ML20056G661
| ML20056G661 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/07/1993 |
| From: | Meadows T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Selin I NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056G560 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9309070024 | |
| Download: ML20056G661 (2) | |
Text
.
~
o Thomas R. Meadows Senior Licensing Examiner Region V, USNRC Chairman Ivan Selin U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington D.C.
Dear Chairman Selin:
The infor=ation that a study has been cor.nissioned to explore options for the consolidation of Region V and Region IV has dropped like a stone on the hearts of Region V personnel. The nature of that study is very disturbing to us. On reviewing the charter that the study group has been given by Mr. Taylor, it appears that several options have been left off the list. Most notably i
consideration for remaining with the status qua or realignment of Region IV with other regions.
The purposeful appearance of the charter leaves loyal Region V personnel with the impression of abandonment by NRC management.
The reason for our impression lies in the charter of the study group which appears strongly biased toward two options.
First, the total consolidation of Region V with i
Region IV in Arlington, Texas. Secondly, a field office arrangement, managed by Region IV, or as a drastically reduced region.
The failure to consider other options, and the bias that Region V personnel see in the makeup of the study group, leads us to believe that a decision has already been made and that the study group is left to merely recomend a fait accompli. The bias we see is in the selection of Mr. Montgomery, whose interest in consolidation is high; and the selection of Mr. Hayes, who has voiced his view in the past favoring consolidation of 01 in Headquarters. We don't view the other parties as effective in offsetting their bias. We believe that NRC management at least should consider the unvarnished facts before proceeding.
The human cost to Region V personnel in any case will cause great personal pain.
As an example I personally would be left with an agonizing decision to abandon a long and fruitful career of 7 years.
I'm married to a loving California born wife and 3 California wonderful boys.
My wife's innediate family are all Bay Area and my wife and I are necessary for providing nursing care for her elderly parents.
We must provide them care in this economy - we have no options, but.:o stay in the Bay Area. Obviously if I cannot find employment in the local area I will have to consider a mo,ve.
Early on in my careers as a Navy, Lt. (USN Submarines), Nuclear Industry Operator Certification), and finally the NRC, I made many m(Senior Reactor oves over a fourteen year span with several extended assignments. My family and I just do not feel like moving again. Many others would face painful moves away from long friendships and family.
Further, our faithful administrative staff would have to compete to find employment in the already weak California economy that
'i o
9309070024 930812 Pl>R CONNS NRCC 120 CORRESPONDENCE PDR
is facing the loss of thousands of local federal jobs. Obviously, long real loss of benefits accrued from that service.-government service could l
The analysis of cost savings in these cases usually involves showing the long i
term gains offsetting the short term costs.
Analyses such as these are usually artificial, a savings can always be shown by a reduction in staffing or realignment of responsibilities.
What cannot be shown is the real truth.
We understand that pressure is being applied to the NRC to reduce staffing and to find cost savings. Region V personnel cannot help but feel that we are a convenient target for advancing that effort.
We are not asking to be treated differently, we cierely seek equitable treatment and consideration.
1 Analyses done by some of our compatriots in Region V indicate'that the short term costs and some long term costs may be very high. Moves, retraining, early retirements, severance pay, increased travel costs, breaking the Region V lease are just some costs.
Just as an example, the extra travel time to Region V facilities from Arlington, Texas could impose the need to pick up an additional 2 weeks of travel per inspector per site to meet the ensite time goals (as much as $15,000 per year core in costs).
The loss of intangibles such as close proximity to stat governments, the public, and the utilities home offices are very real.
The ability to respond to a site incident could be inpacted by the time factors of travel and time zones.
Responding to an incident from a consolidated Region IV-V in Arlington, Texas to a site ceans covering three time zones. The point could be made that if a region has to go, it might as well be Region IV.
offices begs a question.A look at the cap and the boundaries of the NRC regional close to Region II and Region III.Most of the Region IV facilities are located very Waterford, River Bend, and ANO to Region II. Cooper and Fort Calhoun, to Region I It should be noted that responding to WNP-2 and Diablo Canyon from Arlington, Texas would take much longer than responding to Comanche Peak and South Texas from Walnut Creek.I do not like presenting these arguments because they point out an obvious concern that Region IV could be posed with the sama uncertainty as is Region V.
But in fairness I feel they should be argued.
j The length of this letter is I believe indicative of the depth of the concerns that are gnawing at many of us.
drastic pre The NRC has not in the past taken such a other acce=posal to the point of implementation.
I sincerely hope that some odation can be made.
Very respectfully,
//= A I
&_- _ - G v
~,-py Thomas R. Headows cc:
Co=issioner Remick Co=issioner De plangue Co=issioner Rodgers Commissioner Curtiss 121 L