ML20205T424
| ML20205T424 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1986 |
| From: | Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205T415 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8606130206 | |
| Download: ML20205T424 (22) | |
Text
.
- Filed: June 9, 1986
/ [/ Q b^ ^ ' /,
^
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COANISSION -
WN10193> -
Before the kQ L..:,$-TEQ L.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD \f/ O
((
In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF Docket Nos. 50-443 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al 50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) (Off-Site EP)
SAPL'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR S U3 NARY DISPOSITION OF sAPL CONTENTIONS 5, 7, 14 AND 17 AND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUNNARY DISPOSITION OF SAPL CONTENTIONS 18 AND 25 On May 20, 1986, the Applicants moved for summary disposition of SAPL Contentions 5, 7, 14 and 17 and moved for partial summary disposition of SAPL Contentions 18 and 25, all of which relate to the of f-site emergency response plans for the State of New Hampshire.
SAPL opposes all of these summary disposition motions except for that pertaining to SAPL Contention 14, and for the reasons set forth below, urges this Board to deny the opposed motions.
Summary Disposition Standards The Commission's Rules of Practice provide for summary disposition of any matter involved in a licensing proceeding "if the filings in the proceeding, depositions, answers to Interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the statements of the parties 8606130206 860609 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G PDR
. =
and affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material f act and that moving party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law." 10 CFR 92.749(d).
The burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, however, is upon the moving party, and the record will be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2) ALAB-443, 6 NRC 741, 753-54 (1977). The party opposing a motion for summary disposition may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of his answer but must show by setting forth specific facts that there is a genuine issue of fact. 10 CFR 62.749(b).
SAPL disputes the Applicants' so-called undisputed facts, and for the specific f actual reasons set forth below, opposes Applicants' motions for summary disposition of Content ions 5, 7, and 17 and parttal summary disposition of Contentions 18 and 25.
l !
Reasons for Denying Summary Disposition of SAPL Contention No. 5.
SAPL Contention No. 5 reads as follows:
The New Hampshire State and local plans are deficient in that they do not ensure that there will be adequate personnel or the timely arrival of personnel trained in radiological monitoring in the plume exposure EPZ following a release of radiation f rom Seabrook Station. Neither is there assurance that monitoring can be carried on for the required time frame. Therefore, the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 450.47 (a)(1), 650.47 (b)(1), 950.47 (b)(8), 650.47 (b)(9),
and NUREG-0654 11.1.7, I.8 and 1.11 and ll.A. 4. are not met.
Applicants' assert that on the basis of affidavits of William T. Wallace and James A. MacDonald, and on the basis of facts that they state are " undisputed facts," that the mot ion to summarily dispose of SAPL Contention No. 5 should be granted.
SAPL disagrees for the following specific factual reasons.
Applicants' assertion that monitoring teams can be at monitoring locations within one and one-half hours af ter declaration of an alert is neither congruent with what is in the NHRERP or the Wallace Affidavit. Nothing in the Affidavit serves to establish that monitoring teams can be at monitoring locations in that time frame.
SAPL was to have had an Af fidavit from Richard Piccione, Ph.D.
of Accord Research and Educational Associates, Inc. to include with '
this response. Due to an unfor tunate misunderstanding, SAPL has
)
instead a letter dated June 9, 1986 to Mr. Robert Backus and signed by Richard Piccioni, Ph.D., Nancy Eyler, M.D. and Steven Meshnick, M.D., Ph.D. It is attached. SAPL will endeavor to provi(+ all
parties, within as few days as possible, with sworn affidavits by these individuals at testing to the veracity of the statements in the above-mentioned June 9, 1986 letter. This letter raises material issues as to the ability to measure airborne radiolodine and the timeliness.of monitoring results as inputs into decision-making for public protection.
i I.
l t
1 l
4 l
4 1
l i
i
Statement of the Material Facts as to Which.
