ML20205R245
| ML20205R245 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1987 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205R248 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-87-046, EA-87-46, NUDOCS 8704060283 | |
| Download: ML20205R245 (24) | |
Text
-
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-277;50-278 1
License Nos. DPR-44; DPR-56 EA 87-46 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station.
)
Units 2 and 3
)
ORDER SUSPENDING POWER OPERATION AND ORDERTOSHOWCAUSE(EFFECTIVEIMMEDIATELY)
I Philadelphia Electric Company (Licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56, authorizing the Licensee to operate the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 (facility), in Delta, Pennsylvania.
The licenses were issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Comission) on October 25, 1973 and July 2,1974, respectively.
II o
On March 24, 1987, the NRC, Region I, received information that control room operators at Peach Bottom had been observed sleeping while on duty in the control room and were otherpise inattentive to their license obligations. The information also indicated that this conduct on the part of operators was pervasive and has been occurring for some time, and that shift supervision had knowledge of this situation. On March 24, 1987,'in response to this information NRC initiated:
(1) 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> inspection coverage of the Peach Bottom control room and (2) a special safety investigation of licensed
- Pe*288E8Sb7 P
1 2
activities. The NRC investigation, which is still ongoing, to date has established:
i 3
1.
At times during various shifts, in particular the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift, one or more of the Peach Bottom operations control room staff (including ' licensed operators, senior licensed operators and shift supervision) have for at least the past five months periodically slept or have been otherwise inattentive to licensed duties.
2.
Management at the Shift Supervisor and Shift Superintendent level have either known and condoned the facts set forth in Paragraph one, 4
or should have known of these facts.
i 3.
Plant management above the shift superintendent position either knew or should have known the facts set forth in Paragraph one and either took no action or inadequate action to correct this situation.
III Prior NRC inspections have identified other instances of inattention to duty or failure to adhere to procedures on the part of licensed operators in the control room at Peach Bottom.
On June 10, 1985, during the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift, an NRC inspector was present in the Unit 3 control room and observed an on-duty Unit 3 reactor
3 l
l i
operator sitting in a chair at the Unit 3 reactor control panel with his eyes closed and his head tilted back, apparently asleep or otherwise inattentive to his duties.
In response to this charge the licensed operator denied being asleep and indicated he was enticing the NRC inspector to believe he was asleep, demonstrating poor judgment and a negative attitude toward safety. An enforcement conference was held with the licensee concerning this matter on June 21, 1985.
On June 6, 1986, the NRC issued its Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) report for the period April 1,1985 through January 31, 1986. This report concluded that management involvement and effectiveness toward improving operating activities was not evident.
Indications of the lack of adequate management involvement included: poor dissemination of management goals and policies; poor communications between different departments and divisions; and a focus on compliance rather than acknowledgement and correction of the root causes of problems.
Further, the report concluded there was a complacent attitude toward procedural compliance in plant operations.
On June 9,1986, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed $200,000 Civil Penalty for several violations that resulted from numerous personnel errors by several licensed operators, including the Shift Supervisor and Shift Superintendent, both of whom are licensed senior reactor operators, and two licensed reactor operators. These personnel errors by four licensed individuals and associated violations indicated a pattern of inattention to detail, failure to adhere to procedural requirements, and a generally complacent attitude by the operations staff toward performance of their duties
4 at Peach Bottom. This NRC assessment was emphasized to the licensee in a June 12, 1986, letter from Victor Stello, Jr., Executive Director for Operations, to J. C. Everett, III, PECo Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer.
In addition, three previous civil penalties were issued for violations of technical specifications involving violations that resulted from personnel
~
errors. March 29, 1983 (EA 83-7); June 13, 1983 (EA 83-46); June 18, 1984 (EA 84-39).
In general, the enforcement history at Peach Bottom regarding adherence to procedures and attention to duty has been poor.
