ML20058D398
| ML20058D398 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1982 |
| From: | Rice W BROWN & ROOT, INC. (SUBS. OF HALLIBURTON CO.) |
| To: | Jay Collins NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058D389 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8207270095 | |
| Download: ML20058D398 (2) | |
Text
r
.b Brown & Root,Inc.
east orrice 80x ra,ee, souston, Tex.,7700, A Halliburton Company 4ff-Nb william M. Rice Group Vice President Power Group (713) 676-3521 June 16, 1982 b b N $_. ]" '
Mr. John T.
Collins l\\
JUN 18 882 Deputy Director dl!)a
_[Ljl ]:
U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive J
Arlington, Texas 76011 RE:
South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-498, 50-499
Dear Mr. Collins:
We have received and reviewed the Systematic Assess-ment of Licensee Performance ("SALP") Report for the above facility, issued under cover letter dated May 11, 1982, from G. L. Madsen to G. W. Oprea, Jr.
The first page of the Report indicates that the appraisal of the facility was completed on September 1, 1981.
The Report and cover letter further indicate that there was a meeting of the SALP Board with Mr. Oprea and other representatives of licensee Houston Lighting & Power Company ("HL&P") on October 16, 1981, to discuss a preliminary draft of the SALP Report and the performance analysis and evaluation contained in it.
Brown & Root, Inc. ("B&R") was not invited by HL&P to the October 16, 1981, meeting and had no opportunity to comment on the draft SALP Report or participate in any other way in the preparation of the final version of the Report.
Nevertheless, Paragraphs 9 and 10 in the SALP Report draw a number of conclusions about B&R's alleged inability to correct action in a timely manner.
As you know, on September 16, 1981, HL&P dismissed B&R from its architect-engineer and construction manager role.
On December 16, 1981, HL&P filed a civil suit against B&R in the District Court for Matagorda County, Texas.
The suit alleges, among other things, that B&R breached its contractual obligations to HL&P by defective perform-ance in the engineering and construction of the South Texas Proj ect.
As the above dates indicate, the meeting between the SALP Board and Mr. Oprea and other HL&P officials to I
discuss the draft SALP Report took place after HL&P had dismissed B&R and, presumably, while HL&P was preparing its civil action against B&R.
i 8207270095 820715 PDR ADOCK 05000498
[
A PM
I Page 2.
Because of this pending litigation, I shall not here elaborate on our disagreements with the observations in Paragraph 39 and 10 about B&R's performance.
I do, however, wish to note our understanding that your inspectors do not normally seek to determine the nature of the interactions between URC licensees such as HL&P and their contractors or agents such as B&R.
This may have given rise to the problems referenced in Paragraphs 9 and 10.
While those interactions may be of little interest to the NRC for its regulatory purposes, in our view, those interactions necessarily affected the nature and timing of B&R's correct-ive actions.
It is unfortunate, therefore, that HL&P did not elect to invite B&R to the October 16, 1981, meeting to discuss your draft Report.
B&R was effectively precluded thereby from discussing with you the many difficulties we encountered in dealing with HL&P's Project Management Team, as well as HL&P's management, and from otherwise commenting on the draft Report.
This could possibly have avoided the unfortunate implication of the observations in the SALP Report regarding B&R.
Very tru
- yours, f M Wil la
- 4. Rice WMR/smb cc:
G. W. Oprea J. H. Goldberg