ML20080U043
| ML20080U043 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1984 |
| From: | Delaney C DELAWARE, STATE OF |
| To: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8403020141 | |
| Download: ML20080U043 (2) | |
Text
_
s
.hl5{)
'O y Z.
g:K.*g,
.s.t.c. :4 cc,o ETEP
-w-y STATE or DEI. AWARE 84 13R -1 P12:52 DrnRTsttsT or Jesrict -
Strit Orrict Bc Lotsc 820 N. Fntscu Srntti, Stu FLooFFQ U,f-fs L un Dau t'
cnni3 31. onan.m Di Witsisscros, DELAWARE 19001 00Cn q g -
Anoun ctuna 5
(302) 571-2940 February 27, 1984 Marshall E. Miller, Esquire
-Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board-Panel U.:S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
-Re:
In the Matter of Public Service Electric and Gas Company (Hope Creek Generating Station)
Docket No. 50-354
~
Dear' Chairman Miller:
h" nile the State of Delaware is not a_ party to the above-caption' ed proceeding, as the Board is aware, Delaware supported Contention.IV of the Public Advocate of the State of New Jersey
- relating to the' environmental. impacts of the Hope Creek cooling tower. ~ I am writing to inform the Board that Delaware conferred with~the Public Advocate' prior to the filing of the Advocate's Consent to Applicant's Motion to Dismiss Contention IV
(" Consent");
DelcWare agrees with the.Public Advocate's Consent for the reasons set forth therein.
Together with the Consent, the Public Advocate' commented on.the Applicant's arguments in support of its motion to dismiss Contention IV.
Delaware " seconds" those comments.
The record
- c should be clear that neither the Public' Advocate nor the counsel for' _ Delaware misled the Board-in any f ashion.
h" nile I personally
.was not present at the prehearing' conference and do no_t have a copy of the transcript, I have discussed the conference with the counsel for Delaware who did attend and with the Public Advocate.
h 1
PDR i
s.
n
++ a s
a a.,
O,.
.a c. g
" Marshall-E.. Miller, Esquire-
+ - -
FebruaryE27,11984 f
Page:2 1
Delaware's counsel did not represent that prior' dis-cussion with. technical expert (s) was 'the basis for raising the contention.
I!or did Delaware's counsel represent that recent
-~
~ studies in ' Delaware specifically -addressed salt deposition on cropland and groundwater.- Rather, the counsel stated recent-
. studies showedifaster movement of variour. substances into ground-
- water (and soils than was previously believed to accur.
Jstudies, which; focus primarily on nitrates, do-exist and copies -
These
-were provided to'the Applicant.
'I hope the above' information. helps-to clarify the record in the. case pending before:the Board.
Respectfully yours, (M L he Carol E. Delaney Deputy Attorney General
.CED/bfd cc: cService List s
G W
v' 4
e
~.
II
,ur-=a=--p g.-p,.,-.,-,.s,.
yy.
r
_v y
<re
.,-e-}-gr.-
- + -
4 pey we r-
,,,-9,-wr.-%.g a