ML20138J104
| ML20138J104 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 08/05/1985 |
| From: | Broom K BROWN & ROOT, INC. (SUBS. OF HALLIBURTON CO.) |
| To: | Rice W BROWN & ROOT, INC. (SUBS. OF HALLIBURTON CO.) |
| References | |
| OL-I-CCANP-121, NUDOCS 8510290251 | |
| Download: ML20138J104 (2) | |
Text
.-
W h D.?$
$0 &9 ff dL
[
.. r.
=
vWAW7 T -00A df-lcll 4 n.,d...J de r.
[{[ff d'
/ '85 D n A11 :18 4
e d
GrFIL: U dLnt:
i 300KETING & SERVlu
_tj SRAhCH C0NF1DENTIAL p
BROWN & ROOT, INC.
7 OFFICE MD40
- 4 TO:
II. M.. Rice September 22, 1981 FROM:
K. M. Secom :
I S' L1ECT: Telephone Call to George Oprea of 9/22/81 J
At your suggestion, I telephoned George Oprea to suggest an alternate plan that likCP might consider with respect to replacement of Brown & Root as the engineer-construction a
sanager for STP. The alternate 1 described was that which you suggested, whereby Stone L 1:ebster (or any other suitable AE, not Lechtel) would be brought in as an " overlord" over-seeing Brown G Root's activities for a period of 6 to 12 months, following which any division of engineering responsibilities up to complete removal of Brosm C Root from the job, could be made. This would introduce the new AE to the project with I
much less risk of precipitating licensing problems, and, af ter the 6 to 12 months, their involvement up to that time would make possible their assumption of the " engineer of record" role, should HLGP desire.
George Oprea listened with no comment until 1 finished.
1 lie then responded by recounting the events that led them to their present decision that Brown & Root engineering simply cannot support the field activities. lie stated that after the Show Cause Order, he became very concerned when engineering N
problems continued to surface. He stated that he concluded et that our engineering was not well integrated between disciplines, p
lie referred to the Quadrex audit and he referred to the 50.55e -
items, which have been reported since Show Cause. He said P, j that they feel we lack sophisticated management systems that although we could ultimately provide, the time required sculd
.i simply be too long for this roject. They concluded that a k
- a new engineer can come in wit a proven system immediately, and h
N
- 4 begin to show progress with regard to licensing, lie stated that g
),.
he felt they had a 50/50 chance under the circumstances of a
replacing the engineer of record without a serious licensing g
.(,-
- problem, i.e.,
revocation of the construction pernit or new a:
{
public hearings, etc.
{,.
o 9
5'E b i
I lie stated that they had considered many alternatives, but f., 3 3 6[
felt t ha t a significant change on the engineering side was 9 as er c $ 1 necessary because Region IV was aware of the Quadre.x Audit y
g and was looking very carefully for a significant change.
1 ki 8510290251 850005 N
PDR ADOCK 05000498 1
0 PDR t
\\
h f
d i y b.4
- 4.,W CcsuP pt ii
~ i n
=
E.
t.
ei.
2 o o n i
I oo /52.50 -jg~21 gJ; m
y,",
- M '
4
- P s
N
. I e
Memo to W. M. Rice i
September 22, 1981 Page 2 j
C-(
the same time that many of t. e Quadrex ' findings h
3 1:e coaceded at were invalid.
I 1.e stated that through all of this change Hl.&P does notI;e wish to replace Brown & Root, nor to be charlatanistic.
i stated that they feel that our construction work is much more credible and want us to finish the construction.
I got no real indication from Mr. Oprea that he would give 1
any serious consideration to your proposal; however, he did sees 4
at least casually interested in some of his questions. I:e specifically wanted to know why we could work more easily with Stone & Kebster than with Bechtel.
K. M. Broom bb d
4 i
J e
l 0483137 1
ll l
~ _ _ - - - -
,--- __...,.