ML19257A396

Response to Westinghouse Objection to Friends of the Filipino People Request to Intervene.No Delay or Prejudice Will Arise from Granting of Request.No Other Group Can Represent Interests of Petitioners

ML19257A396
Person / Time
Site:	05000574
Issue date:	12/19/1979
From:	Drew J FRIENDS OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8001040046
Download: ML19257A396 (3)

Text

. .

1. 4 3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (y

EC I9l3/$ ) I e

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ogw % g,,,, dj QW, /

In the matter of ) y 3/

) Doctet 50. 110-0495 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP. )

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

) (Application No. XSNM-1437)

REPLY OF FETITIONER 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 the 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 caused by petitioner's 1851 111 h 80 01 040DL4(

-2, intervention is made in the Westinghouse Answer. Given the nature and current status of this matter no prejudice to Westinghouse or delay 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 potentiai

.osues 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 pcople 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 rema.ining 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

.t-:

6

y =

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

The number of intervanors 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.

( -w

. . w. , - -

JAMES E. DREW 1712' N S tree t , N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 331-1639 Attorney for Petitioner /Intervenor Friends of the Filipino People f85i i13 M

4

//

• UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DRP.

C h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 dMy Q 0\-- .- -

Tiz 4 I IS k ~~

In the matter of ) 3 k%P

) Application No. 20 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP. ) Docket No. 50-574  % c'

)

(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 congressio devise proceduras allewing pub DUPLICATE DOCUMENT licensing decisions. 42 U.S.C. Entire document previously entered into system under:

section, NRC issued regulations g][, ,

insure compliance with this con 1851 114 " - fP9" [']

m

-