ML20151B128

Comments Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where State &/Or Local Govts Decline to Cooperate in Offsite Emergency Planning

ML20151B128
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	02/19/1987
From:	Smirlock M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
FRN-52FR6980, RULE-PR-50 52FR6980-00085, 52FR6980-85, OL, NUDOCS 8807200253
Download: ML20151B128 (20)

Text

, JeCIET NUMBER gg M.pg, 00CKU MUMBER ()

PROD. & UTil. FAC% _ g ggtjy i* -

(tEB 2 3193N#,,{h)

(JjL FIL 61.Vo)

Martin Sm ock 108 Hill Street Conenrd, MA 01742 i

February 19,1987 Mr. Lando W. Zech, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Michael Dukakis Testimony 2/23/87 '

Dear Mr. Chairman:

As a citizen of the United States of America first, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts second, I feel it my duty to provide you with Information that may aid you in dealing with Michael Dukakis. If, he appears before you, he will lecture you on how your proposed evacuation zone radius reduction rule will usurp or otherwise strip from him "his constitutional right and authority to provide for4he public safety" of his citizens.

I am not involved in the Seabrook controversy and am not grinding a "Seabrook" axe. I am, however, deeply involved in a different energy facility siting decision. In all honesty, therefore, I am grinding a different axe. What troubles me so deeply is the absolute hyprocracy and purely political motivation behind the obstructionist position of Messrs. Dukakis Hubbard, and Levy and the fact that, in their over zealous effort to wage war on the eastern Massachusetts electric utilities, there are innocent civilians being injured.

My dispute with the local administration involves their decision to override local zoning for the purpose of allowing the siting of a high pressure,40 million cubic foot per day, natural gas processing facility in a dense residential zone. The Massachusetts OPU hearing record in this case, prior to alteration, demonstrates that there are three

' alternate non-residential sites that could have been utilized, where both construction and operating costs would be less than the proposed residential site. Messrs. Dukakis, H% bard, and Levy, howcVer, have decided that their strategy of total war on local elec'rics has, as a necessary supporting tactic, facilitating local competing gas industry requests without regard to the impact or consequences: unless of course the impact relates to a large number of votes. .

The specific case I am referring to is known in bureaucratic circles here as Massachusetts OPU Docket No.85-207. It is presehtly before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) on a three-count (soon to be ammended to four) abuse of discretion complaint which in summary, alleges that Mr. Dukakis' appointed OPU l Chairman: 1) btsed his order on what is now admittedly f alse sworn testimony: 2)

Interfered with the proper operation of the Massachusetts General Laws concerning the prosecution of perjury and: 3) acted improperly to alter the record established during hearings coMucted as an administrative law proceeding. Rather than go into detail here regarding these charges in this letter, I have appended the SJC complaint against the Commonwealth. You will have to "trust me" that the charges are well supported although I would be happy to provide your staff with additional i documentation as appropriate.

88072002D3 070219 PDR Q

5 52 6980

Mr. Lando W. Zech, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission February 19,1997 Page 2 .

t I would be pleased to appear before the commission and testify as to the facts of this case, but I feel that it is not relevant to the purpose of your hearing. However, exposing the hypocracy and pure political motivation behind testimony given by a grandstanding presidential hopeful is, I would think, quite relevant.

I do not know the (orum of your probable public meeting with Mr. Dukakis nor do I know, if he is testifying formally before your commission, whether you will have the opportunity to cross examine him publicly. If you do get this opportunity, you are in a position to deny him the "moral high ground" as well as a platform to further his political ambitions.

Although I would be happy to talk with you or your staff and provide supporting data as necessary, I can (at this point and in this time frame) only suggest some lines of inquiry. These include:

• "Mr. Dukakis, if I understand your testimony here today, you believe it is both your obilgation and your constitutional right to prevent the operation of an energy facility which you feel poses some potential risk to your citizens. Is this correct?"

- He will say yes and you can further commit him to this position with more "protect the citizens questioning."

- At an appropriate point you can corner him as follows:

• "Are you familiar with Massachusetts Docket 85-207?"

- He will say no, most likely.

• "Are you familiar with the proposed Acton/ Concord Natural Gas Meter Station?"

- He may say yes/he may say no, if he says no, he is lying.

- Should he lie, the following would be effective:

• "Do you not recall your conversation with Mrs. Ann Haver shortly before November 4,1986?"

- He will say no - but he will be thinking fast about how to slide out of this unpleasant situatien.

• "Do you remember assigning your aide, Mr. John Austin to help Mrs. Haver?"

• "Do you not remember Mr. Austin assigning Mr. Hubbard to do a "fact finding" on this case?"

___. L ., __

].