IV The NRC expects licensees to maintain high standards of control room professionalism. NRC licensed operators in the control rooms at nuclear power plants are responsible for assuring that the facility is operated safely and within the requirements of the facility's license, technical specifications, regulations and orders of the NRC. To be able to carry out these highly important responsibilities, reactor operators must give their full attention to the condition of the plant at all times. Operators must be alert to ensure that the plant is operating safely and must be capable of taking timely action in response to plant conditions. All control room business must be conducted in such a way that neither control room operator attentiveness nor the professional atmosphere will be compromised.
Sleeping while on duty in the control room demonstrates a total disregard for performing licensed duties and a lack of appreciation for what those duties entail.
5 10 C.F.R. 50.54(k) and Peach Bottom Technical Specification 6.2.2 prohibit sleeping or otherwise inattentive operators in the control room. Under 10 C.F.R Part 50, App. B, the licensee must have and implement procedures to ensure that activities affecting quality, including operations of the facility, are satisfactorily accomplished. The Peach Bottom quality assurance program has failed to identify this condition adverse to safety. These conditions constitute a hazard to the safe operation of the facility.
In light of the above, it is apparent that the licensee, through its enforcement history and from what has been developed by the ongoing investigation, knew or should have known of the unwillir.gness or inability of its operations staff to comply with Commission requirements, and has been unable to implement effective corrective action. Consequently, the NRC lacks reasonable assurance that the facility will be operated in a manner to assure that the health and safety of the public will be protected. Pending the development of other relevant information, I am unable to determine that there is reasonable assurance that the facility will be operated in a manner to assure that the health and safety of the public will be protected.
Accordingly, I have determined that continued operations of the facility is an immediate threat to the public health and safety. Therefore, I have determined that the public health, safety and interest requires that the Licensee should proceed to place or maintain its units in a cold condition.
I have further determined for the reasons set forth above, that pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.201(c), no prior notice is required and, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 1
6 2.202(f), the actions required by Section V of this Order are immediately effective pending further Order.
Y Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 103, 161(i) and (o), 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 C.F.R. 2.202, and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY THAT:
A.
The licensee shall within 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> from receipt of this Order, shutdown Unit 3 and place the unit in the cold condition (reactor coolant temperature equal to or less than 212*F) and raintain both units 1.n the cold condition with the reactor mode switch in either the refueling or shutdown mode pending further Order.
B.
The licensee shall provide to the Administrator of Region I within seven days of this Order a description of the actions the licensee plans to take to provide assurance that the facility will comply i
with all requirements including station procedures while in a cold condition.
C.
Before the licensee proposes to operate either Unit 2 or Unit 3 above a cold condition the licensee shall provide to the Administrator of Region I, for his approval, a detailed and comprehensive plan and the 3
l
+~, - - - - - -. - -, -
v-----
--n--,
-n
j schedule to accomplish the plan to assure that the facility will safely operate and comply with all requirements including station procedures; D.
Licensee' may show cause, in the manner hereinafter provided, why this order should not have been issued; and E.
The Regional Administrator, Region I, may relax any of the above provisions, in writing, upon demonstration of good cause by the licensee.
VI The licensee may show cause, within 20 days after issuance of this Order by filing a written answer under oath or affinnation setting forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensee relies. The licensee may answer as provided in 10 C.F.R. 2.202(d) by cor.senting tc the entry of an Order in substantially the form proposed in this Order.
VII The licensee or any other person adversely affected by this Order may request a hearing within 20 days after issuance of this Order. Any answer to this Order or any request for hearing shall be submitted to the Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555.
Copies shall also be sent to the Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement,
---r_
8 Office of the General Counsel, at the same address and to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I, 631 Park Avenue, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406.
If a person other than the licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which the petitioner's interest is adversely affected by this Order and shouldaddressthecriteriasetforthin10C.F.R.2.714(d). Upon the failure of the licensee to answer or request a hearing within the specified time, this Order shall be final without further proceedings. An answer tio this Order or a request for hearing shall not stay the imediate effectiveness of Section V of this Order.
If a hearing is requested by the licensee or other person adversely affected by this Order, the Comission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing.
