ML20056G668
| ML20056G668 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/04/1993 |
| From: | Johnston K NRC |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056G560 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9309070032 | |
| Download: ML20056G668 (2) | |
Text
._.. _ _
From:
Kenneth E. Johnston (KEJ)
To:'
BFF Date:
Friday, June 4, 1993 6:20 pm
Subject:
Comments on Realignment Study The numbers don't make sense to me.
I only looked at Option 1.
Let's look at the FTE from '93 compared to '95.
]
i The combined staff (excluding resident sites) today is approximately 210 l
i FTE.
The '95 Option I regional staff FTE is approximately 145, a difference of 65 FTE. That's a 31% reduction in combined regional office staff.
To put it bluntly, the study says that 1 out of every 3 people who showed up l
in the Regions IV and V offices today was not needed.
That just doesn't make sense.
e Let's look at it another way.
Presently there are approx. 90 FTE in the Region V office. The study says that Option I will save 65 FTE over the '93 staffing level (excluding RI staff at Trojan and Songsl).
What this equates to is that the Region IV office needs only 25 FTE in addition to their present staff to accomplish the RV mission.
How can a Region IV staff augmented by 25 people accomplish the Region V l
mission? The answer is it can't.
From a common sense approach, the study does not make sense.
I t
1 ha
~
~c
- ' il r, '
{
9309070032 930812 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR 122 i
1
O APPENDIX 15 REGION IV EMPLOYEE COMMENTS REGARDING THE REGION V REALIGNMENT STUDY DRAFT REPORT DATED MAY 24,1993 123
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _