ML20056G571
| ML20056G571 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/30/1993 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Faulkenberry B, Hayes B, Jonathan Montgomery NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V), NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056G560 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9309030283 | |
| Download: ML20056G571 (2) | |
Text
_ ___ _____
,o APPENDIX 2
/pe n:m\\
UNITED STATES h(h
. ), j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION w pf wAssimatow. o.c. mammi Y* *** /
593 I"2 31 73 O 22 March 30, 19g3 MEMORANDUM FOR: John Montgomery, Region IV Bobby Faulkenberry, Region Y Ben Hayer, O!
Jim Turdici, OEDO Jim Horn, OP FRON:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
REGION Y REALIGNMEhT STUDY GROUP CHARTER You have been selected to conduct a review of several proposed options for the realignment or elimination of the Region Y Office. John Montgomery and Bobby Faulkenberry have the lead for this effort. The Ccamission is considering several measures to achieve efficiencies, and the Comission needs additional information regarding these options. Your review should emphasize cost and FTE savings, the ability to carry out our alssion objectives, and internal and external interface concerns. The study group will solicit input from the.
affected regional and program offices.
The guidelines for the conduct of the review are as follows:
1.
The following three options are to be evaluated in the study:
Consolidation of Region IY and Y into a single regional office that will be located in Arlington, TX.
Reducing Region Y to a staff of approximately 25-30 FTE (including residents) focusing on the reactor program. The remainder of the current reactor and the OI and material functions would be consolidated in Region IV.
Reducing Region Y to a staff of approximately 25-30 FTE, as above, but the office would be structured as a field office of Region !Y, rather than a separate regional office.
2.
The following areas, as a minisas, are to be considered for each option during the review:
Overall impact on mission accomplishment Interfaces with Itcensees, pubite, media, state & local government, federal agencies, and internal NRC interfaces Incident / Emergency Response Employee impacts /short tern /long term 93o90302s3 930812E PDR COrtPts NRCC 76 CORRESPONDENCE PDR
=
_________m
APPENDIX 2' Multiple Addressees
. March 30, 1993 Cost savings: Travel, transportation FTE, relocation.
l administrative support i
3.
The following assumptions should be used la the evaluation:
The ratio of direct FTE/ facility for the realigned Region IV l
should be stallar to the current ratio in Regions I-III.
The ratto of direct FTE/ overhead for the realigned Region IV l
should be similar to the current ratio in Regions I-111 The Region Y resident offices will be staffed to b l.
The current functions and regional boundaries for Regions I-III will remain unchanged.
t The realignment will be completed by October 1994.
4.
Provide me with a status br! Cierg approximately two weeks prior to your final report.
5.
The final report, including your conclusions and recommendations as to
(
which of the three options should be implemented and the phasing of the steps to implement the option, should be subaltted to me by May 30, 1993.
I r
6.
If the study group needs additional guidance or recommends changes to i
the guidance noted above, contact Jim Sniezek.
i 2
J
\\
ses or ecutive Director for Operations
/
cc:
J. Sniezek H. Thompson 1
T. Murley R. Bernero
}
E. Jordan i
P. Norry P. Bird Regional Administrators l
77
.---w
, - - - - - ~
v
- -