ML19305E148: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 17: Line 17:
=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:'
{{#Wiki_filter:'
-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board In the Matter of                            X HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.                      Docket 50-466 X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board In the Matter of                            X HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.                      Docket 50-466 X
(Allens Creek Unit 1)                      X TexPIRG's RESPCNSE TO APPEAL CF POITHOFF          .
(Allens Creek Unit 1)                      X TexPIRG's RESPCNSE TO APPEAL CF POITHOFF          .
Line 23: Line 22:
The Board in the instant order ruled that Potthoff contention        <
The Board in the instant order ruled that Potthoff contention        <
6 regarding biomass conversion of energy is not admissible into          I controversy.
6 regarding biomass conversion of energy is not admissible into          I controversy.
The Board essentially ruled that the contention failed to show
The Board essentially ruled that the contention failed to show any " environmental superiority" of biomass conversion. (relative to nuclear power). Petitioner did allege, however, that such energy production is " environmentally preferable." Surely the Board ddes not expect to hold a non-lawyer such as Mr. Potthoff to diptinguishing any semantic subtleties between " preferable" and " superiority." Thus, the remaining question is what form of basis is the petitioner required to show?
                                                                              .
any " environmental superiority" of biomass conversion. (relative to nuclear power). Petitioner did allege, however, that such energy production is " environmentally preferable." Surely the Board ddes not expect to hold a non-lawyer such as Mr. Potthoff to diptinguishing any semantic subtleties between " preferable" and " superiority." Thus, the remaining question is what form of basis is the petitioner required to show?
We believe it is obvious that Mr. Potthoff's contention should be regarded as an allegation that the EIS is insufficient. At S.9-7, the Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement
We believe it is obvious that Mr. Potthoff's contention should be regarded as an allegation that the EIS is insufficient. At S.9-7, the Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement
     */  That provision of the rules provides that any party may bring before the Appeal Board whether a petitioner's intervention request should have been wholly denied.        In the alternative, we request that this document be considered al a rempawe            '
     */  That provision of the rules provides that any party may bring before the Appeal Board whether a petitioner's intervention request should have been wholly denied.        In the alternative, we request that this document be considered al a rempawe            '
to Mr. Potthoff's appeal.
to Mr. Potthoff's appeal.
S 0 0 4 2 3 063kr
S 0 0 4 2 3 063kr
                                                            . . . .


,
    .
2.
2.
considers as an alternative " Photosynthetic materials and organic wastes."
considers as an alternative " Photosynthetic materials and organic wastes."
Line 46: Line 40:
         * / Incidently, we would point out that Dr. Art Few of Rice University won the Mitchell Prize for his paper on biomass conversion which suggested that biomass is the most efficient, feasible, and economic form of solar energy production.
         * / Incidently, we would point out that Dr. Art Few of Rice University won the Mitchell Prize for his paper on biomass conversion which suggested that biomass is the most efficient, feasible, and economic form of solar energy production.


                                                                                        ,
      .
O
O
: 3.                                                  r in the FS-FES relates to land usage. ("The land requirements                    ;
: 3.                                                  r in the FS-FES relates to land usage. ("The land requirements                    ;
are greater than the proposed ACUGS...The staff does not believe that growing plants for electrical energy production is acceptable in Texas." at S.9-7).                                                            i But utilizing marine plants grown in the Gulf a# Mexico, as                !
are greater than the proposed ACUGS...The staff does not believe that growing plants for electrical energy production is acceptable in Texas." at S.9-7).                                                            i But utilizing marine plants grown in the Gulf a# Mexico, as                !
stated in Potthoff contention 6, obviously does not entail land usage.      The environmental reservation as stated in the FS-FES does not apply then.
stated in Potthoff contention 6, obviously does not entail land usage.      The environmental reservation as stated in the FS-FES does not apply then.
Petitioner Potthoff has challenged the EIS' discussion of alternatives in this proceeding, and his inclusion as an inter-venor is called for in order to further " careful and informed
Petitioner Potthoff has challenged the EIS' discussion of alternatives in this proceeding, and his inclusion as an inter-venor is called for in order to further " careful and informed decision-making" required by NEPA.                                            .
.
decision-making" required by NEPA.                                            .
:
r Respectfully Submitted, d            1 James Scott, Jr.
r Respectfully Submitted, d            1 James Scott, Jr.
Counsel for TexPIRG
Counsel for TexPIRG I  Clarence Johnson, certify that this document has been served upon the Atomic Licensing Appeal Board and the following individuals:by deposit in the U.S. Mail on or before Mar.,Q.'( 1980 Newman    Copeland. Potthoff, Schinki, Wolfe, Doherty, Lowerre          Hindersteint McCorkle. Marrack Doggett, Bakert and Bishop.                          .
                                                                                        ,
                                                                                .
I  Clarence Johnson, certify that this document has been served upon the Atomic Licensing Appeal Board and the following individuals:by deposit in the U.S. Mail on or before Mar.,Q.'( 1980 Newman    Copeland. Potthoff, Schinki, Wolfe, Doherty, Lowerre          Hindersteint McCorkle. Marrack Doggett, Bakert and Bishop.                          .
                                                                -
1
1
                                                      '
                                                       >l            '
                                                       >l            '
i
i o,-
                                                '
o,-
                                                       .yv A
                                                       .yv A
                                                                  ,
                                                                       %e u W [: ' " /
                                                                       %e u W [: ' " /
                                                     ~-
                                                     ~-