SAPL Contends SAPL Contention No. 5 Raises a Genuine Issue t
- 1. Applicants aver in their motion for summary disposition that State field monitoring teams can be deployed to monitoring locations within one and one-half hours after declaration of Alert. Instead, t h e - New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan states that field monitoring teams be deployed to the EOC/IFO in one and one-half hours. See NHRERP at 2.5-
- 6. From there, field monitors must be deployed to monitoring
. locations, which will take additional time. SAPL s tated in the basis of SAPL Contention No. 5 that this could take a considerable amount of time if an evacuation had already been ordered and i monitors had to move against the flow of outgoing traffic to
=i arrive at monitoring locations. Nothing in the affidavits establishes, as a matter of law, that this will not occur.
i
- 2. Affidavit of James A. MacDonald states that Seabrook Station has the capability to deploy three field monitoring teams from the EOF within 60 minutes after declaration of an Alert. This could mean that for up to I hour, there might be no off-site monitoring. This does not meet the " rapid assessment" criterion of NUREG-0654 11.1.8, particularly important in the events of a rapidly escalating accident.
i j 3. The'N.H. section of the Seabrook Station EPZ encompasses an J
< area of about 200 square miles. The grid map at Figure 2.5-2
- 4
-m , , . , - - . - - . - - - , ..----._,-,m-- ~ . , . - - - - - - - - - - - , _ _ , _
of the NHRERP shows the entire EPZ area. More than three two-l person teams at one time will be required to take the number of field samples that will be required to assess the plume impact on the extensive land area in the New Hampshire portion of the EPZ.
- 4. Applicants state that the total complement of thirteen field monitors provides the Division of Public Health Services with twenty-four hour capability to conduct field monitoring with a
" minimum" of three two-person teams. Applicants also state that two of these monitors are designated for aerial monitoring
. i deemed adv i sable. If these persons must do aerial monitoring, there will not be available the personnel for a " minimum" of three two-person teams for field monitoring.
- 5. Applicants state "In fact, environmental monitoring in the ingestion pathway is generally conducted during the recovery phase after protective response actions for the public are completed." Ingestion exposure controls are protective actions that cannot walt for the " recovery phase."
- 6. The fact that the State of New Hampshire could request field monitoring assistance does not reasonably assume that such assistance would be forthcoming. Depending upon the directions of the plume, other New England states could possibly need to keep their own field monitors for their own monitoring purposes.
Further, the New England Interstate Radiological Assistance Compact in Volume 5 of the NHRERP has no signature page to validate it.
- 7. There is no showing that the FAA Concord Flight Service Agreement ensures that the State can perform aerial monitoring because no let ter of agreement was provided in Volume 5 of the NHRERP.
- 8. The RAC Review of the State of New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan s ta tes at p.13 of 109 tha t the capabili ty of the DPHS laboratory to perform all required analyses is not suf ficient as described and at p.3 of 109 that DPHS facilities may be inadequate to analyze all samples on a timely schedule.
- 9. The RAC Review of the State of New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan states at p.3 of 109 that interaction with tisa FRMAP should be described in the plan.
- 10. Monitoring teams are equipped with instruments which are of insufficient sensitivity to detect harmful radiation exposure to the surrounding population.
- 11. No assessment has been made of the total time required for sample collect ion, complete data analysis, and decision making.
~_ _ . . _ _ ~ _ , , _ _ _ .-. , , _ - _ . , _ . _ . . _ - - _ _ , . . , - . , _ . - , , ,
l Reasons for Denying Summary Disposition of SAPL Contention No. 7.
SAPL Contention No. 7 reads:
The New Hampshire State and local plans fail to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 450.47 (b)(ll) and NUREG-0654 K.5.b because there has been no showing that the means of radiological decontamination of emergency personnel, wounds, supplies and equipment have been es tablished. Further, there has not been a clear showing that adequate means for waste disposal exist.
Applicants plead that on the basis of the Wallace affidavit, the Board can make a predictive finding that there will exist " fully adequate plans, facilities and equipment for decontamination" and that there is " reasonable assurance that adequate provisions are, and will be, available for disposal of waste materials generated by the decontamination procedures."
SAPL di'putes the above statements for the following specific factual reasons. Applicants do not claim that adequate means for monitoring and decontamination, or for waste disposal, have been established. The legal standard to be satisfied is that adequate protective measures be established. Applicants simply note that there are measures that are or will be available. The attached Affidavit of Donald L. Herzberg, M.D. raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether such measures are adequate. Further, the RAC Review of the State of New flampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan also raises such issues of the suf ficiency of resources and procedures. For these reasons, SAPL Contention No. 7 ought be litigated.