If a hearing is held, the issue to be censidered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0k)
Victor Stello, Jr/.)-
Executive Directbf for Operations Dated at Bethesda Maryland this g day of March, 1987
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-277;50-278 License Nos. DPR-44; DPR-56 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY EA 87-46 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3
)
ORDER SUSPENDING POWER OPERATION AND ORDERTOSHOWCAUSE(EFFECTIVEIMMEDIATELY)
I Philadelphia Electric Company (Licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56, authorizing the Licensee to operate the Peach 4
Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 (facility), in Delta, Pennsylvan' a.
i The licenses were issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission)onOctober 25, 1973 and July 2, 1974, respectively.
II l
On March 24, 1987, the NRC, Region I, received information that control room operators at Peach Bottom had been observed sleeping while on duty in the control room and were otherwise inattentive to their license obligations. The information also indicated that this conduct on the part of operators was pervasive and has been occurring for some time, and that shift supervision l
had knowledge of this situation. On March 24, 1987, in response to this information NRC initiated:
(1) 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> inspection coverage of the Peach f
Botton control room and (2) a special safety investigation of licensed i
i
..c,
i 2
activities. The NRC investigation, which is still ongoing, to date has established:
1.
At times during various shifts, in particular the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift, one or more of the Peach Bottom operations control room staff (including ' licensed operators, senior licensed operators and shift supervision) have for at least the past five months periodically slept or have been otherwise inattentive to licensed duties.
4 2.
Management at the Shift Supervisor and Shift Superintendent level have either known and condoned the facts set forth in Paragraph one, or should have known of these facts.
3.
Plant management above the shift superintendent position either knew or should have known the facts set forth in Paragraph one and either took no action or inadequate action to correct this situation.
III Prior NRC inspections have identified other instances of inattention to duty or failure to adhere to procedures on the part of licensed operators in the control room at Peach Bottom.
l On June 10, 1985, during the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift, an NRC inspector I
was present in the Unit 3 control room and observed an on-duty Unit 3 reactor
p 3
operator sitting in a chair at the Unit 3 reactor control panel with his eyes closed and his head tilted back, apparently asleep or otherwise inattentive to his duties.
In response to this charge the licensed operator denied being asleep and indicated he was enticing the NRC inspector to believe he was asleep, demonstrating poor judgment and a negative attitude toward safety. An enforcement conference was held with the licensee concerning this matter on June 21, 1985.
On June 6, 1986, the NRC issued its Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) report for the period April 1, 1985 through January 31, 1986. This report concluded that management involvement and effectiveness i
toward improving operating activities was not evident.
Indications of the lack of adequate management involvement included: poor dissemination of management goals'and policies; poor communications between different departments and divisions; and a focus on compliance rather than acknowledgement and correction of the root causes of problems.
Further, the report concluded there was a complacent attitude toward procedural compliance in plant operations.
On June 9, 1986, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed $200,000 Civil Penalty for several violations that resulted from numerous personnel errors by several licensed operators, including the Shift Supervisor and Shift Superintendent, both of whom are licensed senior reactor operators, and two licensed reactor operators. These personnel errors by four licensed i
individuals and associated violations indicated a pattern of inattention to detail, failure to adhere to procedural requirements, and a generally I
complacent attitude by the operations staff toward performance of their duties
~
4 at Peach Bottom. This NRC assessment was emphasized to the licensee in a June 12, 1986, letter from Victor Stello, Jr., Executive Director for Operations, to J. C. Everett, III, PEco Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer.
In addition, three previous civil penalties were issued for violations of technical specifications involving violations that resulted from personnel errors. March 29,1983 (EA 83-7); June 13,1983 (EA 83-46); June 18,1984 (EA 84-39).
In general, the enforcement history at Peach Bottom regarding adherence to procedures and attention to duty has been poor.
IV The NRC expects licensees to maintain high standards of control room professionalism. NRC licensed operators in the control rooms at nuclear power plants are responsible for assuring that the facility is operated safely and within the requirements of the facility's license, technic?1 specifications, regulations and orders of the NRC. To be able to carry out these highly important responsibilities, reactor operators must give their full attention to the condition of the plant at all times. Operators must be alert to ensure that the plant is operating safely and must be capable of taking timely action l'
in response to plant conditions. All control room business must be conducted in such a way that neither control room operator attentiveness nor the professional atmosphere will be compromised.