Latest revision as of 13:26, 1 February 2020

Response in Support of R Potthoff Appeal Re Denial of Petition to Intervene.Potthoff Contention Should Be Regarded as Allegation That EIS Did Not Address Biomass Conversion. W/Certificate of Svc
ML19305E148
Person / Time
Site: Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date: 03/31/1980
From: Jeffrey Scott
TEXAS PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP
To:
NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
NUDOCS 8004230035
Download: ML19305E148 (3)
v • d • e


Text

'

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board In the Matter of X HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. Docket 50-466 X

(Allens Creek Unit 1) X TexPIRG's RESPCNSE TO APPEAL CF POITHOFF .

Re: PETfITICN 'IO INTERVENE On Mar. 11, 1980 the Board in the above-styled proceeding denied a petition for leave to intervene by Rick Potthoff. Pur-suant to 10 CFR 2.741 A, Intervenor TexPIRG files this response to the denial in whole of his petition before the Appeal Board. */

The Board in the instant order ruled that Potthoff contention <

6 regarding biomass conversion of energy is not admissible into I controversy.

The Board essentially ruled that the contention failed to show any " environmental superiority" of biomass conversion. (relative to nuclear power). Petitioner did allege, however, that such energy production is " environmentally preferable." Surely the Board ddes not expect to hold a non-lawyer such as Mr. Potthoff to diptinguishing any semantic subtleties between " preferable" and " superiority." Thus, the remaining question is what form of basis is the petitioner required to show?

We believe it is obvious that Mr. Potthoff's contention should be regarded as an allegation that the EIS is insufficient. At S.9-7, the Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement

  • / That provision of the rules provides that any party may bring before the Appeal Board whether a petitioner's intervention request should have been wholly denied. In the alternative, we request that this document be considered al a rempawe '

to Mr. Potthoff's appeal.

S 0 0 4 2 3 063kr

2.

considers as an alternative " Photosynthetic materials and organic wastes."

Thus, the contention is a direct challenge to the consideration of biomass given by the Staff.

The FS-FES concludes at S.9-9 that "the lack of demonstrated technology on a commercial basis eliminates the potential future energy sources from cassideration as alternatives for central station power generation by the 1980s."

Mr. Potthoff has provided an arguable basis for disagreeing with that conclusion. He cites a report indicating a capital cost half that of the Allens Creek unit. If the petitioner is correct then denial of the alternative by the FS-FES because it is not a reasonable alternative is inaccurate. */ The FS .FES  !

concedes the technical feasibility of methane conversion, but questions "the economics of the process." (at S.9-7)

Therefore, the Midland decision cited by the Board in rejecting this contention is not applicable. Consumers Power Comnany (Mid-land Units 1 and 2) 7 NRC 155, 162 (1978) relates to a contention regarding Staff analysis of coal generation, in which intervenors argued that the Staff's cost estimates were excessive. But, in that case, the Staff had not rejected coal generation because of feasibility or economics, but due to adverse environmental impacts. On the contrary, in the instant contention the Staff's objection relates more to economic feasibility then to environ- ,

mental ramifications.of biomass conversion.

~

The o'ly n substantial environmental objection to biomass raised

  • / Incidently, we would point out that Dr. Art Few of Rice University won the Mitchell Prize for his paper on biomass conversion which suggested that biomass is the most efficient, feasible, and economic form of solar energy production.

O

3. r in the FS-FES relates to land usage. ("The land requirements  ;

are greater than the proposed ACUGS...The staff does not believe that growing plants for electrical energy production is acceptable in Texas." at S.9-7). i But utilizing marine plants grown in the Gulf a# Mexico, as  !

stated in Potthoff contention 6, obviously does not entail land usage. The environmental reservation as stated in the FS-FES does not apply then.

Petitioner Potthoff has challenged the EIS' discussion of alternatives in this proceeding, and his inclusion as an inter-venor is called for in order to further " careful and informed decision-making" required by NEPA. .

r Respectfully Submitted, d 1 James Scott, Jr.

Counsel for TexPIRG I Clarence Johnson, certify that this document has been served upon the Atomic Licensing Appeal Board and the following individuals:by deposit in the U.S. Mail on or before Mar.,Q.'( 1980 Newman Copeland. Potthoff, Schinki, Wolfe, Doherty, Lowerre Hindersteint McCorkle. Marrack Doggett, Bakert and Bishop. .

1

>l '

i o,-

.yv A

%e u W [: ' " /

~-

l

/ 7 v

a

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19305E148&oldid=2373662"