ML19257A659

Response in Opposition to Westinghouse Answer Objecting to Friends of the Filipino People Request to Intervene.Adopts Ctr for Development Policy,Movement for Environ Protection & Jn Perlas 790604 Consolidated Reply.W/Certificate of Svc

ML19257A659
Person / Time
Site:	05000574
Issue date:	12/19/1979
From:	Drew J FRIENDS OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8001070125
Download: ML19257A659 (4)

Text

4 j

c S$ [

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [ .

]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 G -

In the matter of )

e4 ,

) Docket No. 110-0495 D a E

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP. )

) Application No. XR-120 (Exports to the Philippines) ) Application No. XCOM-0013

) (Application No. XSNM-1437)

REPLY OF PETITIONER FRIENDS OF FILIPINO PEOPLE TO ANSWER OF WESTINGHOUSE ELECTIRC CORPORATION Westinghouse Electric Corporation has filed an Answer in this matter objecting to the request to intervene made by petitioner Friends of the Filipino People.

In its Answer the Westinghouse Electric Corporation makes essentially the same arguments as it earlier did in its Answer filed May 23, 1979 opposing requests to intervene made by The Center for Development Policy (" CDP"), The Movement for Environmental Protection ("PMEP"), and, Jesus Nicanor Perlas, III (Perlas). In its Answer, Westinghouse summarizes those earlier arguments and attaches the Answer it filed May 23, 1979.

It is the view of the Friends of tbo Filipino People that the Consolidated Reply filed by CDP, PMEP and Perlas on June 4, 1979 more than adequately met the arguments raised in the Westinghouse Answer of May 23, 1979. Therefore, because the arguments raised by Westinghouse now are essentially the same, the Friends of the Filipino People adopts as its own the arguments made by CDP, PMEP and Perlas in their Consolidated Reply filed June 4, 1979. A copy of the June 4, 1979 Consolidated Reply is attached hereto (Attachment 1) and made a part hereof.

In addition, the Friends of the Filipino People points out that no showing or even suggestion of prejudice or a delay cdused by petitioner's 1851 125 8001070

intervention is made in the Westinghouse Answer. Given the nature and current status of this matter no prejudice to Westinghouse or deley in the proceeding will occur if petition is granted intervention status.

Further, the argument regarding timeliness made by Westinghouse simply ignores the fact that only recently -- crystallized in the Commission Order of October 19, 1979 -- has this matter taken on a new character with new potential issues of a larger and deeper nature now realistically present and meaningfully available to be briefed and argued by participants. Whether the Commission has jurisdiction to consider the health and safety of the Filipino people is now a key issue in this matter. If this issue is determined in the affirmative, health and safety of the Filipino people will remain a key issue in the remaining proceedings. Petitioner herein filed its brief and motion to intervene promptly following the above set forth change in the nature and issues being and to be considered by the Commission. To argue that only those who sought to intervene before the issues in this case were enlarged to their present scope, were publicized, and further participation was invited, simply exalts form over substance and is contrary to the intent of Congress that there be participation of the public to the fullest extent possible in nuclear export proceedings.

Lastly, the interest of petitioner Friends of the Filipino People cannot be adequately represented by others. The Friends of the Filipino People is an organization of a different type and character than those who also have inter- '

vention motions pending. Friends of the Filipino People is a membership organ-ization with chapters and members in many cities throughout the United States.

Its concern and the concerns of its members encompass environmental, health and safety, and nuclear issues, but they are much broader. As a result, the I85l'126

Friends of the Filipino People appraoch the specific issues before the Commission from a different and broader context and based on a different and different type constituancy than other prospective intervenors. For a further discussion of the nature of the Friends of the Filipino People the Cormission is respectfully referred to the Identification of Petitioner section of petitioner's brief.

The number of intervenors in this matter is clearly manageable whatever the format for remaining proceedings is determined to be by the Commission.

Certainly, in considering and reaching a decision on issues of the importance as those raised by the pending Application, the Commission should continue to strive for the broadest possible public participation.

CONCLUSION For the reasons above set forth, petitioner Friends of the Filipino People submits that its motion to intervene and participate fully in further proceedings in this matter should be granted.

~ f' -

e-JAMEpE. DREW 1711 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 331-1639 Attorney for Petitioner /Intervenor Friends of the Filipino People 1851 127

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the REPLY GV PETITIONER FRIENDS OF FILIPINO PEOPLE TO ANSWER OF WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION was served upon the persons listed below by deposit in the U.S. mail (first class), postage prepaid, this 19th day of December, 1979.

Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Ronald J. Bettauer, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Assistant Legal Adviser for Nuclear Washington, D.C. 20555 Affairs U.S. Department of State Chase R. Stephens, Chief Washington, D.C. 20520 Docketing & Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Thomas R. Asher, P.C.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Matthew B. Bogin, Esquire 1232 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Howard K. Shapar, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20036 Joanna Becker, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director Earl Nicholas Selby, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2361 Columbia Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Palo Alto, California 94306 Carlton R. Stoiber, Esquire Barton Z. Cowan, Esquire Office of the General Counsel John R. Kenrick, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott Washington, D.C. 20555 42nd Floor, 600 Grant Street Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Peter Tarnoff, Executive Secretary U.S. Department of State Washington, D.C. 20520 r

- .V.

JAMES E. DREW 1851 128

p,  %

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

// hyCa

~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 DUN  ;- Q Q\- 4 -

~

JgIS.k. ~

In the matter of )

%:;4 A 3

) Application No. 20 WESTINGHOUSE ell?CT1 iC CORP. ) Docket No. 50-574 (b &

)

(Exports to the Philippines) * ) Application No. XCOM 0013

) Application No. XSNMO 1471

)

Petitioners' Consolidated Reply to Answers of Westinghouse Electric Corp. and the NRC Staff I. Introduction '.

The Westinghouse Electric Corp. (Westinghouse) and the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have filed answers in this matter urging the Commission to deny petitioners' status as intervenors and their request for a hearing. As the issues raised by Westinghouse and the NRC staff are in large respect similar, petitioners submit this consolidated reply.

II. Standing to Intervene Both Westinghouse and the staff argue that petitioners have no standing to participate in these proceedings. As shown below, petitioners have standing under all the applicable tests.

A. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act Explicitly Confers Standing to Intervene on All the Petitioners The Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978 ( " NNP A")

contains an express congressi devise procedures allowing pu DUPLICATE DOCUMENT licensing decisions. 42 U.S.

Entire document previously section, NRC issued regulatio entered into system under:

insure compliance with this c ANO h L851 129 i

" - *5"S*" M,-

N

• _