Statement of Material Facts as to Which SAPL Contends SAPL Contention No. 7 Raises a Genuine Issue.
- 1) The New Hampshire Radiologleal Emergency Response Plan does not establish adequate means for monitoring and decontamination of state and local emergency personnel wounds, supplies, instruments and equipment, and for waste disposal. Applicants in their motion only state that there are such means, but do not claim that they are adequate means.
- 2) Several local community plans do not 1ist RADEF officers to perform monitoring, e.g.s Hampton Falls, New Castle, Newton, East Kingston, Stratham. Further, several local communitles are refusing to carry out the plans and therefore local of.ficials cannot be counted upon to do local monitoring, i.e., Hampton, Rye, So. Hampton and Kensington of Hampton Falls. Therefore, there is not assurance that there will be preliminary monitoring to serve as the basis for referral of emergency workers for decontaminatlon in a signifIcant number of localitles.
- 3) There is no showing that there are adequate loca fire department personnel to staff decontamination facilities as well as to perform other duties under the plans or that suf ficient numbers of these personnel have consented to perform this duty or have been adequately trained.
_g_
m
'4 ) The decontamination facilities listed in the NHRERP are inadequate for the numbers of people who could potentially arrive there for monitoring and decontaminat ion services. Table 1 of the New Hampshire local plans gives 1985 peak population figures for each of the New Hampshire municipalities. The combined total population listed for the 17 towns i s 191, 849.
The total number of showers available for decontamination at reception centers are 67 and there is only one shower at the IFO/ EOF.
- 5) The details for decontamination centers at NHRERP Host Communities are not yet completed except for Manchester's.
Vehicle decontamination f acilities have not been identified for any facility other than Manchester. The Manchester decontamination center would not be able to operate ef fectively for the number of evacuees that could reasonably be expected to report there for decontamination services. The RAC Review of the State of New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan states at p.87 of 109 that the availability of sufficient resources to carry out the decontamination of evacuees and emergency workers "Is questionable."
l
- 6) The State of New Hampshire has no contract or arrangement with
, any " local brokerage" to accept for disposal any wastes that might result f rom an accident at Seabrook.1 There is no showing
- 1. See State of New Hampshire's Answers to Seacoas t Ant i-Pollut ion League's Interrogatories and Requests for Documents to the State of New Hampshire on Emergency Planning at p.23.
.,. - - , . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _, _ _ - _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ ,--% 4- ,_,m._~ . . - - - . - . - - - - ~ . . , . - - - - _ -
that the utility will have a location to which it can ship low level radioactive wastes.
- 7) Decontamination Administrators are not dispatched to their specified decontamination center host facilities until a site Area Emergency and/or General Emergency is declared. This will not leave time for adequate preparations for the arrival of evacuees. Communications procedures are, according to the plans, to be developed by the Decontamination Administrator on an ad hoc basis upon arrival at the decontamination center, thereby reducing the amount of time to conduct other preparations. This and other duties assigned will overwhelm the capabilities of this individual to manage the decontamination center properly.
- 8) Levels of contamination which would require additional actions (bioassays) or other treatment should also be stated in the plan. (See RAC Review of the State of New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan for Seabrook at p.87 of 109.)
)
Reasons for Denying Summary Disposition of SAPL Contention No. 17.
SAPL Contention No. 17 reads as follows:
The New Hampshire State and local plans fail to make adequate provisions for prompt communications among principal response organizations to emergency personnel and to the public. Therefore, the plans do not meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 650.47 (b)(1),
650.47 (b)(5) and (b)(6) and NUREG-0654 Planning Standard F.
Applicants plead that on the basis of the Catapano Affidavit, SAPL Content ion No.17 should be summarily disposed of. Mr. Catapano is not an expert in telephone switching systems. Nelther has the Catapano Af fidavit addressed the communication systems available at special facilities within the EPZ. For these specific factual reasons, summary disposition of SAPL Contention No. 17 ought be denied.
