ML20126H660
| ML20126H660 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, South Texas |
| Issue date: | 11/06/1981 |
| From: | Phillips H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17198A238 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-393 NUDOCS 8506100379 | |
| Download: ML20126H660 (2) | |
Text
.. - -.... -
._..Z.Z---~~--~-~--E-------------------;-.---.
g *"*%
(;
h t
UNITED STATES g
o,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
g p
REGION IV 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SulTE 1000 0,,
g
- ~
November 6, 1981 Dockets No. 50-498; 50-499 MEMORANDUM FOR: File THRU:
G. L. Madsen, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch
[
W. A. Crossman, Chief, Project Section 3 FROM:
H. S. Phillips, Resident Reactor Inspector South Texas Project
SUBJECT:
HAROLD SCARLETT TELEPHONE CALL At approximately 1:00 p.m. on November 5,1981, Harold Scarlett called me to determine the reactioh to Brown & Root's leaving the site. He stated that he had received the HL&P press release announcing that B&R's construction contract was not renewed.
He inquired about my extension until January 10,198f.
I explained that this was to allow more time to select the new reside'nt inspector and to have a smooth transition. He asked if it had anything to do with the B&R develop-ment.
I replied that it may have been a factor but that the principal reason was to get a replacement.
He asked about B&R personnel reaction.
I told him that the rumor had been strong for days and few employees would be surprised.
I stated that I was sure that all would knew before the day was over.
He asked if Bechtel had insisted on.B&R's removal from the project.
I told him that I did not know.
I told him that the rumors on site indicated that HL&P and B&R could not agree on the tems of the renegotiated construction contract.
The Quadrex Report was discussed.
I stated that the report was an advisory report which generated a lot of questions and few answers.
I stated that the report itself qualified the findings as " indications of potentially weak areas". Therefore, one cannot make conclusions that the design is flawed.
Only a full HL&P and Bechtel review can determine the validity of the report and the significance of conclusions.
I stated that we have no reason at this time to conclude that the STP design.is flawed.
I comented that B&R is recognized world wide as a reputable engineering company and their biggest problem here has been caused by being an inexperienced AE in an unforgiving atmosphere. That is, they are experiencing problems that other AEs exper-ienced in the early 1970's but the post TMI atmosphere is not very receptive to this approach.
! y lf OLASSPIB4-393 PDR
v.._.
._._-.__.2._
.2 6,
t r
Memo for File 2
November 6, 1981 He inquired about how much work was going on and I told him that about 250 of the 1,250 craftsmen are working on safety related work and the majority of this 250 are doing rework. I told him that the work activity has been low for over a year in terms of safety related work activity.
He thanked me and said that he was glad that a resident inspector was still on site to observe the work effort.
/
a H. S. Phil ips Resident Reactor Inspector South Texas Project O
P