Excerpt from Report of the Attorney General for the Year Ending June 30, 1988 In accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of Chapter 12 and of Section 32 of Chapter 30 of the General Laws, I hereby submit the Annual Report for the Department of the Attorney General. This annual report covers the period from July 1, 1987 to June 30, 1988 and is the second report I have filed as the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Fiscal 1988 was the first full year of my term in office. By June of 1987, the transition team had successfully completed its work of staffing and developing the various legal directions this department would take. Along with the creation of several new divisions and reorganized bureaus a solid foundation had been built for the work ahead. My top priority was rebuilding the Criminal Bureau which now includes six divisions - Narcotics, Public Integrity, Special Prosecutions, Victim Compensa tion, Division of Employment Security and the Criminal Appellate Division. The growing problem of drug abuse and drug dealing crossing county lines mandated that the newly created Narcotics Division develop the capacity to handle multi jurisdictional, long-term drug trafficking cases. The division established an impressive first-year record of 32 cases involving 63 defendants, including 48 cocaine traffickers, and the seizure of more than 12-thousand grams of cocaine. This introduction can't begin to highlight the many accomplishments of the entire Criminal Bureau, but it should be noted here that the Public Integrity Division brought a number of significant cases in an attempt to increase the accountability of public officials to the citizens of Massachusetts. The Nuclear Safety Unit (nsu), created to represent the citizens of Massachusetts on safety issues surrounding the Pilgrim, Vermont Yankee and Seabrook nuclear power plants, focused this fiscal year primarily on preventing the issuance of a low-power license to the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant in New Hampshire. Every other week, for nine months, nsu attorneys represented the citizens of Massachusetts at federal hearings called on the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plans. My view of the legal responsibility of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (asle) differed significantly from that of the plant owners. I made clear in my testimony before that board on October 5, 1987, that how the board viewed its role in reviewing an emergency plan would be critical to the out come of this case. My position was that their responsibility was to determine whether or not this plan would protect the public. The plant owners, on the other hand, contended that their job was simply to ensure that there was a plan. My belief, based on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's adoption of an emergency plan ning rule in the wake of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, was that an ade quate plan must afford a meaningful level of protection to the public. Submitting hundreds of pages of testimony and exhibits provided by expert witnesses, our attorneys argued that the New Hampshire plan does not adequately protect the public health and safety. As the year ended, a decision was expected in the fall. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com