ML20198H523
| ML20198H523 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/12/1982 |
| From: | Deyoung R, Engelken R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198H511 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-691 NUDOCS 8601310048 | |
| Download: ML20198H523 (4) | |
Text
e
/
2N T Ho l 35cl UNITED STATES
[~
1\\gg, j' I,
UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 pe g
WASHINGTON o.C.20555
-]
p MAR 12 W
,-N D.m t
1 wa {, %L h.Y
?
E.
t-MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dirrks Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Richard C. DeYoung. Director
' 't t.'Y Office of Inspection and Enforcenent Robert Engelken, Regional Administrator Region y
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND TWO SENIOR VICE PRESIDENTS OF PG&E
~
On February 10, 1982, the Comission directed the NRC staff to issue a Notice of Violation to the Pacific Gas and Electric Coccany (PG&E) for a Material False Statement relating to events that occurred during a November 3,1981 meeting between the NRC staff and PG&E. At the same time, the Cor:tnission directed the staff to meet with PG&E officials to discuss methods of improving lines of comunications within PG&E and between PG&E and the NRC. The Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement issued the Notice of Violation on February 11, 1982, and in the letter forwarding the Notice to PG&E requested that the Chairman of the.PG&E Board of Directors meet with him within a period of thirty days to discuss the matters raised by the Comission.
The meeting was held on March 8,1982 in the Concission's Region V Office in Walnut Creek, California. The meeting comenced at 3:00PM and terminated at 5:40PM. The attendees included:
The United States Nuclear Reculatory Comission Richard C. DeYoung, Jr. :
Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement Robert H. Engelken:
Regional Ad=inistrator, Region V The Pacific Gas and Electric Comoany Frederick W. Mielke, Jr.:
Chair =an of the Board scorge A. Maneatis:
Senior Vice President - Facilities Development Malcolm H. Furbush:
Senior Vice President and General Counsel The meeting consisted alcost in its entirety of a very candid and often very blunt discussion of cor:vuunications problems within PG&E and between PG&E and the NRC that were clearly evident or perceived by the AEC and NRC over the long period of PG&E involvement in the regulatory program. Alcest without exception, the PG&E representatives readily acknowledged each cocaunications
~
h l% g 8 051011 HOLMES 585-691 PDR
%=.m.,
r
--=
4 o M_...
m O
z.?T T.
~
AR 121982121982william J. Dircks.
deficiency that was raised, its probable cause, and mentioned some remedial steps that were being taken to correct the situation. The specific subjects that were discussed included:
(1) The November 3,1981 meeting that led to the Notice of Violation for a material false statement.
(2) The overall perception of PG&E by the NRC staff.
j (3) The long problem with the PG&E leadership of its Diablo Canyon project, and the clear perception of the confusing struggle for leadership between high level legal canagers and high level technical managers.
(4) A review of specific instances wherein high level representatives of PG&E appeared incompetent, ineffective, uninformed,111 prepared, and insulting.
(5) The apparent reluctance of PG&E to corm:unicate in-depth with utilities that were successful in licensing and operating plants in order to learn the " secrets of success."
(6) The apparent probleus within the PG&E engineering staff including " turf battles," lack of recognition that decisions based on engineering judgement rrust be docu ented, the reluctance to admit that errors can be made by even Senior Engineers, the strong reluctance to question work done by expert technical consultants, and the reluctance to coen:unicate between engineering depart:nents,.
(7) The apparent reluctance of PG&E to initiate cc:nunications with the NRC staff.
(E) The need to czzmunicate to the PGLE staff that the Diablo Canyon project
~,
is not a short-tern effort but'a 40 year project in which a dedicated engineering suff will be needed to assure a safe profitable operation long after the licensing process is cor:plete. Short range attitudes have been a detriment to progress with the project to-date.
(9) The apparent reluctance of PG&E to provide more than the minical response to NRC staff requests for inforration, and the proven benefits to other licensees who have routinely provided " loot plus" responses.
(lG) Tne perceived poor performance of PG&E in cam:unicating with the media, nuclear pcwer critics and the political arena.
(11) d review of nunerous instances of poor connunications on specific technical entters; these poor co=n:unications included those between PG&E and the Region V Office, PG&E and HRC Headquarters and PG&E corporate and engineering management and the PG&E site contingent.
,., (12) The insensitivity of PG&E ranagement to regulatory requirements and concerns. -
Fcr exarple, the failure to ic:plement quality assurance requirements consisc.t with NP.C regulations with its principal service contractors until late 1977 or early 1978, and the failure to amend the Hosgri report when revised seismic design spectra were provided to them by URS/Blu=c in 1979.
k
n.
- - - = - - - -
2YI 401 % l William J. Din:ks MAR 121927 We sumarized our views on measures that might be taken by PG&E to improve comunications within PG&E and between PG&E and the NRC.
g The PG&E representatives mentioned several steps that had been and were being I
taken to correct the comunications problems it readily admitted existed.
and to improve its regulatory perfomance. These included personnel changes, stronger nanagement, the assignment of Senior Vice Presidents Maneatis and Furbush to lead the licensing effort, and the establishment of a project management group. They also intend to open and maintain high level comunica-tions channels with NRR, IE and Region V.
Our present perceptions of the situation are:
'(1) The comunications, organizational, and performance problems within PG&E were more intense than we had previously perceived.
(2) The Chairman of the Board appears aware of the problems and is taking action to resolve them. The deficiencies are of such magnitude and character and have been tolerated for so long that the task to correct the situation will be long and difficult.
(3) The Lawyer-Engineer battle for control was evident to us, and hopefully to the Chairman, by interchan.ges between Mn. Furbush and Mr. Maneatis during our meeting.
In our suggestions of possible measures to improve the PG&E pnsblems, we indicated to Mr. Mielke that the best performers amongst license applicants were those who assigned project leadership responsibility to a Vide President Engineer who had assigned to.him a full-time counsel of recognized competence.
(4) Mr. Maneatis appears knowledgeable about the problems that exist and ready to attack them forcefully.
Mr. Furbush also appears to understand the issues and would likely be much more aggressive in his approach to i
resolve them, especially in personnel matters. However, the problem is much more one of technical management and organization than of legal difficulties, and Mr. Furbush could create new problems in trying to resolve existing ones.
i (5) The critical retter is the quick establishment of high-level competent leadership for the Diablo Canyon project. Whether Mr. Mielke is fully aware of the need and is able to take effective remedial action should be evident in the coming months.
In arranging for the meeting, Mr. Mielke said that if we wished to discuss any matters with him privately before or after the meeting he would ask i
i that we not hesitate in doing so.
I informed him that we would do so but M
~
l l
I
~ '.....
~
=
-~
- ~ = = = - - -
-,. =
_=...:..-
- * ~ * ~ -
... - - - - - ~ ~ ~
~ = =
~ZM I-401 % 1
~
William J. Dircks also asked him to call us if he had need for a private discussio)t. We hope that he does call us in the next week;.if he does not, we intend to call him to discuss insights we gained during and upon reflection after the meeting, that are more easily reviewed in a private discussion.
We will keep you infomed of subsequent develornents and would appreciate any coments or suggestions you may wish to offer.
Richard C.
e oung, rector Office of I ection and Enforcement
.d Robert Eng n, Reg.ional Ad:ninistrator Regica V cc: Victor Stello, DED0/ROGR Harold Denton, MP.R Regional Ad:sinistrators-e 90 6
meu.
e b
-