ML20082Q455

Requests That Expert Witness Be Made Available by 831214 for Deposition Re Contention X.Motion to Strike Contention Should Be Expected

ML20082Q455
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	12/06/1983
From:	Conner T CONNER & WETTERHAHN, Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	Delaney C, Potter R DELAWARE, STATE OF, NEW JERSEY, STATE OF
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8312120195
Download: ML20082Q455 (3)

Text

.

,- i .,

LAW OFFICES 00LKETED

'JSNRO GONNER 13e WETTERHAHN. P.G.

1747 P1NNsYLV ANIA AVENUE. N.W.

' WASHINGTON. D. C. 20006 DEC 8 P3:39 sl NAMN

. O .n._. ,.M.w E. . . E .

IM D BgM . O L4 0 ?f crrCe or st .g;,;,;.,:_,_......

00CKEimG & Str.,

20.^r * #A.'"- December 6, 1983 BR/cEGWE ADDREES. ATOM 1.AW

• %lZll.. .. . ..

R. William Potter , Esq.

Carol Delaney, Esq. Assistant Public Advocate Deputy Attorney General State of New Jersey Department of Justice Department of the Public State Office Building Advocate 8th Floor CN850 820 N. French Street Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Wilmington, DE 19810 In the Matter of Public Service Electric and Gas Company (Hope Creek Generating Station)

Docket No. 50-354 OL

Dear Mr. Potter and Miss Delaney:

I was shocked to learn today from Mr. Rader of our office that you have, in effect, changed the contention on salt deposition granted by1983. the Board at time, At that the prehearing the Board conference on November 22,and Applicant's objections to this considered the Staff's In light of the NRC rule contention as initially proposed.

against reconsidering at the operating license environmental review stage at thethose con-matters addressed in thethe Board gave the Public Advocate struction permit stage, After lengthy an opportunity to rephrase contention X.

discussion, the new contention admitted as Contention X was As restat-rephrased to focus upon salt deposition impacts.

ed by Mr. Potter, the contention was as follows:

asserts that the The Public Advocate

). Applicant's environmental report has not 5 nor analyzed the long-term 6

described on cropland and ecologic effects groundwater due to salt deposition from the operation of the Hope Creek cooling tower. [Tr. 219]

As you are aware, this contention was admitted by the Licensing Board substantially upon the representation by Miss Langdon that the State of Delaware is concerned with "the long-term effects of salt deposition on crop land and,

~

8312120195 831206 PDR ADOCK 05000354 0 PDR (

u Carol Dalency, Ecq.

R. William Pottar, Esq.

December 6, 1983 Page 2 subsequently, on the groundwater in the State of Delaware" (Tr. 217). Miss Langdon stated that this concern was predicated upon certain hydrogeologic studies which indicat-ed that a greater impact would result from salt deposition than previously thought (Tr. 218).

I pointed out that the Public Advocate and Delaware were " betting on the come" (Tr. 228), and that Applicant wished to depose the experts whose recent studies were the alleged basis of Contention X "next week, if possible" (Tr.

226). The following colloquy between the Chairman and l myself followed: l l

MR. CONNER: You asked the counsel for Delaware to whom she talked about this problem as the basis for the contention.

! JUDGE MILLER: Because she raised a new information. Other counsel didn't l raise new information.

l MR. CONNER: But I would propose, unless Mr. Potter's changed Contention X I is based on current information, techni-cally sound information, I would move to strike it because it is --

JUDGE MILLER: Strike it after you get it.

MR. CONNER: If he would give me the name of the person he talked to for this technical input --

JUDGE MILLER:

He will give you by 5 o' clock tomorrow the names of the person or persons whom you may depose and start to obtain the information you wish. You contend it was there available and this is nothing different. They say it is.

Okay, either it is or isn't. One or two depositions will show you that. [Tr.

228]

As I understand Miss Delaney's statements in the telephone conversation with Mr. Rader yesterday, the Public Advocate and the State of Delaware, contrary to the rep-resentations at the prehearing conference, are not now suggesting any problem with salt deposition from the Hope

Ccrol Dalonsy, Ecq.

R. William Pottor, Ecq.

December 6, 1983 Page 3 Creek cooling tower. Rather, the studies to which Miss Langdon referred at the prehearing conference pertain to impacts of nitrates from fertilizers, septic systems and other sources. As I understand it, you are now attempting to develop a theory which will somehow relate the nitrate study to the operation of Hope Creek.

For the record, we do not agree that this new, evolving theory bears any relevance to the admitted contention and, upon review of the nitrate study (which Miss Delaney promised to mail to us by Federal Express today) , we expect j to move to strike the admitted contention on this basis.  !

In this regard, we have asked you repeatedly to arrange  ?

for the depositions of such experts with whom either of you  :

consulted prior to the prehearing conference on this con- l tention. We first made our request to you during and z following the prehearing conference on November 22 (Tr. :i 222-28). We asked that the depositions be arranged as soon l as possible. We have contacted you by phone or letter three ';

times since then on this point without result.  !

i We further understand that the name of one of the two $

individuals provided to us as an expert in the field, Mr.  !

Garner, was incorrect. i i

O If, in fact, you consulted with any potential expert j witness concerning this contention prior to the prehearing g conference, we request that you make him available for i deposition not later than Wednesday, December 14 at a i convenient location, for example, any of the offices of the l*

parties' counsel. If there is no such person, we request that you advise us immediately, so that we can move to

• strik9 the contention on this ground.  ;

Sincerely, i t

edG%

Troy Conner, Jr.

./ A l Counsel for the Applicant

/

TBC/dlf cc: Service List

=

- - _ _ _ _