ML20057C436
| ML20057C436 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/20/1993 |
| From: | Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9309280369 | |
| Download: ML20057C436 (2) | |
Text
c.
...,m,,-..e.,
NOTATION V0TES'~'
~
~
^
C
~ ~l " 3 959d [~
~
-@[/
RESPONSE SHEET
~
T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMISSION FROM:
THE CHAIRMAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-93-171 - REGION V REALIGNMENT STUDY AND SECY-93-252 per comment.
APPROVED DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN
^
NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION C0!41ENTS:
i See attached comments.
i i
i M
A SIGNATURE i
RELEASE VOTE
/x
/
September 20, 1993 DATE WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
i ENTERED ON "AS" YES' NO l
x i
gcp 9309280369 930920 PDR COMMS NRCC s
CORRESPONDENCE PDR d
se l
Chairman Selin's vote on SECY 93-171 and SECY-93-252 i
After careful consideration of all the options outlined in SECY-93-171 and 93-252, the September 10, 1993 briefing and supplemental information on this subject, and my July 1993 visit to Region V, I vote to approve Option 3 as modified with additional savings from Option 0 efficiencies.
I believe that the establishment of a Region IV field office in Walnut Creek with limited responsibility for day-to-day activities of the power reactor program plus a public affairs officer will enable the NRC to maintain a West Coast presence while achieving important cost efficiencies by consolidating the remaining Region V functions in Arlington, Texas.
In supporting Option 3, I recognize that I am selecting an approach that threatens to disrupt the personal lives of Region V employees to a greater extent than any other option except Option 1.
I would have preferred to minimize that impact if possible and because of it, I visited the Region V office, listened to the comments of Region V employees on the realignment issue, and asked for their views on how to implement the realignment efficiently.
I thought the staff did an outstanding job in responding to our directive, and I commend them for the plans they developed.
In fact one of the reasons why Option o is attractive and appealing is because it originated with the initiative of the very employees who are affected.
My view, however, is that option 0 does not achieve sufficient cost savings.
Furthermore, it leaves in place a Region V office that is'not functionally viable, and in the long term, offers little room for growth and advancement of the non-reactor employees in the organization.
It is my hope that the unusual step of offering relocation benefits to every Region V employee, regardless of seniority or other factors, will compensate in some ways for the personal disruption entailed by this plan.
I believe that Option 3 offers the best solution given the number of reactors left in Region V; of course, if the number changes in the future the Commission may have to revisit the issue of maintaining such a field-type office.
While the Commission recognizes it has a strong obligation to its employees, in the final analysis, we need to be mindful that our primary obligation is to administer a public health and safety program that is both effective and efficient.
i 1
-I '