9 T
e
\
1 I
Statement of Material Facts as to Which SAPL Contends Contention No. 17 Raises a Genuine issue.
- 1) The April 30, 1986 Draf t Final Exercise Assessment of the Joint New. Hampshire State and Local Radiological Emergency Response Exercise for the Seabrook Station Nuclear Plant cited as deficiencies for the Towns of Brentwood, Greenland. Kingston, East Kingston, New Castle, Newfields, Newton, Portsmouth.
Seabrook & Stratham that the adequacy of available telephone [
lines f or handling regular EOC communicat ions while concurrently receiving calls from transit-dependent persons requesting -
transportation assistance was not sufficiently demonstrated.
Though the Catapano Af fidavit claims that more phone lines are to be added, there is no showing that the numbers of lines to be added will be adequate.
?! ) The RAC Review of the Municipal (EPZ Conununi t ies ) Radiological Emergency Respoose Plans for Seabrcok indicates at p.6 of 23 that more information is needed on the distribution of tone-alert radios and procedures for servicing new businesses and .
residences. This in formation is not adequat ely provided in the ,
i plan 9. Further, there is no disoussion in the Catapano Af fidavlt of autions which would upgrade communications with special f ac!! it iet, in the EPZ such as schools and nursing homes.
.,. . , . , . - - - - - - - , ., , -- .,. ,- , , . ., . . - n,
- 3) Transit-dependent persons must rely upon the commercial telephone system to contact local EOC's for transport assistance. Though the Catapano Affidavit indicates that additional phone lines are to be added to local EOC's as was recommended in the April 30, 1986 Draf t Final Exercise Assessment of the Joint New Hampshire State and Local Radiological Emergency Response Exercise for Seabrook Station Nuclear Plant, this still falls to address the problem of overload of the commercial telephone system that would result from too many people trying to place calls at once.
- 4) The RAC Review of the State of New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan states the concern at p.21 of 109 that means of verifying siren activation cannot be found in the plan and inquires which supplemental notification system is to be used where sirens have failed. No supplemental notification system is identified in the plans.
i i
I
Reasons for Denying Partial Summary Disposition of SAPL Contention Nos. 18 and 25.
SAPL Contention No. 18 reads as follows:
The local New Hampshire community plans of Brentwood, Exeter, Portsmouth, Seabrook and New Castle significantly miscalculated the numbers of non-auto owning population based on the percentages of non-auto owning population given in each of the above-stated plans.
No buses are provided in the plans for the individuals who are not accounted for due to these miscalculations. Therefore, these plans f all to meet the requirements ofl0 C.F.R. 950.47 (a)(1), 650.47(o)(8),
NUREG-0654 II.J.10.g and NUREG-0654 Appendix 4, p. 4-3.
SAPL Contention No. 25 reads as follows:
The New Hampshire State and local radiological emergency response plans do not reasonably assure that the public health and safety will adequately be protected because the provisions for protecting those persons whose mobility may be impaired due to such f actors as institutional or other confinement are patently lacking.
Therefore, the plans do not meet the requirements ofl0 C.F.R. 650.47 (a)(1), 450.47 (b)(8) and NUREG-0654 !!.J.10.d.
Applicants seek to have these contentions disposed of to the extent to which they raise the issue that there do not exist adequate procedures for identifying persons with special needs. Applicants assert that the survey technique for identification of special needs persons described in the Strome Af fidavit constitutes a fully adequate method of identifying special needs persons and that any additional requirements would fall into the category of " extraordinary measures."
SAPL disputes the adequey of'the procedures for identifying special needs persons for the following specific reasons. The attached Affidavit of Frederick H. Anderson, Jr. raises genuine issues as to the adequacy of the dissemination of the survey, its design and the f requency with which it is to be conducted. For these and other reasons, SAPL Content ion Nos.18 and 25 ought to be.li t igated fully to include an examination of the adequacy of identification procedures for special needs persons.
Statement of the Material Facts as to Which SAPL Contends that SAPL Contentions 18 and 25 Raise Genuine Issues as to Identification of Those With Special Needs.
