ML20129G881
Text
..
d: : I_r %,f 2[iNNN.NEiYEr" m omw
, I.4~
t s
C%.".'.'.. /
hy 27, 1981 Docket Nos. SD-498 50-499 l
i MUDRAWDUM FOR:
File THRU:
G. L. Madsen Chief. Reactor Projects Branch W. A. Crossman, Chief. Projects Section 3
,FRDH:
H. S. Phillips. Resident Reactor Inspector i
South Texas Project 7
4 l
SUBJECT:
BROWN & ROOT ENGINEERING t
4 On April 25. 1981, the Resident inspector was contacted by a Brown & Root, l
Inc. (B&R) Engineer do stated that the single biggest problem on the South Texas Project is with work done by Design Engineerino (AE). The individus) elaborated on the statement and said, however, everything is under contml i
as evidenced by the 16DD hold tags at the B&R Crvss Park facility in Houston. Texas.
This information was given ts Mr. Crossmen in a telephone conversation on l
April 30,1981, and it was classified as routine since the engineer stated j
it was controlled.
I corrnented to Mr. Crossman that I would be sensitive j
to any additional infometion on this subject and would pass it along.
i l
j On May 6.1981,1 learned that SLR is planning to lay off appmximstaly l
230 people.
In this conversation with R. A Frarer, Manager. Quality Assur-ance Site, he said it was because of problems in 86R Engineering (AC).
On 4
i Key 6,1981, Graham Painter. HL&P Public Relations, told.ne it would be l
l announced that 177 people (157 construction and ZZ OVOC) would be laid off i
and stated it was because of insuf ficient work activity.
I asked him to l
notify C. Wisner, Region !Y, Public Relations Office.
i l
Additional information in two articles in the newspaper (see two enclosures) increase my concerns that the B&R Engineering is causing constrwetion delays j
that may affect the quality of construction activities, in an article in the Bay City Tribune, April 26, 1981 Dave Barker, NL&P Project Manoper, is 4
quoted, *And to be perfectly honest, we have got to regroup ourselves in l
those aress--get our engineering information together, then proceed ahead i
on a quartarly basis and then ruhire the force.
That's our plan....I'd i
say our me.ior problem in being able to increase production is getting engi-l neering information." The other article in the Houston Post in early 1980 1
also stated that ML&P had found problens with B&R Engineering l
j
~
l 3"
- l
FEhe fcr File 2
May 27. 1981'
~
Recent NRC Inspections perfomed by D. Fox. k'. Hubacel: and H. 5. Phillips have identified / evidenced similar problems that may be syngton.atic of larger
. problems in B&R Engineering.
Messrs. Rubacek and Phillips reviewed audits of B&R Engineering utdch indicated problems with engineering reviews.
. All of this-.infonnation indicates that'an adverse trend may be developing or has developed.
In all cases, the licensee has stated that the situation is i
under control, however I reco:nend that a special team f rom the RIV Vendor Group inspect and audit the area to assurt the licensee is contrelling and/
or correcting the situation.
Of i
/
R. 5. Phil ips. Resident Reactor Inspector i
South Texas Project i
i Endlosure:
Bay City Tribune article, dated 4/26/81 Houston Post article j
i l
s s
1 O
+
g
_