Mr. Lando W. Zech, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

February 19,1967 Page 3 At this point you can refresh his memory and ask him how his administration can possibly ignore a hearing record for the purpose of approving a hazardous natural gas processing facility located 17 feet from private back yards at:d some 50 feet distant from homes given that there are clear and cost effective alternatives, while at the same time, obstruct the legal operation of Seabrook without offering any practical or cost effective alternatives?

- He will try to tell you they are "different animals" entirely. At this point, you can ask him whether he is aware that the same gas transmission company involved in his

- Docket No.85-207 blew up a similar meter station, IN HIS own jurisdiction just last week (see enclosed Worcester Telegram article) and that these problems are not uncommon.

At this point he can be disoatched back to Boston by saying, "Mr. Dukakis, isn't it true that you are waging a politically motivated campaign against the electric utility indust.y and that you are concerned with votes and you are not concerned with public safety in your state?" Should you need further evidence of Mr. Dukakis' hypocracy in this area, please refer to the recent interview with Mr. Levy; in particular the last page which is also enclosed.

That sir, is all I can m'uster and still make the Federal Express deadline. I do not knnw whether this information is relevant or useful to you. If you feel it will be useful and want more background, you or your staff can reach me at (617) 890-3200 during business hours and/or at home (617) 369-1413 this weekend. If it is not useful, I'm sure your trash can is nearby, feel free to use it.

Sincerely, ecs Martin E. Smirlock 1

k

_ _ . .-- . ~ m . . _ . _ . . _

'e -.

l COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSTTTS MIDDLESEX, SS: Supreme Judicial Court

- f.

j t

)

. Michael Martorano, Ann Martorano, )

i Martin Smirlock, Robin Smirlock, )

William O'Flynn, Barbara O'Flynn, )

Martha J. Smith, Donald Moulden, )

Silvia Moulden, Douglas Stell, )

Celia Stell, Lee Nadeau, Jean Nadeau, )

Salvatore DiSchino, and Frances DiSchino. )

Plaintiffs )

)

v. )

Massachusetts Department of )

Public Utilities, )

Defendants )

)

o PETITION TO SET ASIDE AND/OR MODIFY A FINAL DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES The above-named Petitioners, on behalf of a group of approximately 100 citizens collectively known as the Acton-Concord Citizen Coalition (the "Coalition"), respectively petition, pursuant to M.G.L. c.25, 55, that the single Justice of this Court modify or set-aside the final decisions of the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities ("DPU")

issued December 19, 1986 and September 24, 1986 in l

this matter. As grounds for this petition, Petitioners state as follows:

F f

i

>~-- -s,- . - - + ~ . - n.. , ,n . -

D

_.7._..

1 FIRST COUNT l

1. In 1985, the Coalition collectively sought j to intervene in DPU Docket No.85-207, a petition by .

l the Tennessee Natural Gas pipeline Company

("Tennessee") for a zoning exemp' tion to allow it to site a natural gas meter station and heater facility to transfer 12.7 million cubic feet per day of nat-ural gas to the Boston Gas Company, on a small parcel of residentially-zoned land on Lawsbrook Road i on the Acton-Concord town border (the "Lawsbrook Road Site"). Both Tennessee and Bo-ton Gas Company opposed the Coalition's requested intervention. The DPU granted the Coalition leave to intervene with full party status.

2. The DPU conducted adjudicatory hearings in ,

1 January and February 1986 on the propriety of such zoning exemption, in which the Coalition partici-pated by sponsoring expert witnesses and through cross-examination of Company witnesses by counsel.

3. At issue in the hearings was the suitabili-ty of the residentially-zoned Lawsbrook Road site for a meter station which would be sited normally in an industrial / utility zoned parcel. At hearing, the petitioners identified 4 alternative locations with-in a four-mile radius of the Lawsbrook Road site, three of which would involve lesser costs for con- .

struction than the Lawsbrook road site.

--~ .--. __..' . - . . . , . . . -

r .

\ ,l

4. The DPU s issued a decision in this docket on f September 24, 1986. It listed the following factors

-l 4 H in deciding whether alternative sites were appropri-

ate in lieu of what it conceded was a less than j ideal site at Lawsbrook Road:

~j 1. Site availability -- of which si.te ownership by Tennessee was a factor.

2. Site suitability -- of which the abil-i ity to construct a meter station at a I

site, compression on the Tennessee pipeline serving the site, and avail-l able additional pipeline capacity were factors.

I

, 3. Cost-benefit of construction at vari-ous sites.

