ML20056G741
| ML20056G741 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/27/1993 |
| From: | Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Jonathan Montgomery NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056G560 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9309070109 | |
| Download: ML20056G741 (1) | |
Text
~
ps nc%)*
UNITED STATES i I 'J/ i,E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM'SSION i * ^ i c' I WASHINGTON, D.C. 20565-0001
[,\\(.*
April 27,1993 NEMORANDUM FOR:
John M. Montgomery, Deputy Regional Administrator Region IV FROM:
Frank J. Miraglia, Deputy Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
REGION Y REALIGNMENT STUDY Per your April 2,1993 request, NRR has reviewed the Region V realignment study options for impacts on implementation on NRR Program activities.
Upon review of the pros and cons of each of the three options presented, we believe that the selection of option 1, the consolidation of Regions IV and V in Arlington, would have the most positive impact on NRR programs.
Specifically, the consolidation would sustain sufficient management and technical personnel to continue inspections, technical assessments, and event response, and would facilitate planning of NRC activities involving facilities on the West Coast.
We found that none of the three options would have a significant-negative impact on the reactor inspection program.
However, option 1 appears to have the most positive impact.
For example, the pooling of inspectors from both Regions would result in such benefits as better support to major team inspections, increased flexibility and efficiency in the safeguards program, and increased availability of BWR inspectors to support WNP-2.
Consolidation in Arlington would also increase administrative efficiency.
The consolidation would reduce the time zone offset from three hours to one hour, allowing more overlap of core work hours.
Consolidation would also ease the travel burden on Headquarters staff by reducing the travel time to and from Region IV. Headquarters staff members typically require two travel days for a one day meeting in Walnut Creek.
Consolidation saves at least one day per trip. Options 2 and 3 will not reduce this burden.
In addition, options 2 and 3 would complicate scheduling of conference calls on inspection findings and on events between headquarters and regional staffs.
In summary, NRR has considered each option and suppor's option 1, the consolidation of Regions IV and V into a single office.
We appreciate the j
opportunity to comment on the realignment study options. If you have any i
questions, the NRR point of contact for realignment activities is Anthony T.
Gody, Acting Director, Pregram Management, Policy Development, and Analysis Staff. He can be reached oa (301) 504-1275.
s kh2k1 h4 Frank J.
.ag ia, puty Director g
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation s
O
, 7, Y ;
n 2