ML20132D964
| ML20132D964 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/24/1985 |
| From: | Asselstine J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Speck S Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132D939 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-49FR49640, RULE-PR-50 NUDOCS 8509300344 | |
| Download: ML20132D964 (1) | |
Text
,
neog UNITED STATES g
y t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
I CASHINITON, D.C. 20666
%*****/
September 24, 1985 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER Samuel W. Speck Associate Director State and Local Programs and Support Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C.
20472
Dear Mr. Speck:
I read with interest your letter received by the Commission on September 20, 1985.
In that letter you expressed your support for the Comission's " initial position" on earthquakes and emergency planning. You argued that the rule proposed by the staff in SECY 85-283 which sets cut procedures for the consideration of the complicating effects of severe, low frequency natural phenomena on emergency planning is unnecessary.
However, the only reason you gave in support of your position was the following general statenent:
"The probability of severe, low frequency natural phenomena in the vicinity of a corrnercial nuclear power plant is very low. The probability of a concurrent radiological incident at the nuclear powe'r plant is lower yet."
Unfortunately, the NRC staff and the ACRS were unable to reach the same conclusion you reached. The staff identified several very difficult issues associated with relying merely on a statement that the probability is too low to be considered.
- See, SECY 85-283 and various staff memeranda on this subject.
I would appreciate it greatly if you would provide me with any relevant information you might have to support your conclusion.
I am specifically interested in information which would bear on the issues raised by the staff in SECY 85-283. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
- I A
James K. Asselstine
/
l 4
e509300344 e50925 hR49h49640 PDR