The DPU relying on Tennessee's sworn testimony I

rejected two of these alternative sites based on lack of pipeline compression and lack of pipeline capacity: it rejected the Acton Water District site immediately across Lawsbrook Road from the proposed site based on cost-benefit criteria. The DPU, relying on Tennessee's sworn testimony, found that only the Lawsbrook Road site satisfied all of its

. criteria.

i

5. Immediately after the September 24, 1986 decision, officials at the Federal Energy Regulatory 3[

ti Commission ("FERC") in Washington, D.C., the Federal agency which oversees Tennessee's interstate natural gas activities, alerted Mr. Martin Smirlock, the Coalition's technical expert, of what they believed .

--. . . L'" - - . - . .

k 4 Sb *

~ . . . . - . -

25

~

were materially false stat'ements by Tennessee in its DPU testimony, as compared.with public documents

! filed by Tennessee with FERC within three days of Tennessee. testimony in'DPU'.No.85-207. Statements

{ inthesepublicdocumentsjdirectlycontradicted i Tennessee's sween testimony on critical points regarding compression and capacity serving alterna- ,

tive sites. ,,

6. Based on this information, on October 8, 1986 the Coalition timely moved the DPU to reopen the proceeding based on these alleged misstatements

, of material fact on the hearing record (Appendix C).

7. In response, Tennessee witnesses Hollowell and Goodenough, who the Coalition asserted made false statements in sworn testimony to the DPU, on October 20, 1986, submitted sworn affidavits to the DPU, stating that they had reread their testimonies and reaffirmed them in the entireties as true and i correct in every regard, notwithstanding specific references by the Coalition to their allegedly false statements (Attachment D). Tennessee counsel Thomas Swaim, who the Coalition also asserted had made a materially false statement on which the DPU decisic'n relied, denied any such falsehood in a responsive pleading filed October 20, 1986. (Attachment D).

O

_4

.,_._,...-mw . , + - - r- - ~ - - * - - - -~- " ~ ~ * * ~ * " " ' '

== *

-i - - - y. .,, ,

--g -n -- -

- m

m -

e f

8. In response, on November 3, 1986, the Coalition replied with photographic and affidavit evidence that substantiated five material misstatements by Tennessee witnesses Goodenough, Arcese and Hollowell, and by counsel Swaim.

(Attachment B).

9. On November 12, 1986, Tennesses filed a response with the DPU (Attachment E) which essen-tially admitted four of the five material' misstatements alleged by the Coalition, which only 23 days before were categorically denied by witness-es Goodenough and Hollowell in their affidavits (Attachment D).

10. On November 18, 1986, the Coalition filed with the DPU its Statement of the Case, which with specific citation to the hearing transcript, the Tennessee affidavits, Tennesee's interrogatory re-sponses of record, and the DPU order, illustrated that Tennessee witnesses had denied any misstatement by sworn affidavit when first aci:us ed , and subsequently admitted four misstatements under pres-sure of the Coalition's evidence.

4

11. On December 19, 1986, the DPU issued an Order in which it refused to reopen or otherwise set aside its September 24, 1986 decision. (Attachments F & G).

_ _ , - e.. ....w. . . - - - - * = ""~*'** " ~ ' *~

w t

., ,_  % ,- r w-- - -. - " u-w *' - - ~ " - ' ' ^~

-_ .m.___... _ _. __

l 12. Wherefore, petitionses allege that this e

. refusal is arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of I

. discretion, is not supported by substantial evidence

. I and is contrary to the statutory responsibilities imposed on the DPU by M.G.L. c. 25 and other -

statutes, as interpreted by thic Court.

^

SECOND COUNT

13. Patitioners incorporate by enference the al:sgations of paragraphs 1-12, as if restated here-in.

, 14. In its Motion to Reopen da'ced October 8, 1986 (Attachment C), in i*.s Reply dated November 3, 1986 (Attachment B), and in its Stac'emette of the Case dated NoveT.ber 18, 1986 (Attachment A),

Petitioners cited the requirements of M.G.L. c. 266, 56, which defines any knowingly false scatement which a witness makes as perjury and specifies crim-inal penalties, and requested tha'. the 3PU refee ene matter to the Attorney General for investigation and action as appropriate.

15. On information and belief, as a matter of )

practice the Attorney General's office will not investigate alleged psejury unless so requested by the DPU.

16. The Boston Globe, in a 4tcry on this case on December 31, 1986, repcrted that Scott

.q.

1

. l

\

. _ . . _ . . _ . ,. . r - - --

. i.

i Harshbarger, Middlesex-County District Attorney, after investigation of the alleged false statements, l

l recommended to the Office of the Attorney General i

,t that there were grounds to proceed with an investi-gation of possible parjury.

17. In its December 19, 1986 Order, the DPU  !

_ refused to undertake any investigation itself or to i

ask the Attorney General to investigate the circum-stances surrounding even the admitted false state-ments of Tennessee witnesses or counsel.

