ML20196C518
| ML20196C518 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/27/1987 |
| From: | Rehm T NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Fay E NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195G077 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8802160136 | |
| Download: ML20196C518 (5) | |
Text
l 1
,e
.,e
- MAY 2 71987 i
NOTE FOR E. Fay, OCA FRON:
T. Rehm, A0/EDO
SUBJECT:
REVISIONS TO LETTER, STELLO TO SEN. GLENN DATED 4/28/87 Further review of this issue has led to changes in the figures originally provided to Senator Glenn.
Please provide him and the Comission the attached line-in, ifne-out version which indicates where the changes have been made.
Waad)t,A,amo T. A. Rehm A0/EDO
Attachment:
As stated.
Distribution:
5tello Taylor Rehm c w r/T 8602160136 870501 CF SUDJ L-4-1 HEAR CEN PDR t'
,0FC
- 0EDO
- NAME :TARehm
~.....:.3.........:............:............:............:............:............:...........
DATE 5/AW87 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
RduTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP 5/21/87 initials Dete
',TO: (Neme, empo symbol, toom aurn6er, huMM. AeonerM) 1.
- v. stallo 3
4.
s.
Actice File Note and Retum Approval For Clearenw Per Converestion As Nmted For Correction Propero Reph Circulele For Your inforer,etion See Me Comment invoetleate Signature Coordinetion Justify
$tMARKs In light of my reexamination of the statistics previously provided as input to your 4/28/87 submittal to Senator Glen. I have noted four discrepancies. These are the result of mathematical crrors.
IRECORDIof approvale, concurrences, d6epmts, D0 vee thne e
arahees, endpmlig actione FROM:(
o I,
Q Room No,--8ldg.
Rich tarostecki. ADThiRR 43 2 OMI,0],"[b[e.0.R" 41
(" 7*783 88'M88
.u e ano iess+4ei 542oc 4 pPu a(4i itet.1t.noe I
+
l l
5
.c e Tj
$5b annualized basis.
A breakdown of the historical numb rs shows that the TVA cases have had an impact in that Region II has essentia ly
,wice many re-ferrals as any other region. Of the 31 cases in egion !
2 de t with TVA.
^
Putting the TVA cases aside, it leaves an annual ate ef 4 es. Similarly, it is of interest to note that in the Si month per the formation of the IRB, both Regions ! and III had only two referrals each. After formation of the IRB, Region I had two cases referred to 01 and Region III had five cases referred to 01.
For the five month period of the IRB examined herein (11/10/86 to 4/9/87, the regions have submitted a total of 25 requests, two of which were sent directly to O! in accordance with emergency referral provisions.
The cases identified by the regions during the five month interval are :
I III IV V
2 5
5 10 3
TOT AL (25)
However, there is a unique situation in Region IV that warrants special con-sideration.
In response to 01, the region classified one request as eight in-dividual referrals since eight different dockets were involved.
One could view, as the Region !Y originally did, that this should be counted as one request. This affects the statistical comparison since the volume during the 5-month period could be viewed as 17 requests. The 25 cases identified by the regions are equivalent to 60 on an annual basist adjusting for the above noted j
anomaly equates
.o about 40 cases annually, as cottpared to the previous year's j
annual rate o 4 e ses when TVA is excluded.
57 i However, the ta at which regions identify possible cases is not indicative of what is formally transferred to 01.
Although O! has been provided copies of all submittals to the
- IRB, not all cases receive IR8 approval; rotwithstanding, experience has shown that the regions have accepted the IRB recorrneniations in all cases.
Consequently.13 cases have been referred to
,,,..______,r
.,. 2 O!; two of which have been emergency referrals. This volume is equivalent to abnut 30 referrals on an annualized basis.
This reflects a decrease of about one-half from what has been experienced historically.
However, the cases reviewed by the IRB have undergone a more thorough screening for completeness and prioritization such that they should not be rejected or denied by 01, as j
has been done on occasion before the inception of the IRB.
As an example, j
four of the six requests made by Region !! in May 1986 were denied by 01.
From 9/P,5 to the establishment of the IRB 55'of the 87 cases referred to 01 Y
were treated as inquiries to det hether a fonnal investigation should be made. Thus, less than a thi (22)we treated as formal investigations) 5 mu ni_
6.__
g
.s et
....a
.,,v.
Based on five months of IRB da s difficult to draw statistical conclusions that there is a dramatic decline in regional referrals.
For example, Ragion I had referred only two requests to 0! in the five months interval irior to the inception of the IRB.
In the five month period since the IRB was established. Region I has had two requests forwarded to Of through the IRB. However, the IRB in reviewing cases against the Comission's thresholds have. reduced the number of cases referred to 0! by about 50%.
Cases were rejected for referral because there was not a belief that wrongdoing occurred, investigations wer'e not necessary to permit appropriate regulatory action, or because 01 was actively pursuing the matter such that a referral was rot necessary.
In sum the IRB has not had a chilling effect on the number of cases identified by the regions. Cases are not hidden..Rather, the cases are being considered in a professional manner.
0! is made aware of each action and invited to participate. The IRB is still in its six month trial period and appears to be serving the management function it was intended to serve.
However, the staff is in the process of determining whether the IRB should continue past the trial period.
Mr. Hayes' adoption of Comissioner Asselstine's coment that the IRB appears to be a *... thinly veiled attempt by the EDO to control O! by controlling what
i l
l i
~. ~....,......
't m
t, 2-11-88 Jim:
The attached should be processed ASAP for placement in the PDR.
I have sent them an advance copy.
Thanks.
Margo 1
P l
1.
- '[ #
C 1
.,8
.' h e u
'i l
- - __ _ -._ -.,__. -