Sleeping while on duty in the i
i control room demonstrates a total disregard for performing licensed duties and a lack of appreciation for what those duties entail.
i
...-,,,---.,-.,.,,_,,.m.m, w-,
av
.7-
,, - - -- -,, - - -- - mp
,-w
5 10 C.F.R. 50.54(k) and Peach Bottom Technical Specification 6.2.2 prohibit sleeping or otherwise inattentive operators in the control room. Under 10 C.F.R Part 50, App. B, the licensee must have and implement procedures to l
ensure that activities affecting quality, including operations of the facility, are satisfactorily accomplished. The Peach Bottom quality assurance program has failed to identify this condition adverse to safety. These conditions constitute a hazard to the safe operation of the facility.
j In light of the above, it is apparent that the licensee, through its enforcement history and from what has been developed by the ongoing 4
investigation, knew or should have known of the unwillingness or inability of I
its operations staff to comply with Commission requirements, and has been unable to implement effective corrective action. Consequently, the NRC lacks reaso6able assurance that the facility will be operated in a manner to assure that the health and safety of the public will be protected. Pending the development of other relevant information. I am unable to determine that there is reasonable assurance that the facility will be operated in a manner to assure that the health and safety of the public will be protected.
l Accordingly, I have determined that continued operations of the facility is an imirediate threat to the public health and safety. Therefore, I have determined l
that the public health, safety and interest requires that the Licensee should proceed to place or maintain its units in a cold condition.
j I have further determined for the reasons set forth above, that pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.201(c), no prior notice is required and, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
I i
l
6 2.202(f), the actions required by Section V of this Order are immediately effective pending further Order.
Y l
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 103,161(i)and(o),182and186ofthe Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 C.F.R. 2.202, and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY THAT:
A.
The licensee shall within 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> from receipt of this Order, shutdown Unit 3 and place the unit in the cold condition (reactor coolant temperature equal to or less than 212*F) and raintain both units 1,n the cold condition with the reactor mode switch in either the refueling or shutdown mode pending further Order.
B.
The licensee shall provide to the Administrator of Region I within seven days of this Order a description of the actions the licensee plans to take to provide assurance that the facility will comply with all requirements including station procedures while in a cold condition.
C.
Before the licensee proposes to operate either Unit 2 or Unit 3 above a cold condition the licensee shall provide to the Administrator of Region 1, for his approval, a detailed and comprehensive plan and the
7 schedule to accomplish the plan to assure that the facility will safely operate and comply with all requirements including station procedures; D.
Licensee may show cause, in the manner hereinafter provided, why this order should not have been issued; and E.
The Regional Administrator, Region I, may relax any of the above provisions, in writing, upon demonstration of good cause by the licensee.
VI The licensee may show cause, within 20 days after issuance of this Order by filing a written answer under oath or affirmation setting forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensee relies. The licensee may answer as provided in 10 C.F.R. 2.202(d) by consenting to the entry of an Order in substantially the form proposed in this Order.
VII The licensee or any other person adversely affected by this Order may request a hearing within 20 days after issuance of this Order. Any answer to this Order or any request for hearing shall be submitted to the Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555.
Copies shall also be sent to the Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement, i
8 o
Office of the General Counsel, at the same address and to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I, 631 Park Avenue, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406.
If a person other than the licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which the petitioner's interest is adversely affected by this Order and should address the criteria set forth in 10 C.F.R. 2.714(d). Upon the failure of the licensee to answer or request a hearing within the specified time, this Order shall be final without further proceedings. An answer to this Order or a request for hearing shall not stay the imediate effectiveness of Section V of this Order.
If a hearing is requested by the licensee or other person adversely affected by this Order, the Comission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing.
If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g[
Victor Std10, Jr/.),
Executive Directbf for Operations Dated at Bethesda Maryland this g day of March, 1987
3 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-277;50-278 1
License Nos. DPR-44; DPR-56 EA 87-46 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY Peach Bottom f.tomic Power Station.