18.

Wherefore, Petitioners pray that this Court set-aside or modify this refusal to act or investi-gate by the DPU as arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion, and as not supported by sub-stantial evidence under relevant law, including M.G.L. c.268.

THIRD COUNT

19. Petitioners incorporate by reference the

( allegations of paragraphs 1-18 as if restated here-in.

20. At the conclusion of the hearing in February 1986, Tennessee and Boston Gas Company were o

unable to address the Hearing Officer's questions regarding the cost to construct the meter station at an available alternative site directly across the

_.-.__...._.._._.._..T ..___ _ -.. . -. .- --- - - - -

. 3. -

e street from that proposed (the Acton Water District j - site). Boston Gas agreed to supply a response in writing to the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer ll

}

agreed in an off the record conference that the coalition's full due process rights on the cost

issue would be preserved.

21. Boston Gas delayed the subm'ission of cost information until April 10, 1546, six weeks after the information was requested. No additional hearings were convened by the DPU.

, 22. The Cealition was forced to reply by letter cf counsel, rather than by cross-examination or pre-sentation of its own expert testimony on costs.

This violated the Coalition's fttil due process rights. This letter in elaborate detail pointed out with extensive references that the Boston Gas submission of data on costs associated with the alternative Acton Water District site grossly and

! directly contradicted prior information supplied by Tennessee in response to coalition discovery requests.

23. The DPU refusod co convene a hearing to consider expert ev5.dence on this point, refused any cross-examination, and provided no means for the Coalit.... to place on the record the contradictory discovery responses of the Companies. In its

-.._ _ ..__ .. _ _ __. n .

a _. :. . . - . - - _ _ _ _ _ -.

~~

a ,

i; 'I

] September 24, 1986 Order approving the zoning exemption and thus allowing the meter station to

]

proceed, the DPU specifically relied on the Boston j j Gas numbers, ignoring the inconsistencies of this

, submi'ssion*with other prior Company responses, i , 24. In its October 8, 1986 Motion'to Reopen the Proceeding (Attachment C), the Coalition specifi-

, cally asked that it be provided its basic due pro-

. cess rights to present evidence and to cross-examine the Company evidence.

25. The December 19, 1986 decision of the DPU denied this Motion.

. 26. Wherefore, the Coalition asserts that its fundamental due process rights were violated as to this material issue before the DPU, and the DPU's decision was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion and violative of the Coalition's basic due process rights, i- ! CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, and on the basis of the record before this Court, 2etitioners respectfully request that the December 19, 1986 and September 24, 1986 decisions of the DPU be set-aside i

and/or modified to reopen the hearings, request appropriate investigaticn of the Attorney General, provide the Coalition its due process rights, and i .

s e s..-p- -==--=a*=+*www ^ * -' '~*

em =,,e. . . e-. ,e

.. .l _ . - . . , . .-.

i

~~

i .

j grant such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.

j a

Respectfully submitted,

By the Coalition's attorneys,

$4/} b -

i Steven E. Ferrey i Thomas Kanwit I Gaston Snow & Ely Bartlett One Federal Street Boston, MA 02110 l (617)426-4600 I

i January'7, 1987 l

I I

, 1 i

.. .-.,%_. -% = m es we, =, -e~= -6 -----

, _ . _ - - , , . , - _ - .nr. n,

+

e T,

. . . , - - - - -- - ,-~

GASTON S NOW &.ELY B ARTLETT . g" {', , .{'. .,..'. ; . .

eov~ s cu.o as at uw = ~ ' ' " -

ONE FEDERAL STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02Llo .......c..c.c..........~

GIF/426 4600 ,,,,,,,,,,,,

.......c....e........

, ac s.e . .. ... ...re. ...

c,c6sco 6t o .

o.

. ., er ,r . sa.. .. . . s

• =..........

a . ' .

• a 8 2. ... ....

o ....

.. ......o..e January 7, 1987 Hand Deliver M4. Mary Cottrell Secretary Department of Public Utilities 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202 ,

Dear Ms. Cottrell Pursuant to the requirements of M.G.L. c. 25, SS, please find enclosed for filing copies of Petitioner's Petition to Set Aside and/or Modify a Decision of the DPU. We plan to file this Petition with the Supreme Judicial Court within 10 days, as allowed by statute.

Sincerely,

[. r w/ la) l Steven E. Ferrey/

of Counsel 1

SF/tg Enclosure ,

es mw usemeo owe momee *e--

, ,-- . - , -

• _ . ~ _ _ _ ~ . . _ . - ,_, _. . - - . , . . - _ . - - - . --

.= ,

-f t

4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ,

I certify that copies of Petitioners' Petition to Set Aside and/or Modify a Final Decision of the Defendant of the Department t of Public Utilities, along with Petitioners' supporting memo-

, j randem and a cover letter stating that Petitioners are represented 4 by counsel and directing service to be made on counsel, was mailed first class, postage prepaid this 7th day of January,1987 to:

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.,

A Division of Tenneco, Inc.

