ML20148C090
| ML20148C090 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/08/1979 |
| From: | Ryan R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Haller N NRC OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS (MPA) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148C069 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8001250072 | |
| Download: ML20148C090 (2) | |
Text
- - _ _ _ - _ __
~-.
. _ ~
=
I.
- l. -
. [,
'k UNill f) r.1 ATFs I
d.l..l.c '/f 'c 14UCL5AR REGUL AIORY COMMISSION Il i
t 1
w e utan uira.o.c.innns i i t !a : y :J _l
,~
U. n. v o.
< -' f 9 is i
.u.;
"EMO:AFOU'i FOR:
llerman li. Hailer, Director, MPA FR0":
R0bert G. Ryan, Director Office of State Programs
~ :
SUEJECT:
ORAFT PAPER ON llRC ORGANIZATIONAL OPTIONS FOR R:
..q
- m. 4-Thank you for the c;cortunity to review your memorandum of Oc cber 31, 1979.
YOU requested review and conrnents on the draf t osper by November 6.
I regret missing that deadline because I was out of town.
s have the following comments:
1.
The ' Options identified on page 2 of the :Eper are in cur view i n:o a;i et e.
There is a 5th option which has been reco= tended in the Neneny Coninission Report, i.e., assign the emergency planning and preparedness functions as it relates to State and local governments to the new Federal Emergency lianagement Agency (FEMA).
This option sh0uld be inciuced.
There are at least two other options which might be considered:
the first would be to designate a lead office from those presently hm ng responsibilities to lead the agency ef fort.
Logical cancidates cul d be NRR, IE and SP.
Another alternative that should be discussed
's e exoanded reie for SP within a statut: y framework such as : hat suggested ir the Senate passed version of the FY'50 HRC 'uthori:a.icn Eiii 1.e., tying the issuan:s cf OL's to ccncurred in Sta:e plans; scactions for :iants in States which do n0: have a concurred in
- '. a : icy a. da:s certain and reducing the current voluntary guidelines
- tate an,e tecal governments to. regulaticn wi hin a prescribec t ime f rame.
2.
Tbc second complete paragraph on page 4 refers to "a possible compiication" l
uith expandin; the role of SP to fill option 2 in that the SP mav have a
":cr.fiict c f ' nterest. "
Throughout the paper (specifically in t'ne las ars;rarn c~~enting on page 5 and the last paragraph or, page 6), n 2hti:n is r.a:s
- a pescibie "confli:t cf interest" in having any of tne
~:
e ner NF.'. cffi:es predominantiy asseciate: with the licensing process
. wi t.
r ; ir.veive:
. n. tate an:..io:al mvernment emer:ency plannin; su:::-tive c
j
- ~ 'i ensed nuclear fa:ilities. <!: seems. vs if the :a:er dis:usse:
- '"'
- 1 Cf ir ti#es ts, i t sh0ul d do so acr0ss the boa rd, *. hat is wi n 800125nO l
4s
l
_ 2 respect to all offices.
For the record, we do not view the program or role of this office in any promotional sense, but rather as a orogram of ccoperation ano liaison with States, local governments, interstate organi:ations and Federal agencies.
3.
The paragraph that starts at the bottom of page 4 and continues at the top of page 5 is confusing.
This caragraph seems te be trying to tie the review of emergency clans together with some perceived notion of weakenan: :GC's resocnse to an accident We do not really understand tne connec 1on.
4.
A new option 5, assigning the entire State / local program to the new FEMA, is in our view the correct approach in keeping with the recornendations of the Kemeny Commission.
If this approach is rejected, we would probaciy recommend the adcotion of 0: tion 1.
d' *%
./ s Rober: G. Ryan, virector Office of 5:ste Programs W
i 4
4