ML19305D119

Forwards Commonwealth of PA Responses to Intervenor Interrogatories & Document Requests.Objects to Interrogatory 08-009 & Suggests Redrafting.Interrogatory 08-002 Interpreted Very Narrowly

ML19305D119
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	03/17/1980
From:	Carter K PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Sholly S AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Shared Package
ML19305D120	List: ML19305D119 ML19305D122 ML19305D126 ML19305D129
References
NUDOCS 8004140074
Download: ML19305D119 (2)

Text

l' (717) 787-7060 RELiTED CORRESPONDENCE r -

( -+

" j. , ,<-

y ,/ 1

)

f[Yd'% \

C051MONWEALTil OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

.n g7 4Nl h , _ Bureau of Regulatory Counsel 505 Executive House, P.O. Box 2357

%g3 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 01 &

/

March 17, 1980 #

o3;

$ Uetw.: q hr. Steven C. Sholly Z MAR 20 ga* 1 7

304 South Market Street' 9 '

om$hff,,j$"f c

Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 E-"

Q

Dear Mr. Sholly:

N

$$ hf Enclosed are the Connotraealth's responses to your interrogatories and document requests. You will note that we have objected to your interrogatory numbered 08-009, although I am sure that you can redraft it so that it overcomes our objections.

You will also note that your interrogatory numbered 08-002 was interpreted very narrowly. This interrogatory could have been objectionable because the word " sufficiency" is susceptible of so many meanings. We were mindful of the protection given by the NRC rules particularly in 10 C.F.R. 52.715(c), which allows representatives of interested states to participate without taking "a position with respect to the issue."-

Therefore, we did not interpret your second interrogatory to be a request for a Connorraealth position on whether the Licensee s plan is adequate or sufficient to justify restart. In any case, such a position would be articulated through counsel and not through Connonmalth staff. Moreover, a question on legal sufficiency would not be appropriate for discovery, but should be a matter reserved for legal arguments by counsel for the parties at a later point in the proceedings. Finally, we were mindful that the Board has ruled in its third Special Prehearing Conference Order at page 5 that it would " accept energency planning contentions which specify local circumstances raising questions about the adequacy of the Licensee's EPZ's but reject unspecified contentions which challenge the basic concept of the 10-mile and 50-mile EPZ's." We concluded that the only non-objectionable interpretation of the interrogatory was to construe it as a question about whether the EPZ's drawn by the Licensee were different from those drawn by the Conmonwealth and that the Coamonwealth would therefore have to regard the Licensee's EPZ's as insufficient.

You requested in your instructions that interrogatories be answ red by

" officers of the Co:monwalth," which term we have taken to mean Coanonwealth employees, rather than elected or cabinet officers. The name of "the person (s) supplying the answer," which you requested be contained in the answer to each interrogatory, we have understood as the person taking final ,

8004140 o.g.

Mr. Steven C. Sholly Page 2 March 17, 1980 responsibility for the answer, although he or she may have consulted with others in the course of preparing the answer. -

Very truly yours, KARIN W. CARTER Assistant Attorney General KWC:dk Enclosure t

I t

I l

-