C. Thomas Swaim, Esquire Sherburne, Power & Needham One Beacon Street Boston, MA 02108 Boston Gas Co.

, Virginia A. McCarthy, Esquire One Beacon Street

. Boston, MA 02108

, CERTIFICATE OF OPINION OF COUNSEL 7

It is my opinion that there are such probable grounds for this appeal as to make it a fit subject for judicial inquiry, and it is not intended for delay.

M WLh' Steven E. Ferrey, Eq%uire' Of Counsel l Gaston Snow & Ely Bartlett One Federal Street Boston, MA 02110 (617)426-4600 i

l I

(

t l  !

1 I  !

l -

+ , ,- _'- . - - , _ _ . _ .

t.

..___ . _ . _ . _ _ - . ~ _ _ . . , . . _

~

Markets k ,.

J Mhto Sionne =

Tourney -[ '

Soaring Lescester Narragansett '

Looks to the Future d' , , $414 Dow Leap in Smal Schools Foal i

' Qee New Aecord

, 12A g j 198

N.3 2se

WORCESTER TELEGRAM

L8 PAGES A a k

==i. e .a' .

WORCESTER. M55. TT.DNE5 DAY FEBRUARY 18.1987 ===========

30 CENT'  !

l Fire Rips ese Fire at Gas Metering Station  ;

FG&El g Continued From Page One du tmet in mtual aid bullborns and knockhg on doors to ask people to leave the area. Traffic ajoeg

• N saw coetams natural gas Route 2A was halted at the John Fitch Facl}l pipes and metering eqwpmot, M Righway by pouce, who desenbed the mg u FG&E h Pret mm" aitnauce as a 'hssne traffic prob.

Conry, and is the potat at which FG&E lem."

recesves its gas from Tenneco. He sam By 3.30 pm trMtic was aDowd to Metering Station resume, and rudeau were aDowed 1*,*" "*" ** * '*"** **"" ba c= t== = ==8hw$=(

"We had a uttle problem working oe Coor Damage: $500,000 it, Carn, smebeca- wu a g. be- y saW that gas pressart had uma amoat = m.

fed Dre and because the e'setne less tem and that no sernce had been da.

had dropped down on the fecct." rupud He said that an FG&E prepane C[** hemus st aB ADen W. M & The fire had burned off some pipe plant behind the Pleasaat Stnet prop.

LLMURG - nn destroyed a coupungs, he sam, and was being fed erty was too far away to have been in caturs] gas staring statloc ce Pleas- by the escaping natural gas. In such danger, Act Stme yeeterday, forcing the evne. cases, nrefighters must waJt netd the usuco of neighWhood rosadeota atd gas ts abet off, be sam, because the catmng seven traffk ue-ops on Route leallog unbarted gas would creets ad.

2A (Massachusetts Avecuek tuonal hasark De one-story, enetal< lad structan ne fire, he raad, was breeght under is owned by Atchburg Gas and Dee.

control in aboet to minuta Thers tne Ught Co. and coetams equapewat were reports of a minor explomon, be I

owned by the Tennessee Gas Pipeline saw, but it could not be determined tf Co. It was unoccupied at the ume of l such no erplesson had been secoodary the fire. Damage to the structun ami or had caused the fire.

Its equ2pment was estimated at Meanwhile, as a precautlocary toca.

8500.000 by an FTAE offietal. There sure, Lunenbutg pobee evacu ted 40 to were no injunes.

l 50 seighborhood residents, using l

Lunenburg Fire Chief Dennis Car.

ner sud that the department rectand ,

a call at 2 pan. reporting the fire and l'espooded to find the buddag faJ) in

, flames.

Three engines responded froen Lunenburg. and the Atchburg Fire De-partment sent two eegmes and a lad.

Turn to FIRE Page 17A

d, l

, i ACTON, CONCORD l

DPE rejects request . .

l to review gas project 1 Harshbarger seeks probe by attorney general By Peter B. Sierper the perjury allegnuona. Smirlock.

Gtade Stan however, sharply criuctaed Levey The state Departrneert es Pubbe for accepting Tennessee Gas' ex-Utfifues has ruled splast an Ac- planauona for discrepancsee it ac-ton Concord ettlaena' group that knowledged in its tasumony. He slao cnuctand HarthbargWs omoe for 15 months has tried to block construction of a high preneure fw "passing the buck."

natural gas metenng stauon in "How La the A0 grAng to repre-their realdential netghborhood, sent Levey betere tue SJC while But the group's allegnuons of Investigating lies made under pu1ury by ametale of the natural cash to tho DPtfr' he said. '*1 gas ptpenne company that to try- would say the A0 cannot do both.

