ML20056G764
| ML20056G764 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/20/1993 |
| From: | Milhoan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Faulkenberry B, Jonathan Montgomery NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056G560 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9309070136 | |
| Download: ML20056G764 (1) | |
Text
-
' p %* '
o ans userso siArms
,8 g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
,j necrow ev
~*
sit avAu PLAzabnivt.su Te soo o(
- [
Anuwarow, texas noisms4 MAY 201993 MEMORANDUM FOR: Bobby Faulkenberry, Deputy Regional Administrator, RV John M. Montgomery, Deputy Regional Administrator, RIV FROM:
James L. Milhoan, Regional Administrator, RIV
SUBJECT:
REGION V REALIGNMENT STUDY This provides my views on the options considered by the Study Group regarding Region V realignment.
I have restricted my comments to the implementation consequences of the options if any were to be adopted by the Commission.
j Option 1 - This option would provide economies of scale and a more _
conservative emergency response capability.
Trom a purely administrative viewpoint, it appears to be the most advantageous and 3
would be my preference. However, it represents the most radical change, J
particularly in removing a major NRC presence from the west.
t' Option 2 - Tr.is option would place the greatest communication and coordination burden on both regions and would clearly result in i
responsibility and accountability difficulties.
It would also present i
the most confusion to those outside the agency. Of the four options, I would be most concerned about having to implement Option 2.
1 Option 3 - This option would include many of the pros and cons associated with Option 1.
It might present some additional coordination challenges, but is, in my view, manageable and can be effectively implemented.
If West Coast presence were to become a significant consideration, it would offer a major advantage over Option 1.
Option 4 - This option would present an improvement over Option 2 as most of my concerns regarding responsibility and accountability in the r
reactor program area would be eliminated. However, there would still be j
a confusion issue over responsibility to those outside the agency since Region IV would be responsible for the materials and agreement state programs.
I have less concern about implementing this option than Option 2, but I believe our mission would be better served by not having j
two regions regulate in the same geographical area.
l
(
(
\\
Milhoan I!egional Administrator
)
l cC:
J. M. Taylor, EDO J
J. H. Sniezek, DEDR W
<s 4./
, r3 e 9309070136 930812 PDR COMMS NRCC 138 CORRESPONDENCE PDR J
-