ML20138J104

Intervenor Exhibit I-CCANP-121,consisting of 810922 Confidential Memo Confirming 810922 Telcon W/G Oprea Re Alternate Plan for Replacement of Brown & Root as Engineer Const Manager for Facility

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

.- .

$0 &9 ff dL [ W h D.?$

.. - =

-- . . r.

vWAW7 T -00A df-lcll r . .

4 de n .,d .. .J

[{[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'J L1ECT: Telephone Call to George Oprea of 9/22/81

- . 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 g

k% -a

-4 new engineer can come in wit a proven system immediately, and begin to show progress with regard to licensing, lie stated that h N . ) ,. '

he felt they had a 50/50 chance under the circumstances of a replacing the engineer of record without a serious licensing a:

g .(,- problem, i.e., revocation of the construction pernit or new o , public hearings, etc.

{,. , {

9 5'E b i I lie stated that they had considered many alternatives, but y

$ f.,

9 33 as er 6[

c $ 1 felt t ha t a significant change on the engineering side was necessary because Region IV was aware of the Quadre.x Audit g and was looking very carefully for a significant change. 1 k

, i 8510290251 850005 N PDR ADOCK 05000498 1 0 PDR t

\

- 1 i y b .4 CcsuP h pt d ..

f ii -

= ~ i n'; t.

ei. 4. ,W

- E. .& 2 o o n i

Im < -

oo /52.50 -jg~21 gJ; y," , *M ' - -

4

-P s

e N

I ,'

i Memo to W. M. Rice September 22, 1981 Page 2 j

(

C-the same time that many of t. he Quadrex ' findings 3 1:e coaceded were invalid.at I

1.e stated that through all of this change Hl.&P does not i wish to replace Brown & Root, nor to be charlatanistic. I;e stated that they feel that our construction work is much more

< credible and want us to finish the construction.

1 ,

I got no real indication from Mr. Oprea that he would give 4

any serious consideration to your proposal; however, he did sees 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 l

, 1 I

ll .

l l

l

. - . _ _ _ ~ _ _ - - - - - . . . , _ _ , . . - . , ,--- __. . . , .