ML19254D037

Responds to 790806 Ltr Requesting Specific Contentions. Cooling Lake Dam Will Create Flood Hazard for Valley Lodge Residents.Suggests Cooling Tower as Alternative to Proposed Lake

ML19254D037
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	09/18/1979
From:	Carrick D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
NUDOCS 7910220037
Download: ML19254D037 (2)

Text

-

c, T 000(ET NUMEDs N . -

,/,b #8c' as

$ 50o.&U% L%. [3 Ig Sox 409 Wagon Rd. Rfd.

SEP 1g gg7g y 11 Wallis, Texas T7485 #1 ew a*

o~*%y September 10, 1979 lE 3

Counsel for NRC Staff 4 m US Nuclear Regulatory Com . oion SEgg Washington, D. C. 20555 SEP 181979 Attention: Docketing and Services In the matter of: Houston L16 hting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-466 Gentlemen:

In reply to your letter of August 6, 1979 requestin6 specific contentions, I do herby set forth the following contentions:

1. I contend that the nuclear reactor 5 alles from my home poses a danger to me and my family. I as v~ 7 auch afraid of the dan 6er it would pose from the possibility of escaping radiation or a melt-down of the cone. Radiation levels are presently the subject of dispute--in re$ard to human tolerance of radiation levels.

2. I contend that the das necessary for the cooling lake will block the overflow of the Brazos River during flood stages and create a "new" flood hazard for the residents of Valley Logge Subdivision in which I reside. In the past, Allens Creek Area has provided an area for overflow to disperse and now this area is removed. This will definitely have an effect on risin8 water in my subdivision. This is a relatively low area and even inches can be critical in a flood.

3 I contend that until the US Nuclear Commission solves the problem of the disposal of spent waste we have no business creating more waste. I further object to it being stored on site as an unsatisfactory manner of dealing with a deadly serious problem. ~.laste has been reported leaking from its

" safe" containers on numerous occaalonsa.

4. I contend that if HIAF insists on a nuclear plant that it, should be moved to the South Texas Site as a last resort.

This site is further removed from the efffBMiouston's growing population. This site would espec R D' "

have a significantly lower population than tk2'p;a.in llensthe future:

Or44k>

Site. The unspoiled area we now have west of3 6uston wouTd be spared a nuclear complex. This vast acreageiawned by.

HId? would not become contaminated by radiation.so nearto Houston's growin6 rural subdivisions. % cWat- site _

, .. g bas adequate cooling water available for one .aore reactor.

The Allens Creek Site requires the use if R5H i6nal water , 7. .

~ ~ ~" '

from the Brazos River.

l 9yQ {f& 9 791022

Dorothy F. Carrick--Docket 50-466--Page 2--deptember10, 1979

5. I contend that a cooling tower is a preferred alternative to the proposed la2e because a cooling tower would save watar particularly since there is a shortage of good surface drin.cing water in Houston needed to help combat' the subsidence probles due to water well useage. A cooling tower would be less expensive, use less land and present less of a hazard to area residents in regard to radiation levels in the lake--cecause radiation levels are in dispute in regard to human safety. Further, the use of a cooling tower eliminates the necessity of the v2st da22ing required for the cooling lake, and the increased threat to my sub-division, Valley Lodge, of flooding by the 3razos River when its in various flood stages.

fours truly,

~. , ;r .

Darthy F. Carrick e