ML20154S062
| ML20154S062 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/12/1986 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Markey E HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154S065 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8603310292 | |
| Download: ML20154S062 (2) | |
Text
.
f*W%*.
f Y
4 o,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e-n W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 g
\\
/
March 12, 1986 CHAM AN The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Chaiman Subcomittee on Energy Conservation and Power Comittee on Energy and Comerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This letter will provide further information regarding the Comission's response to the activities engaged in by the General Physics Corporation (GPC) and will supplement our letter to you of October 19, 1985.
The Comission has dispatched a letter to GPC (copy enclosed) advising them that we regard their conduct as unacceptable. We have been assured that management initiatives to prevent recurrence of this problem have been undertaken by GPC.
We have taken several actions which we believe adequately address both the generic and the case-specific aspects of the GPC situation.
In particular, case-specific actions include conducting a Vendor Program Branch inspection of GPC to ascertain whether or not this was a pervasive problem at General Physics or, as was determined, an isolated instance.
In addition, letters were sent to each utility that received the General Physics training requiring that they, among other things, reinstruct personnel who attended the course. The utilities were responsive to the letters and no further actions are considered necessary with regard to utilities on this matter.
The generic aspects of this problem were addressed by issuing two information notices, IN 85-88 dated November 18, 1985 which emphasized the licensees' responsibility for the content of safety-related training courses provided by consultants to utility employees, and IN 85-101 dated December 31, 1985 which reminded licensees and consultants of their responsibilities under 10 CFR Part 21 regarding the reporting of any defects found in training material which could have an impact on component hardware.
Further, a standard provision has been prepared for inclusion in NRC solicitations and contracts which will be entered, based on the judgment of the contracting officer, and which will provide the Commission with the ability to terminate any existing contracts with a company if that company is involved in conduct similar to that of GPC. NRC contractors will be required to include the provision in their subcontracts..
Additionally, the Vendor Program Branch has inspected a second consulting firm which provides training services similar to GPC and has found no indication of conduct similar to the GPC event.
h3310292860312 CORRE8p jc
Finally, we wish to advise you regarding the status of NRC's present contracts with GPC. One contract has been completed and the final report approved by the NRC staff. A second contract is a basic ordering agreement which expires in March 1986. We do not foresee further requirements for the services covered by this agreement and will issue no further orders against it. Our third contract with General Physics is being terminated for default.
The notice of termination was issued on December 26, 1985. The basis for the termination was GPC's failure to present an acceptable Health Physics training course as required by the contract.
Comissioner Bernthal adds the following:
I believe the Comission could have and should have terminated the GPC contracts as soon as the facts became known; in fact I urged long ago that we do so, but the Comission has procrastinated until all of the contracts are now either complete or soon will be. The Commission had ample basis for such cancellation, with or without the new standard contract provision suggested by the Staff.
The letter to General Physics constitutes a slap on the wrist when a right cross to the chin long ago would have been more appropriate.
In response to Comissioner Bernthal's coments, the Comission believed that the matter needed to be reviewed in sufficient depth to assure that an adequate legal basis existed for terminating the contracts because of the GPC conduct. The Comission requested a legal review, and its action is consistent with the advice it received.
We appreciate your interest in maintaining the effectiveness of NRC's regulatory program.
Sincerely, fy g({$ tc-lN u o-1.c Nunzio J.
alladino
Enclosure:
Letter to General Physics Corp.
cc: Rep. Carlos Moorhead