)
Units 2 and 3
)
ORDER SUSPENDING POWER OPERATION AND ORDERTOSHOWCAUSE(EFFECTIVEIMMEDIATELY)
I PhiladelphiaElectricCcmpany(Licensee)istheholderofFacilityOperating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56, authorizing the Licensee to operate the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 (facility), in Delta, Pennsylvania.
The licenses were issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission)onOctober 25, 1973 and July 2, 1974, respectively.
II On March 24, 1987, the NRC, Region I, received information that control room operators at Peach Bottom had been observed sleeping while on duty in the l
control room and were otherwise inattentive to their license obligations. The information also indicated that this conduct on the part of operators was pervasive and has been occurring for some time, and that shift supervision had knowledge of this situation. On March 24, 1987, in response to this infornation NRC initiated:
(1) 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> inspection coverage of the Peach Botton control room and (2) a special safety investigation of licensed
,I l
2 activities. The NRC investigation, which is still ongoing, to date has established:
I.
At times during various shifts, in particular the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift, one or more of the Peach Bottom operations control room staff (including ' licensed operators, senior licensed operators and shift supervision) have for at least the past five months periodically slept or have been otherwise inattentive to licensed duties.
2.
Management at the Shift Supervisor and Shift Superintendent level have either known and condoned the facts set forth in Paragraph one, or should have known of these facts.
Plant management above the shift superintendent position either knew 3.
or should have known the facts set forth in Paragraph one and either took no action or inadequate action to correct this situation.
III Prior NRC inspections have identified other instances of inattention to duty or failure to adhere to procedures on the part of licensed operators in the control room at Peach Bottom.
1 On June 10, 1985, during the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift, an NRC inspector I
was present in the Unit 3 control room and observed an on-duty Unit 3 reactor
- i
3 operator sitting in a chair at the Unit 3 reactor control panel with his eyes closed and his head tilted back, apparently asleep or otherwise inattentive to his duties.
In response to this charge the licensed operator denied being asleep and indicated he was. enticing the NRC inspectcr to believe he was asleep, demonstrating poor judgment and a negative attitude toward safety. An enforcement conference was held with the licensee concerning this matter on June 21, 1985.
On June 6, 1986, the NRC issued its Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) report for the period April 1,1985 through January 31, 1986. This report concluded that management involvement and effectiveness toward improving operating activities was not evident. Indications of the lack of adequate management involvement included: poor dissemination of management goals and policies; poor communications between different departments and divisions; and a focus on compliance rather than acknowledgement and correction of the root causes of problems.
Furtiier, the report concluded there was a complacent attitude toward procedural compliance in plant operations.
On June 9,1986, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed $200,000 Civil Penalty for several violations that resulted from numerous personnel errors by several licensed operators, including the Shift Supervisor and Shift Superintendent, both of whom are licensed senior reactor operators, and two licensed reactor operators. These personnel errors by four licensed individuals and associated violations indicated a pattern of inattention to detail, failure to adhere to procedural requirements, and a generally complacent attitude by the operations staff toward performance of their duties i
4 R
at Peach Botten. This NRC assessment was emphasized to the licensee in a June 12, 1986, letter from Victor Stello, Jr., Executive Director for Operations, to J. C. Everett, III, PEco Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer.
In addition, three previous civil penalties were issued for violations of technical specifications involving violations that resulted from personnel errors. March 29, 1983 (EA 83-7); June 13, 1983 (EA 83-46); June 18, 1984 (EA 84-39).
In general, the enforcement history at Peach Bottom regarding adherence to procedures and attention to duty has been poor.
IV i
The NRC expects licensees to maintain high standards of control room professionalism. NRC licensed operators in the control rooms at nuclear power plants are responsible for assuring that the facility is operated safely and within the requirements of the facility's license, technical specifications, regulations and orders of the NRC. To be able to carry out these highly important responsibilities, reactor operators must give their full attention to the condition of the plant at all times. Operators must be alert to ensure that the plant is operating safely and must be capable of taking timely action in response to plant conditions. All control room business must be conducted in such a way that neither control room operator attentiveness nor the professional atmosphere will be compromised. Sleeping while on duty in the I
control room demonstrates a total disregard for performing licensed duties and a lack of appreciation for what those duties entail.
l
10 5
C.F.R. 50.54(k) a
, sleeping or otherwise inattentivnd Peach Bottom 10 C.F.R Part 50 Ap nical Specification 6 e
9 operators in the cnsure that activitiep. B, the ifcensee 2.2 prohibit satisfactorily acco affectingmust have control room.