- 1) The survey sent out by the State of New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency should be supplemented by a well-planned and implemented program of additional identification techniques for special needs populations because it may not have been received, read and/or understood by the following:
a) Those who do not pay their own electric bills because they rent apartments where utilities are included in the rent, stay in motels, or only seasonally reside in the EPZ.
b) Those who are unable to read the English language either due to Illiteracy or inability to understand the English language, c) Those who suffer such conditions as blindneca o. other visual impairment.
d) Those who suf fer such conditions as impaired intelligence or mental confusion due to aging.
- 2) The survey sent out by the State of New flampshire should have been accompanied by public announcements via the print and electronic media to flag the arrivirig survey to public attention and to explain its relevance t o inembe r s of the public. The questionnaire did not give potential respondents sufficient motivation to respond. It may well have been thrown out by people who did not understand its applicability to their situation.
- 3) Only one ques tionnaire has been sent out by NHCDA and it is to be sent out only annually according to the Strome Affidavit.
This will be insufficient to locate all special needs persons.
- 4) The State of New Hampshire should supplement the survey with an outreach program to social service agencies and other institutions that routinely provide assistance to special needs individuals. The Strome Affidavit mentions that it will be distributed by "several" social service and local municipal agencies. This program should be evaluated to assure thoroughness and efficacy.
- 5) The design of the special needs questionnaire could have been improved to eliminate ambiguity.
Respectfully submitted, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE By its Attorney r
June 9, 1986 / t. I 41 1A+ c, ,b
^
Robert A. Bac[us BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON 116 Lowell Street P.O. Box 516 Manchester, NH 03105 (603)668-7272
4 I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing have been sent to all persons on the attached service list, by first class postage prepaid
' mall and by Federal express as indicated by an *.
f
~
/ ,f (',
.' G \,Y. *
- I./ _ f*2iv '!,'p,_, c,3
' Robert A. Backus I
6 9
1 I
i k
4 4
- 1,
)
Accord R:szarch cnd Educational Associ:tes,Inc, 314 West 91st Street New York, N.Y.10024 Phone:(212) 580-3889
, x%
, (,
Mr. Robert Backus, Esq.
i June 9, 19E6 P.O. Box 516 116 I4well Street du a 1 0 6 y.3: [( ,,
Manchestcr, N.H. 03105 i_ j{
N "
...e ..
Dear M. Backus:
/-
N. /
yb We have been asked by th w g& = ' Anti-Pollution League to evaluate the Field Mcnitoring camponent of the New Haqshire Radiological DrcIgency Responso Plan for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station. We have fouM that there are serious unresolved issues that warrant evaluation by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
Our work is perforrcd under the auspices of Accord Research and Educational Associates, a non-profit education and research organization based in New York City. A summary of our relevant experience is attached.
20 following summarizes our criticisms of the existing plan:
20 monitoring tears, as proposed, are equipped with instrurents khich are of insufficient sensitivity to prevent hamful radiation exposure to the surrounding populatien. It appears from the stato plan that airborne radioiodina will be collected on filter cartridges and then measured. 2e sensitivity of this procMure (lower limit of detection), as given by the Stato,is 10(-7) microcuries per cubic contimeter (equal to 100,000 pC1/ cubic reter) . 2 1s means that residents could be exposed to this concentration of radioactive iodine, yet the monitors would not have detected it. S us, protective measures would not have been taken. An infant inhaling this dir would receive a radiation dose of 3.8 rems per day to his or her thyroid. A radiation exposure of 3.8 rem poses a significant cancer risk. n o state's plan is too slow to be effectivo. A serious accident would release large amounts of radioactivity in short periods of tira. A hydrogen explosion or core relt in a reactor accident could produce a mssivo radiation release in a very short time. Hydrogen explosions occurred during both the Thrco Milo Island aM Cherncbyl accidents.
ntrthormore, of the nino ER reactor accident models described in the WASH-1400 Reactor Safety Study, release of radioactivity occurs so rapidly in five of the models that the rolcase would be completed within 1.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />.
Wrco of these five accident scenarios are the most serious of the nino considered, in terrs of the quantity of radioactivity released. In all of the nino accident models describod, the rolcase would have occurred within 10 hourn.
