ML19309E900

Requests Reversal of ASLB 800311 Denial of Fh Potthoff Petition to Intervene.Latitude Should Be Granted to Layperson Authoring Legal Document.Supports Admittance of Contention Re Marine Biomass Energy Production

ML19309E900
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	03/21/1980
From:	Doherty J DOHERTY, J.F.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19309E906	List: ML19309E900 ML19309E914
References
NUDOCS 8004240548
Download: ML19309E900 (3)

Text

- _ - - ..-..--.. x

,O

.o "UIhITED 'S1 ATES OF A!! ERICA 4

" " '-" '-~

.ns..

, ~

NUCLFAR REGULATORY COMMIGSION ' '

@ R

' BEFORM 'pr:g Apo Tri q psy sin nT"afsT"O iPPai, BOARD ff ,, ,,m g Alan S. Rosenthal Chair - '  ; eame Dr. John H. Buck , Member

- 't --

Michael C. Farrar,, Member ,,. p . It -

0}- MAR 2 5 GSO> 'I

• ;,cifiieof ts/Secrebry Jn the Matter of: .

~ 'o r -Docketing & Senke

- t ' manch 8 H0 3Toli IIGIITING AND POWER COMPANY (Allens Ordek'Uuclear Generating ., Docket No. 50-466 I

- ~ ' ' N Station, Unit 1) '

APPEAL IN BEHALF OF F. H. .POTTHOFF,- III, PETITIONER '

John

.:..c.. . .

F._ Doherty, of 4327 Alconbury Lane, Houston, Texas,

- . ~

files this," Appeal in behalf of F. H. Potthoff,T.II7 of Houston .

Texas, an Petitioner for leave to Intervene in the above Con-struction license proceeding.. ,This filing is pursuant to-the Licensing Board Order of March. 11, 1930 (here after' Order")

~

unpagek9,tbat, ,

," [a] party. other. than the Petitioner .m' ay appeal to the Appeal Board on the question wheter any peti- '

tion fo,r leave to intervene should have been wholly denied."

F. H. Potthoff was wholly denied in.six contentions, havidg , -

established standing,(Order, pg. ~12). This Appeal is timely under this "Ri ht 6 of Appeal" (Ordor, pg.109), .: add':is ' based entirely-on.Y e-issde:

6fiadmissibility..of Contedtiori VI.' (Eidiibit)

Mr. Potthoff was denied. for failure to "Cp] rovide a basis for alleging that (such) a large scale marine biomass farm would be an environmentally superior alternative"*.:  ;. .

proposed project. (Order, pg. 12), Instead, Mr. Potthoff stated in his 6/1/79 submission of Contention VI (See Exhibit -

Attached) that, "(I) contend buildin6 and operating a marine biomass farm, or other biomass production systems, would be environmentally oreferable to ACliGS (Allons Creek Huclear Generating Station) and ask the Board to deny the permit undar the NEP1."

Q $ 8004240 5W

-,r b

. ,l , -

?p'

'$here the Licensing Board may have interpreted " preferable" as " superior", in Mr. Potthoff's behal( it appears it was not willing to infer that a Petitioner not trained in law mi Sht well presume that the basis would be obvious. .It appears'that Mr.

Potthoff thought the Board would take notic'e without a spe-cific reference to the advanta5es of biomass energy' production' to the South Texas region over the inundation of land for the cooling lake and land destruction for uranium mining to[ fuel ,

the project for 40 years.

The Appeal Board may :wish to note that when a layperson cr'ntes e a legal document, there is often some latitude allowed- .

be~cause of the given lack of training of the creator. Hence, in Eaton v.cBrown, 193 U.S 411, 24 S. Ct. 487, 48 L. Ed. 730, 1902.

JusticeHolacs,speakingforTheCourtsaidofawill,"@)here is no doubt either of the dan 6er in going beyond the'literdi and grammatica1 meaning of the words."

Yet, the court applied-the intent of the writer instead of her expression resulting  ;

in 'a different dispo'sition of her property. In the instant,.

. , - u  :. u s ai.

' situation,.Mr. Potthoff, being ' untrained, probably thought,the

~

..a~ ,

Board Would automatically infer,that the growing of plants

.v . . .

must have some a'rguable benefits over the effects of nuclear stations on the environment, and passed over their mention.

..~ . . . .

This 1? peal is not to argue that there are such superiorities, in this particular special licensing instance, but rather from

. e . i: ,i r i

the known generalities with regard to biomass conversion viewed l

as a national solution to energy supply, many superiorities have

' l been alleged, from which a' citizen-petitioner might well believe l

l 1

t .  % .

. . . - . . . . . . . . s. ....w

> - .i it unnecessary to indicate the advantages.

- Therefore, this Party preys the Appeal Board reverse the

,' Board Order of March 11, 1980 with regard to the Contention VI of F. H. Potthoff III, anladmit him as an Intervenor in

~ -

this proceeding for the purpose of arguing the' environmental superiority of marine biomass energy production.

Respectfull Submi ted, ohn F. Doherty CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " APPEAL IU BEHALF OF F. H. POTTHOFF III, PETITIONER" in the above captioned proceeding have been served on he following by deposit in the U. S. Postal Service, this~ .7/ 'of March, 1980:

1.

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.,, Chairman Richard Lowerre, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Asst. Att. General for Panel the State of Texas U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 12548 Washington, D.C. 20555 Capitol Station Austin, Tuxas 78711 Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Route 3, Box 305A Atomic Safety and Licensing Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 .

Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co==ission Docketing and Service Section

, Washington, D. C. 20555 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory J. Gregory Copeland,Esq. Commission Baker & Botts ,

Washington, D.C. 20555 '

One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 F. H. Pottheff III

' 7200 Shady Villa ;jf110 Jack Newman, Esq. Houston, Texas 77055 Lowenstein, Reis, Newman & Azelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. James M. Scott, Esq.

~

Washington, D. C. 20037 TexPIRG Bo'x 237 U. C.

. Univ. of Houston,

. Houston, Texas 7700l+ ,

1