Ing to build the oletortng stauon This is pretty much par fair the have attracted the attunuon of lo- course. Everybody (ta the netgh-cal prosecutors, borhood}just aneumes the govern-Paul Levey. DPU chairman. ment will cover up the perjury and' earber thte month derued the Ac- march on."

ton / Concord Coelluon's request to At tasue is a housestaed meter-reopen the case. rejecting its ing stauon tid.t 'round transfer cParges that ometais of the gas natural gas from a large interstate ptpenne company had submitted gas main to a smaller pipe, owned per7ured teoumony during DPU by B ston Gas Co.. that would heartngs W wtater.

Marty Satriock d Concord, a supply gas to thousands of retail cusemers.

leader of the 44 household comit.

uon, said yesterday an appeal will Residents say the stauon ts an soon be fued with the Massachu- unsafe induatnal factitt r Insppro-setts Supreme Judicial Court. pnate in a reandenttal neighbor-Out the esse has taken an un- hood. They mobiltzed after learn-expected turn. News stones about Ing that a similar factisty, operat-the remadents' perjury anegations ed by another pipettne company, against the Houston based Ten- exploded two years ago in Penn-neesee Gas Pipeline Co. attracted sylvania. sending flames 200 feet g

f J the attention of Middlesex Distrtet in the air and leaving a 65-Icot.

Attorney Scott Harshbarger. As. wide crater in the ground, sistant Distrtet Attorney Jeffrey Tenneseee Gas Pipeline Co. om-Locke. chief of Harshbarger's pub- ctals say the company safely oper-he promen bau, mwested ates metering statnons in many relevant records frorn the coauuon states and contend that resirtents and, after a review. concluded the are exaggerating the danger, in allegpauct:s have some mertt. January and February, extensive On Dec. R Locae wrote the at- hearings on the factitty were held twney general e omet and ncom- by the DPU. which approved the rnended that the allegauons re- metering station in September.

cetve further consider 1stion. Ac-cording to Smirlocir. Harsh. But in November, the wittlon barger's c#ht decitned to handle asked the DPU to reopen the case, the case because the DPU proceed- alleging the approval was based ings took place in Suffolk County coi perjutta tesumony by the com-and because the attorney gener- pany. Smtriock said Tennessee -

are omce has a "greater farntitar- Gas incorrectly asserted that it Ity and ongoing working relauon- did not own a piece of land in L.tn-ship" with the DPU. coln. proposed by the coalttion as Levey declined to discune his an alternauve for the metering ruling, and Frana Faiacci, spokee- stauon. He ateo said the company man tor Attorney General Francis falacly claimed it lacked the com-X. Betletti, deIcitned to discuse the presanon and connections required po9atbtitty of an investigauon of to butid at alternauve locanons.

t

s

. , _ . - ~ .

Utility chiefnot a man hungry orpowei-

-~ .

-- -- - - - ~ -

Levs. .m '. Mt. 99. . . P .

and .d. see P.'s.gr , , . ;te. J.y ed

- -~ ,mo u o, ps.r .que t."5 m (f4 d.uqt ,P,4T

.o.,.

.. g t.

o, - - - . . .

., ,,,,,,u ., .

o ..

~ ,.

.u, .t.n..~.,.- .-

-o 4. O. 9. m , ,ans. .aceus.A.ta

).r=u.ss.u

. , . - . .f.a..sung aan a.r, .w . .

. ~ - , . n.

.,m .. , .s.

c, ~.

- . -m ,~ _ _. g . 4e ,- .

~ . ~ . . , . . _

, .m.. ~ u. . . ~ . ~ -

- -. ,. ~. .r n. e. . .

Ja .N.ts ass, hart,.,e f. gaang.,

. 4 d,P4ta,**se

,,,,,- te et,et'e

.. m.,~ s'%

g

.n....._, -

se

.ssam oin.vg f.gJggy et ar.ecusTD .4 P

...m...

F t 4 3r 4 set, a 4 #'

J.te .e.h.r9- .a.~ m. .ss

,_.r,,,, _.e_._

~ <, ~~ ~. - - - ~~- <. ,_

4 ve na., w ,o,.

~

-e**

.~.

.e n

m. _.s .w, e,

.t w, . w

.n . - . . . .

s. - . =

._.~,.t..,.

...._.. - _... .o..

.. . _ . m_.

