ML20210A357
| ML20210A357 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/12/1985 |
| From: | Johnson G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210A361 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#485-175 CH, NUDOCS 8511150001 | |
| Download: ML20210A357 (3) | |
Text
-
{pf v
l "if)yp Y
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
/7pp/g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
b$['%
NO&
BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
'k'[f
!l' In the Matter of GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR DocketNo.50-289(CH)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, i
UnitNo.1)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO GPU l'
NUCLEAR PETITION TO INTERVENE I.
INTRODUCTION I
Pursuant to the Comission's Notice of Hearing issued on September 5, 1985, GPU Nuclear Corporation timely filed a " Petition for Leave to Intervene" (Petition) in the captioned proceeding on October 21, 1985. By this Petition, GPU Nuclear Corporation seeks to be made a party to the hearing provided to Charles Husted by the Commission. The NRC l
Staff does not oppose GPU Nuclear Corporation's Petition as explained L
below.
II. DISCUSSION I
InitsPetition,GPUNuclearCorporation(Petitioner)assertsasa basis for admission as a party to the proceeding its interest as the l
employer of Charles Husted both at the time of the incidents which are the subject of the instant proceeding, as well as currently.
Petitioner asserts its interest "to resolve in an adjudicatory forum the concerns L
0511150001 85ADOCK 05000 89 l
PDR PDR 0
L.
, i that led to limitations on [Mr. Husted's] employment... as an instructor and as a licensed operator at TMI-1."
Petition, at 1.
Petitioner also asserts that the outcome of the proceeding will affect its interests as the employer not only of Mr. Husted, but possibly of others in Petitioner's employ. M.
Finally, Petitioner asserts that its interest will be affected by the likelihood that other individuals employed by Petitioner may be identified as witnesses Y or "may otherwise become involved in the proceeding." M.,at2.
These assertions, by and large, indicate that the instant proceeding may affect the manner in which Petitioner may utilize one or more of its employees in its safety-related nuclear operations. This is sufficient we believe, to establish the necessary standing to intervene. Subject to the Petitioner's satisfying the further requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(b), the Staff does not oppose admission of Petitioner as a party to this proceeding.
- f The possibility that a corporation's employees may be called as witnesses to a Commission proceeding would not appear by itself to be an injury falling within the " zone of interests" protected by either the Atomic Energy Act or the National Environmental Policy Act.
Cf., Consumers Power Company (Palisades Nuclear Power FaciliTf), LBP-81-26,14 NRC 247 (1981).
'o 4 III. CONCLUSION l
Based on the foregoing and subject to GPU Nuclear's satisfying the further requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b), the Staff does not oppose GPU Nuclear's petition to intervene.
Respectfully submitted, f~
.e,
7,4%
t'
([ v
' George E.
ohnson Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 12th day of November, 1985 i
i l
l I