ML20080U043

Conveys Agreement W/State of Nj Public Advocate Re Consent to Util Motion to Dismiss Contention IV on Environ Impact of Cooling Tower.W/O Encl

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

'O

.hl5{)

y Z.

g:K .*g,

.s.t

-w-.c. :4 cc,o ETEP y

STATE or DEI. AWARE 84 13R -1 P12:52

, DrnRTsttsT or Jesrict -

Strit Orrict Bc Lotsc cnni3 31. onan.m t' Di Anoun ctuna 820 N. Fntscu Witsisscros, Srntti, DELAWARE Stu 19001 FLooFFQ U,f- fs L un Dau 00Cn 5 qg-(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 1

f Page:2 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. These Jstudies,

-were which;to'the provided focusApplicant.

primarily on nitrates, do-exist and copies -

'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