..,.,.m.,-

-. .-- -.- ,,The real and ma/or issue isn ,t so

~ ~ m..,

_ ._s , , >.- ,

...,,.<,n.t.,-,, . .=

~ --~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' =

r - - --* much whether we'll have enouIh ... .

C.'..*.::~, ~.,~ electricity but what we're going to -

. . ,r..,. ~:* , .

pay for it, and that will depend on . ,. . ,, .,,

.s

~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~

e .,ar esse e r, >s the wisdom of both the electric "4 a * .

ua

e. ..,e* c as 9 e..a. 4 v--

re.eas. aer  % ,., ..

, _. - ,e.g utilities and the regulators around imme me ao. .

,,,noe:

n, , . - . - .

- .., . . . - ~ . u.

- . - - ,-- the region. ,, . . .

_.,,m..,._. . ..

s.,....

, , , .. ~ . ..-

W *na .4 e *

• e* F-mis av *f spev4 %ew I 944.

343 Ie,d

• • e  ? aper ptre 8 hse *g *Wert 4 - ft *5 . .

• 4 's A * ** + 4s "f" e t f MWtf e f'*'.**'.8 a, .

• werven eagev.3 P4N * * # ' ' ' **W*bs*

• F o f *4 9er pie - *t 'tt s" 8 V ai.. g. . -g s((g Ji -= jg ,p;6* /

.a eig . sc.*g jos.Je IJJp4 'OP e ..e e.sippeepet he* t*,. 4 *e. * .s4 *."f ' s e f ri.A ' r .g. . - 3. g ,

M ** 4 b$ M IO O *O U b *'W * * * $4 O F [ b*

• Med ' OS e' $ *q

• $89 *$4 d 68EI I ah0' eW en Sash *gr ing Sco pe ,ee .F"a 1 *&a * .i e*

• ff . 'e'ee. *

.4 . to ,

• f* . d e , y - .p; g.g a #p p

• " P

• 4 fg r* 64%e * (?6af d ""& . . "Fe i li k e =t  ? ?" .

• 4

• r . p."

N *** I889 M g&t 5 '.t*

. ., g 4

• 6. P .* f . e s . 'd .

'E'I88%*IU9 W 'I W O . seges *g g .* c8"14 - 49 *g . 4

• r, he shgi gg -3g psomet ggp etmW M I 898E8' , * .7 ? a . P ..t * * . *t

• v . . '9- t j, g , ,

ll%\  %. A- s s, m e.* a *3'* . r .,,,.,p , e.

= 4 e 6.er ne - It.e ire "e

• s *rt ,% .il '4. s . = *s 4 I Pe e ** . 11 .e If 4d' * *4 *FT4*'* 4 'F!tuf* 4 *f* *

'J# e. J *GNee l a 'd e=* e'.. s. * *

• l

. ur..m . 4af,4e 4 w.w. er w- *> =. e N . $ O* k Y .* \&.

YhdOIN uh MM ed h' - *O-. eg

• gg@t* g,,}l0 0 * *W & & P W +- W$S *. ~

ef '

b*  % 4 S Y * $ **& & ,A f~

f ^

..@  %*=. fe -'6 .* Sr*e. *f ** ., g t'* t inPe fP *P344 ri IA 6 *N4 'O 1stidb4 P ae's hem a

• d* fb W

• f .4 g. 44 m .* vg* 3 ca *f o g w spui .g de ,6 ha

't.g 6 3 WWe*4gg e8tm NortW ( gag f

• e.f .I 4

8W 'l#

• 4 .* "6" C 6 * .s.* et "a a es e 4 94 f 4 .. # ' . J' *8 *'8 '

im %4) utsggesig JO .a.hM4 im 4 6 4

• .Ph#g af 95t#ttg N 34 44B lidt CJa. 459r9EE.aB *.

• 64sf *4iss0 8 *b *84 4* St Ptrt J' h*J8' a= *.,4H .' ft Sm;5 S49 7'fae*h t me ag's e t av.tl r9ne it's ..

d'* 4 Wg'el ye speare 9e msg 't assi. ie 4 5 SpeGP P4Ng e g6 *g e ts J gJ g =' ggq gg ggsige%6 (799 '#Of .ibf* . 44 * &Wp4 ef s 44 * . e F Jr%. nae. *e= a.J ' Je

• ass 4. 94 - 4 g.lW'nt'h59tsatt 1

• eat ptdasstag sg'ise- .# GPd W JR f I SS inte 't De'em Ntd9heseleful a1 5 .W2 1D., 54f648 'tr* e ap404 'e .I .is .04 Jrt at a betB Maf@=e'tpia dess8 4 di 4(%f'% ] { 98 l

• • Wer se $ Mame gumsp eents'irt tid $46 8 ard WB **e e4B am.9de =P 6"fR set "4tA 7 4. Seriheparist 28 ptvert tagegg sq = g v .3 **'.fM9."

