ML20205D835

Ack Receipt of in Response to Author Concern Re Improper Submisssion of Certain Technical Studies to ASLB After Record Closed.Nrc Failure to State Particulars Re Misrepresentation Baseless.Related Correspondence

ML20205D835
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/19/1988
From:	Traficonte J MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
References
CON-#488-7325 OL, NUDOCS 8810270218
Download: ML20205D835 (2)

Text

'73 W esuaev enane.snmum M.U UEc.@ WJ/WY-OL b THE COMMONWEALTH OF M ACOACHUCETTO q p DEPARTMENT OF THE CTORNEY GENERe,L 'b,h;,,Y^

h h 1

JOHN W. McCORMACK STATE OFFICE BUILDING 7 ' ONE ASHSURTON PLACE BOSTON 021o81698

'L *g W 21 P3 :48 JAMES M. SHANNoN <5 ' -

ATTO48ttT 0tpetRAL OCCk,7 7, , , j -

October 19, 1988 Sherwin Turk U.S. Iluclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel 15th Floor 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852

Dear Mr. Turk:

I am in receipt of your October 5, 1988 response to my letter concerning your improper submission of certain technical studies to the Licensing Boa'.d after the record had closed. I have these further comments:

1. You stated that my letter "inaccurately reflects portions of our conversation", but you failed to indicate any particulars. In a subsequent conversation, I asked you directly to state in what way I had misrepresented our earlier conversation. You stated that you were "too busy" to do so.

In future, do not allude to purported misrepresentations on my part Nithout specifying the particulars. Your failure to do so will be taken oy mo as an acknowledgement that your claim is baseless, as it is in this case.

I l 2. Again you state that if these materixts were of significance (o question on which you claim to have no position), you would have been "remiss in not providing them to the Ecard, pursuant to establishad Board notification

obligati.on., appilcable to stil par ties in flRC adjudicatory

peccacdings". ' w femphasis). In response to a direct inquiry f rom me seeking the legal bisis for such an obligatiori that would permit a bare submission of materials to a licensing i board athcI__the LucnuLhad closed, you stated that fou were not 0010270210 001019 3 PDR ADOCK 0500

)5 N

i

.?

.' Sherwin Turk October 19, 1988 Page 2 i

/

aware of any such case or precedent. Of course, as I indicated from the outset, without such a legal basis, your action, was improper.

3. You state accurately that Mr. Fierce had requested these materials and that you had indicated your intent to send them to all parties. The Licensing Board is not a "party".

Curiously, you end your letter with the confident assertion that the Board obviously knew it was not to examine the materials (since they are not part of the existing record) you forwartled to them. Again I repeat: your August 22 letter was mialRadlDS and might have led the reader to assume that the accompanying documents were understood by you to fill a gap left open in an otherwise closed record. I had personally harbored some doubts whether your actions were purposefully misleading or only unintentionally so. Your subsequent words and deeds have resolved that issue quite clearly.

Ver truly yours,

/ohn Traficon":e

%ssistant Attorney General Nuclear Safety Unit Department of the Attorney General (617) 727-2200 JT/km

, cc Service List j

I i

l

)

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - - - - - - -