, 1984-85, and, with

, saw him sleeping.in shift supervisor's.

office during June 1987 notebook incident; observed 4 nodding off more than 6 times during turn-l over 1987; and saw inh front of crew, Oct. 1986-Apr.

briefings Apr.-June 1987. nodding off at least 6 times, FF With AVM and LL , observed (CRO) 4. -asleep at shift supervisor's dont resulted; observed desk, fall 1986, trash can inci- 4 4 sleeping between June 1985 and June 1986, when GG kicked wall or4door to shift supervisor's office to awaken

saw 4 , who was substituting for Z nodding off during Jan.-Feb. 1987. ,

R Observed 4 (AO) in front of crew, Sept.-Oct. dozing1986. off during turnover briefing 4A Observed A office once priorsleeping to 1985. in shift superviser's (AO)

E Observed A (Machinist) sleeping up to 4 times, 1985, H including with D incident in shift supervisor's office K First observed A (AO) asleep during July 1986; observed sleeping that was part of ~5 incident Oct. 20-21, 1986, and sleeping during turnover briefing incident in front of crew, Sept.-

Oct. 1986; most recent observation of A. asleep occurred between Nov. 28 and Dec. 5, 1986.

VJ Observed A. nodding off 3-6 times between (CRO) beginning of 1983 and mid-1984.

V Observed 4_ sleeping 5-10 times, 1983-July (AO) 1987, including turnover briefing incident in front of crew, Sept.-Oct. 1986.

T j

Observed k, sleeping at least 40 times, Oct.

(AO) 1982-Oct. 1986, including IT incident with K , Oct. 20-21, 1986, and turnover briefing incident in front of crew, Sept.-Oct. 1986; saw k dozing at Epicor II, Jan. 1987.

$ Observed 4 (CRO) July 1987.

nodding off once or twice, 1985- i i

l.c. News Roloeso <

v n, a. i.e.

Poet Omos som 480 4MClear i 1

Middletown. PA 17057 717ses.sier Public information Services For Funher Wormation f contact. Sordon Tomb For Releasei Iggnediately Date: November 30, 1987 No.48-87N REPORT ON TMI-2 SLEEPING ALLEGATIONS RECE!VED Middletown, PA -- An independent, investigatory report into allegations 1

that a shift supervisor at Three Mile Island Unit 2 had slept or been otherwise inattentive to his job has been received by SPU Nuclear Corporation and forwarded to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The report has confirmed allegations that the individual had, on a number of occasions, slept or been otherwise inattentive to his job. Following receipt of the report, GPU Nuclear dismissed the shift supervisor under' investigation.

The independent investigation was conducted for GPU Nuclear by Edwin H.

Stier, former director of the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice.

In his report, Stier concluded, 'that a longstanding pattern" of sleeping on the job and inattention to duty had been established by the individual, "This pattern continued despite confrontations between (the shift supervisor) f and members of his crew over the issue of sleeping and despite several warnings, beginning in October 1986, by TMI-2 management," Stier noted.

Stier further states, "This pattern was unique to (the individual shift supervisor being investigated). Our investigation uncovered no evidence that any other shift supervisor was even rumored to have slept while on duty."

-port-

- _- - _ - - - - - - - - - rJ

e- .

November M, Igg 7

g. . -

No. C-87N Stier notes that other supervisors and employees, particularly on the 11 p.m.

to 7 a.m. shift took action to remain alert to duties by keeping busy or saving around. ,

The investigation revealed a pattern of inattentiveness to duty was substantiated by testimony from nearly two dozen co-workers. Interviews with plant personnel show unsuccessful efforts by the shift supervisor's co-worters 1

to get him to deal with his inattention to duty.

The investigation began in mid July following allegations about the individual contained in anonymous notes sent concurrently to GPU Nuclear management and to the NRC. The individual was removed from licensed operator responsibilities at that time.

In addition to allegations of inattention to duty, the notes claimed that the shift supervisor took extended plant ttars placing him out of contact with the control room, demonstrated a periodic lack of knowledge of plant conditions, read non-work related material in the control room, and conducted inaccurate turnover briefings with the inccming shift.

Stier's investigation encompassed the additional allegations and found evidence to support each of them.

In July, GPU Nuclear senior management retained Stier to conduct an independent investigation into the anonymous allegations and the response to those allegations by the Company, i The investigation into management response to the allegations is continuing. i GPU Nuclear maintains a firm policy regarding worter attention to their jobs.

l "We expect employees to be alert, attentive and busy when they're at work. Sleeping on the job is unacceptable behavior," said Philip R. Clark, l GPU Nuclear President.

1 GH q