9s%P 6 *"ad '

95 49 89 pped W 359 fGP 4 stG $5 d EW9 .*a96 gem.rl spa wQnes gg segm33, *'eus af9 46 f .f.4 "4 emE Jesus as me stamm a, tuta 'Inc 18

%4cnLapititd .IE I see%eefr9DS LL s'arge Jee i ed 11 = .y, ;sgegpsuya p t n# .9 th a "O I"E "" sagtgg .9s 9,stmage #4 JuterT=e4 stemtw A ma ed We agnes.1 metend 'you et tart essuie tie Je #11) Pep ""P***""*""' ae ,. w i l

i. *, ae un >ie , a.n im .ir. re.sa-nw arena i.e e as a== . a. .mu ene messasi si.se u. n ma.s.mat* .,mes . a saa a mee .as . = .re mantua; )

• - == of me ans, mare e se twens esa e P~*e ce me aeriana inas on se e.%ms mas-  % ,, as eas t w n.

.*e5 af aptaba e e og'T Mart e meM team Gras GA sea. eet.s 2B aupo8a t m 'w.e.'austo ne me= W .ou Ms.e a seism store g>gadized Feie seginggog een a uWT sftstem egg of ogy

-. e en em *.as sem emes $ 48*0 Ma0 Jte 50e0 NEE WB'89 Jf .%SepW9 $ .

Jin. DW cube 3 Os ests UW est te et ' igg .ipe d JW .ame *AS JG8W propusue dens se dung a rvag W ese ese has gnaamse e as e JW M . f*L *4 age 5 4.e'Wh.m Jf tFu ad see.g d tas run ayume se a>

tes fled G W n) semi i Mn 4 6 'ha e p*4 *W is minar.ess rd-UW A 4 888 W .id*48 4/kW 25 l Stasi *- hembMT

- me am- em - . e.T.G. S.meWWING . =. AS. m e - . , 1.pl,Asums4

,,, ,, we 54 .e amE18 WKM8W E'hM G. 4.'*8

• j l

l

4

i. -

j e

!! ii! iliil!jjii!!!!d!Ldl il

!o!Illj{j!l!!1ilidi!!!

,m..,

jl ionimildl tiam lz,lin I !I!!I jijjj{ii1 jiji 2rguj!!.jjjjjjj{j}i ,

II'ji1Il,lIUjlIII y ijh Il 0 hip b!d.!:NIlill1diij i } jit!4tihdUl1ji ll 'q slfi l; }19 lli!I!!ii unuh!IMitih;dI!!i{ilili!!!lilij nimentud nin

.i yln,4 cn a,nl .

uan!

iqng! a! m tpli II1,u!!l:'9.tilitnu.i.ipu b 1 linjii n i-l lit aiu dillalll.:.!!!j] 7 i IIfid! 11lHHqal! g., I

~

ill.il!]jijijiji{l}4.Iijill4H{'lij J1 i iholmil!1!;191! 1 1

jill!i. ;j

.:Ijjjj!!11idI jjj inNdl 1

! I Phjpdg{jI

!d M ini d}/idtN!Ijjli il.ilsIIll iWldljilAllh' M !ilid

~

_ _ _. -_. . . -_ _:1 _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1 l

l ll  !!!! - -

}jli3}]j"11j

                                                                                                                       }((fl.                    jjjijl.i$!!l,I liijjt "j f1441]Ill11. 2i 3

i!!IIl}5IjiNljf1))j3tj'11/.]I'ff!!Ii I q li.i i ilhi ll!!MiH irlis '3;it;i iilju 1]OlI t i' t 'i IDlli i i litii r 4111111112 5ii1IDI411 ' - j al 11ji 54iifjj' lifI .{' }b{ w!!!lla!!II

                                                                                                                                                    'N a

an! s 1: i [i;!!jh!jillhihi!jh i.t 1?iltii'llll! fin,f I i l'i1!!!!ili i U lii Nh,.h.!f!;lllif311ll!!i! !Ilj}!}}UIli{jii I!!!k!I!!!

w. 1 ijji ni t; gliliih3i.j jn :i 3gq,g u > u g;;,n 32 l

                                                                                                       ,   ItiiHil!!I!!                !ii lilli]illhilillillii{Jii!.lIj                           4       .

i

                                                      **--=e- ,    - . g     s - . ,
 . - _ - _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ , . . _ _ . . _ _ __               _ . __ _ _ . - _. _ ..._.--.___ _ ,__--.                                      m   _ - __ _- __ _...._ _ ___,,..___.}}