1are s
Under tas failcd to id mplished. quality, includingand implement proced Snstituta entify this The Peach Bottom operations ures to of condition dverse to quality assurance prthe facility, a hazard to the a
light of safe operation f safety.
These ogram o
the bove, it is the facility.
conditions a
reement history and apparent
~
that from hat has been the licensee, thr
. tigation, knew w
or
'erations should have known developed by the
~
^
ough its staff to of to irplement eff comply with the ongoing
,' ~
sie ective Commission unwillingness
~
fTp _
assurance thatcorrective requirements, and hor inability of c
I';fj;;m ; -%. l
.f action.
htalth and safety the facility will Consequently, the as been
-.~
of be nt of other the public operated NRC lacks
^J'_~sc, in assurance thatr levant informati be protected. manner to
. g w. -
e will a
ble assure on, I am Pending the the health and s the facility will unable to determine th
~
afety of be I
have determined the public operated at ther in e
a will manner to to the public he lthat continued op be protected.
eat Ic health, saf erations a th and safety of maintain its est requir Therefore, I havthe facility is h.
ety a d te or n
inter an units in es that e determined L
h etsrmined for the cold condition.the Licensee a
should
), no prio reasons notice is s t forth above, th e
r required and, pur at pursuant 8
suant to to 10 C.F.R.
\\
d 6
2.202(f), the actions required by Section V' of this Order are immediately effective pending further Order.
V Accordingly, pursuant.to Sections 103,161(i)and(o),182and186ofthe Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Comission's regulations in -
10 C.F.R. 2.202, and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY THAT:
A.
The licensee shall within 3C hours from receipt of this Order.
shutdown Unit 3 and place the unit in the cold condition (reactor coolant temperature equal to or less than 212*F) and raintain both units in the cold condition with the reactor mode switch in either the refueling or shutdown mode pending further Order.
B.
The licensee shall provide to the Administrator of Region I within seven days of this Order a description of the actions the licensee plans to take to provide assurance that the facility will comply with all requirements including station procedures while in a cold condition.
C.
Before the licensee proposes to operate either Unit 2 or Unit 3 above a cold condition the licensee shall provide to the Administrator of Region 1, for his approval, a detailed and comprehensive plan and the l
l schedule to accomplish the plan to assure that the facility will safely operate and comply with all requirements including station procedures; D.
Licensee may show cause, in the manner hereinafter provided,~ why this order should not have been issued; and E.
The Regional Administrator, Region I, may relax any of the above provisions, in writing, upon demonstration of good cause by the licensee.
VI The licensee may show cause, within 20 days after issuance of this Order by filing a written answer under oath or affirmation setting forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensee relies. The licensee may answer as provided in 10 C.F.R. 2.202(d) by consenting to the entry of an Order in substantially the form proposed in this Order.
VII The licensee or any other person adversely affected by this Order may request a hearing within 20 days after issuence of this Order. Any answer to this Order or any request for hearing shall be subnitted to the Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555.
Copies shall also be sent to the Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement, l
l l
r 8
Office of the General Counsel, at the sare address and to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I, 631 Park Avenue, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406.
If a person other than the licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which the petitioner's interest is adversely affected by this Order and should address the criteria set forth in 10 C.F.R. 2.714(d). Upon the failure of the licensee to answer or request a hearing within the specified time, this Order shall be final without further proceedings. An answer to this Order or a request for hearing shall not stay the imediate effectiveness of Section V of this Order.
If a hearing is requested by the licensee or other person adversely affected by this Order, the Comission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing.
If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M
^
Victor Ste o,Jr/.)
Executive Directbf for Operations Dated at Bethesda Maryland this g day of March, 1987 l
-