, T.
We believe that any action taken by the State stuld occur far too late to be effective. 'Ihe utility will require time to recognize that an accident is occurring and to notify the State. Only then could monitoring tears be deployed into the field. Sagle collection, measurements, and data analysis would require time to be ccmpleted. Further time sculd be required for notification of State agencies, decision making, and inplementation of any action.
'Ihe State ackncwldeges that 1.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> stuld be required merely to deploy monitoring tears. By this time, the release may already be co:rpleted and the leading edge of the plum well on its way across the EPZ. The monitoring tears would then be useless in protecting the public frrm exposure to radioactivity in the plum's. Several factors have not been evaluated in the State plan. In our experience with field monitorire of airborne reactor effluent, to accurately locate the pluxe centerline-typically requires at least 30 minutes to an hour, and ray well be ipsible in erratic wiMs. Delays of this kird were not discussed in the report. No assessment has been rade of the total time required for sarple collection, ccrplete data analysis, and decisien raking. An estimate is needed of the possible radiation dese received by the surrcunding pcpulation before apprcpriato protective measures can be implemented. 'Ihe State plan was designed cnly for small, relatively controlled releases of radioactivity. A sericus release, either short in duration or large in size, would overwhelm all of the prcratwes outlined in the State's emergency plan.
Sincerely, Lulfm Richard Piccioni, Ph.D.
I Nancy Eyler, M.D.
. l* .
- r. ....,$ . Y& W.r Steven Mestnick, M.D. , Eh.D.
2-
Accord Research and Educational Associat:s,Inc, 314 West 91st Street New York, N.Y.10024 Phone:(212) 580-3889 SLMGRY OF CURRICUIl VITAE: CSS. PICCICNI, EYIlR AND MESHNICK Richard Piccieni Senicr Staff Scientist, Accord Research and Educaticnal Associates. Dr. Piccieni received his Ph.D. in Biophysics frcm the Rcckefeller University in 1977. He was a pestdcctoral fellcw at the Rcckefeller frcm 1977 to 1980, and an Assistant Professor in the Departrent of Biological Sciences, Hunter College of the City University of Ned York frcm 1980 to 1985. He is currently an independent corsaltant. He has published research papers en renitoring of envircrrantal radioactivity ard epidemiological effects of Icw-level radiaticn exposure. In 1983, he presented expert testimeny before the Atcaic Safety ard Licensing Board cf the NRC cn the lcng-term envircraantal consequences of an accident at the Indian Point Nuclear Pcwer Station. Recently he served as a censultant to the Township of West Orange en remediaticn of radium centaminaticn of soll surrcunding hc:res in that area.
Nancy Eyler Staff Scientist, Accord Research and Educational Associates; and Fellcw in Erdccrinology, Ne4 York University Medical Center. Dr. Eyler received an M.D. from the School of Medicine, State University of Ne4 York at Stony Brook in 1980. She was a Research Associate at the Ararican Ht ilth Fcundat. ion, Nes York City, frcm 1980 to 1982. She cc:rpleted her housestaff training at Icng Island Jewish-Hillside Medical Center in 1985, rd is board-certified in Internal Medicine. She currently teaches Physical Diagnosis ard Endccrinology at Ne4 York University Schcol of Medicine. She is an associate tu: er of the American College of mysicians, and a professional me:ter of the American Diabetes Associatien. She has published articles en epidemiology and cell physiology.
Steven Meshnick Senior Staff Scientist, Accord Research ard Educational Associates; ard Asscciate Medical Professor, City University of Nc4 York Medical School. Dr. Meshnick received a Ph.D. in Medical Biochemistry frcm the Rockefeller University in 1978 ard an M.D. frcm Cornell University in 1979. He served as an Assistant Professor of Medicine at Cornell frcm 1979 to 1986. He has publishcd over 20 scientific publications in jcurnals such as Science, Iancet, and Jcurnal of Biolecical Chemistr/. He is an asscciate ne:6er of the American Society of Biological Chemists. He has testified at hearings en the cafety of the Irdian Point reactor and was a censultant to the Township of West Crarge on remediation of radium contamination.