Images de page
PDF
ePub

QUESTIONS FOR GOVERNOR SUNUNU

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

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? For 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 FEMA 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?

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?

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?

[merged small][graphic][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

As you are

I received your letter and questions of November 19, 1986. aware, I have already on two separate occasions granted you the courtesy of complete responses to your inquiries relative to the licensing procedures of the Seabrook Power Station. My last submission was transmitted to you for presentation at the November 18, 1986 hearing. In fact, at that time Bruce Mohl, Deputy Attorney General for the State of New Hampshire, was prepared to address all the issues raised in your inquiries to me made prior to the hearing. Yet, you chose to severely limit Attorney General Mohl's testimony and disregard my written submission.

Nevertheless, in reference to your new set of questions, your charge that I requested involvement of the White House to expedite the scheduled February 26, 1986 exercise of the Emergency Response Plan is ridiculous and unfounded. As I noted in my previous submission, the State of New Hampshire did contact representatives of the respective federal agencies to expedite the review process and the exercise, which under the law is their obligation. In light of your baseless charges that you possess information from FEMA indicating pressure from me through the White House, please submit to me all information that you claim to have to substantiate these irresponsible allegations. In fact, it is quite clear from the statements made to you and your staff by the Region I Director and the Chief of the Natural and Technological Hazardous Division that no such pressure took place.

It

I do, however, wish to emphasize two important points relative to this issue. The first is that it is absolutely appropriate, in fact an obligation, that the State of New Hampshire make sure that the best Emergency Response Plans are developed, reviewed, evaluated and approved by the appropriate authorities in the most expeditious and timely manner. is inappropriate that any Federal agency fail to provide timely evaluations or responses especially if that failure is because of difficulties in allocating internal resources. And, it would be perfectly appropriate for me as Chief Executive of the State of New Hampshire to encourage responsible, timely and effective participation by all State and Federal agencies involved.

The Honorable Edward J. Markey
December 2, 1986
Page Two.

Secondly, consistent with the perspective noted, it appears that some very constructive support was provided to make sure that the interest of the New England ratepayers was protected. This apparent involvement is described in the enclosed article from the "Energy Daily" dated April 11, 1986. Described therein is the apparent, very valid concern by House Speaker Tip O'Neill. That concern and any action that followed from his concern that delays would produce significant escalation of costs to New England ratepayers was certainly proper for the Speaker. In that spirit, I find the implications contained in your third question clearly inappropriate.

In reference to your question on the ten-mile zone, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, the State of New Hampshire continues to support the Ten-Mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and in fact, recognizes that it is both the responsibility and the authority of the NRC to determine the specific nature of response and levels of response within the ten-mile EPZ.

Finally, relative to your last question, I do not believe that it is constructive for me to answer a question which asks me to assume that I were Governor Dukakis.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to comment on the issues.

Sincerely,

JHS/smk

Enclosure

John H. Sununu

GOVERNOR

« PrécédentContinuer »