ML19290E541
| ML19290E541 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/06/1980 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CLI-80-05, CLI-80-5, NUDOCS 8003140183 | |
| Download: ML19290E541 (4) | |
Text
.. ' e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
COMMISSIONERS:
g
/
John F. Ahearne, Chainnan
)
Victor Gilinsky Richard T. Kennedy 21' r9gv o
Joseph M. Hendrie 5
g
-6 Peter A. Bradford gt
)
In the Matter of METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY Docket No. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit No. 1)
)
)
ORDER CLI-80-5 After reviewing its Order and Notice of Hearing of August 9,1979, and the Licensing Board's First Prehearing Conference Order, the Commission has decided to provide the Board with further guidance regarding the management competence issues which the Board is to hear in this proceeding.
In deter-mining whether Metropolitan Edison is capable of operating Unit 1 safety, the Board is directed to examine the following broad issues:
(1)whetherMetro-politan Edison's management is sufficiently staffed, has sufficient resources and is appropriately organized to operate Unit 1 safety; (2) whether facts revealed by the accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2 present questions con-cerning management competence which must be resolved before Metropolitan Edison can be found competent to operate Unit 1 safely; and (3) whether Metro-politan Edison is capable of operating Unit 1 safely while simultaneous 1y~' [
conducting the clean-up operation at Unit 2.
~~
-~
8003140 /h
2 In the course of examining these broad questions, the Licensing Board should examine the following specific issues:
(1) whether Metropolitan Edison's command and administrative structure, at both the plant and corporate levels, is appropriately organized to assure safe operation of Unit 1; (2) whether the operations and technical staff of Unit 1 is qualified to operate Unit 1 safely (the adequacy of the facility's maintenance program should be among the matters considered by the Board);
(3) what are the views of the NRC inspectors regara the quality of the management of TMI Unit 1 and the corporate management, staffing, organization and resources of Metropolitan Edison; (4) whether the Unit 1 Health Physics program is appropriately organized and staffed with qualified individuals to ensure the safe operation of the facility; (5) whether the Unit 1 Radittion Waste system is appropriately staffed with qualified individuals to ensure the safe operation of the facility; (6) whether the relationship between Metropolitan Edison's corporate finance and technical departments is such as to prevent financial considerations from having an improper impact upon technical decisions; (7) whether Metropolitan Edison has made adequate provision for groups of qualified individuals to provide safety review of and operational advice regarding Unit 1;
3 (8) what, if any, conclusions regarding Metropolitan Piison's ability to operate Unit 1 safely can be drawn from a comparison of the number and type of past infractions of NRC regulations attributable to the Three Mile Island Units with industry-wide infraction statistics; (9)_ what, if any, conclusions regarding Metropolitan Edison's ability to operate Unit 1 safely can be drawn from a comparison of the number and type of past Licensee Event Reports ("LER") and the licensee's operating experience at the Three Mile Island Units with industry-wide statistics on LER's and operating experience; (10) whether the actions of Metropolitan Edison's corporate or plant management (or any part or individual member thereof) in connec-tion with the accident at Unit 2 reveal deficiencies in the corporate or plant management that nust be corrected before Unit 1 can be operated safely; (11) whether Metropolitan Edison possesses sufficient in-house technical capability to ensure the simultaneous safe operation of Unit 1 and clean-up of Unit 2.
If Metropolitan Edison possesses insufficient technical resources, the Board should examine arrangements, if any, which Metropolitan Edison has made with its vendor and architect-engineer to supply the necessary technical expertise; (12) whether Metropolitan Edison possesses the financial resources neces-sary to safely operate Unit 1 in addition to cleaning up Unit 2; and
4 (13) such other specific issues as the Board deems relevant to the resolu-tion of the issues set forth in this order.
In proposing these questions, the Commission recognizes that it has not established definitive standards for management organization and operation for nuclear power plants.
Nevertheless, in this case the Commission considers these questior.s pertinent.
The Board should apply its own judgnent in develop-ing the reccrd and forming its conclusions on these questions. With the record developed and the Board's conclusions in hand, the Commission will be greatly aided in reaching a final decision on the restart issue.
Chairman Ahearne and Commissioner Kennedy dissent.*
It is so ORDERED.
For the Commi sion 2..bh SAMUEL J. C?tILK Secretary of the Commission Dated at Washington, D.C.
this day of k$Ab
, 1980.
Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. 5841, provides that action of the Commission shall be determined by a " majority vote of the members present." Commissioners Giiinsky and Kennedy were not present at the meeting at which this Order ws approved.
Had Commis-stoner Gilinsky been present he would have ioted with the majority; Commissioner Kennedy would have dissented.
Accordingly, the formal vote of,the Commission is 2-1.