Images de page
PDF
ePub

QUESTIONS FOR GOVERNOR SUNUNU

What is and should be the responsibility of State government, if any, in offsite emergency planning and preparedness activities for nuclear power plants?

What is and should be the responsibility of local
governments, if any, in offsite emergency planning and
preparedness activities for nuclear power plants?

What is and should be the role of State government, if any, in the implementation of radiological emergency response plans for nuclear power plants?

What is and should be the role of local governments, if any, in the implementation of radiological emergency response plans for nuclear power plants?

What is and should be the role of State government in the development and establishment of safety standards for nuclear power plants?

Should State governments be allowed to enact more stringent safety standards or requirements than those imposed by the Federal government ?

What role, if any, should states have in monitoring utility compliance with Federal safety standards and regulations?

Should the size of the emergency planning zone for the
Seabrook nuclear power plant be reduced? Why or why not?

What discussions have you had with Public Service of New Hampshire regarding the development of a utility emergency response plan?

10)

In its Final Exercise Assessment for the February 26, 1986 emergency response exercise, FEMA indicated numerous deficiencies in the New Hampshire State compensatory plans for the seven nonparticipating communities. What steps has the State taken to correct these deficiencies?

11)

Are you confident that the State of New Hampshire can reasonably guarantee that proper evacuation and/or other safety precautions can and will be taken to protect the summer beach population and other tourists in the event of an emergency?

[blocks in formation]

On November 6, 1986, you wrote to New Hampshire Governor John H. Sununu, inviting the Governor to testify at hearings presently scheduled for November 18, 1986, in Amesbury, Massachusetts. We understand that the focus of the hearings you have scheduled concerns the State of New Hampshire's role in the preparation of emergency response plans related to the licensing by the federal regulatory agencies of the Seabrook nuclear power plant.

Governor Sununu has advised me that he is unable to personally attend the hearing, but instead, he is submitting written testimony along the lines suggested in your letter of November 6, 1986. As you may 'know, my office has been involved in the on-going licensing hearings before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission concerning, among other things, the off-site emergency response plans for Seabrook. Although I long-standing commitment out-of-state and will be unable to attend the hearing, Deputy Attorney General Bruce E. Mohl is available to attend the hearing to answer any questions you may have concerning the State of New Hampshire's participation in the emergency planning process, particularly as it relates to the on-going licensing proceedings before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

I was disappointed that you were unable to participate in the November 18 Subcommittee hearing on emergency planning and NRC licensing issues related to the Seabrook nuclear power plant.

Since your Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Bruce Mohl, was not in a position to provide answers to five specific questions I intended to ask you at the hearing, I read the questions into the hearing record, and will leave the record open for two weeks in order to include your responses.

Please provide to the Subcommittee an individual written response to each of the attached questions by December 3, 1986.

[blocks in formation]

QUESTIONS FOR GOVERNOR SUNUNU

The Subcommittee has developed information from FEMA that
you, Governor Sununu, called the White House at least once to
complain about FEMA's conduct with regard to the February 26,
1986 exercise of New Hampshire's emergency preparedness plan
for Seabrook. Since January 1, 1985, how many
Communications, written or verbal, have you or your staff had
with any White House employee concerning FEMA's conduct
related to emergency planning at Seabrook? Por each such
communication, please identify the date, the participants,
the specific subject and the purpose of your communication.

Do you believe that attempts to involve the White House or otherwise bring political pressure on PEMA in an attempt to influence their decisions regarding emergency planning for Seabrook is appropriate or serves the public interest in any fashion? If so, please explain precisely why.

Will you pledge to the Subcommittee that you will not seek
White House intervention in the future regarding the conduct
of either FEMA or the NRC regarding emergency planning for
Seabrook?

4)

In your prepared testimony, you noted that you support a
10-mile emergency planning zone. Does that also mean that
you oppose any effort by the utility to seek an exemption
from NRC regulations reducing the emergency planning zone to
2 miles? If the utility, in fact, makes a formal request for
an exemption from the 10-mile emergency planning zone, will
you formally oppose that request? If not, what will you do?

5)

If you were Governor Dukakis and you had refused to submit emergency plans and all of the Massachusetts Communities within the 10-mile emergency planning zone also had refused to submit such plans, how would you respond to any effort by the utility to shrink the emergency planning zone so as to exclude Massachusetts?

[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« PrécédentContinuer »