ML19254D159

Submits Contentions in Opposition to Licensing of Facility. Alleges That Location of Facility Is Very Populated & Therefore Unsuitable for Nuclear Power Plant in Addition to Absence of Safe Disposal Site for Radwaste

ML19254D159
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	09/12/1979
From:	Lemmer R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Sohinki S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
References
NUDOCS 7910220452
Download: ML19254D159 (2)

Text

Y 00Cnu nu.G a 9 6 , pCD. & UUi, fAC. Y M k

9 September 12, 1979 [c-\\197/ g Q 9 ocexmo Stephen M. Schin%1 SEP1gISIS g.

Counsel for N. R. C. Staff '

SEP 181823 > .p U. 5. I;uclear Regulatory Com:ission e m . .e m. s ,.

Washington, D. C. 20555 1 ***

Docket 50-466 iIry V

Dear Sir:

I would like to state below my contentions against the licensing of the Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station.

I contend that the present site is unsuitable for the placement of a nuclear powe" plant--No. 1. It would seem to se with the great grouing population taking place along Interstate 10, Highway 1093, Highway 359, and ofcourse the Richmond-Rosenberg Area--

locating the Allens Creek Nuclear Plant at Wallis is a bad idea.

Even by your own estimates there will be 4,530,000 people living within 30 miles of the plant--surely there is a better less popu-lated area available! Residential area's in Houston are spreading fest at a very fast perhaps surprising pace. In the 1970 census, the Richmond-Rosenber$ Area had a population of 17,335 while today the Rosenberg Cha=ber of Co=merce estinates that there are 27,^00 persons in the city. The Area Council of Houston estimates Ft.

Send County will have 230,498 people by the year 2000. Your Nov-ember 1978 Final Environmental Statement listed 145,000 in the 0-20 miles from site for the year 2000. Your figure for the year 2020 in the 0-20 miles area from site was 202,000. It seems to me that there is justification to totally reevaluate the fea'ibility of the present site I contend that the present location of the 3ay City Nuclear Site is the proper place to put one additional 1200ml nuclear plant reactor if one more is to be bu'.lt. The area has already beco=e an industrial location of sorts; the area around Wallis has not and is sainly residential, ranching and agriculture. This choice of locations does core to preserve the overall enviornuent by containing nuclear development. Using the present location at 3ay City would free the vast acreage in Walli.s. held by H. L. & P.

for more acceptable use also being better for the arriernment.

The population density in Matagorda county is estimated to be 53,497 in the year 2000 by the Area Council of Houston contrasted with Ft. Hend estimating 230,498. The cooling lake at the 3ay City site could handle this additional reactor and spare.the Brazos of further depletion. Good drinking water is' a valued coamodity in the Houston area and this should be given full '

value.(Contention N. 2) ~

2 )[9 I contend that as yet this cou~try has no safe disposal site for hiSh-level radioactive :ateriais and having according..to the Texas Inergy .idvisory Ocuncil (7olume 4, Number 57, Augu_st_3, 1979) tens of millions of gallons of high-level waste already stored on government reservations such as Richland, .lashington and 7 9102 2 0 M '2--

Ai%en, South Caroling--there should be no more permits issued until this matter is resolved. It seems from the various news media reports that the temporary facilities are plagued by leaks which conceivably endanger the local citizens. I contend that this permit be denied because of the complete lack of permanent storage locations.(Oontention No. 3)

I contend with more emphasis on conservation it is possible to do without nuclear power as an ener6y source. It should be regarded as the energy of last resort. The N. R. C. should promote tax breaks for consumer insulation, higher utility rates for commercial users (this has the additional benefit of encouragin$

them to become ener67 independent, peak hour rates, inter-connected pipelines between H. L. & P. and other utility systems and consumer education whenever possible. (Contention N. 4) radiation I contend that low-level /usually dismissed by so many nuclear proponents as of little or no concern is possibly quite a serious health hazard. I favor a ban on the licensing of new nuclear plants until a concensus can be reached amon6 our avail-able supply of experts on the subject. The BIER report concluded that a concensus was not available at this time.(Iexas Inergy Advisory Council 7olume 4, Nu.nber 57, August 3, 1979)

( Contention No. 5)

I contend that solar energy is much preferred and should be given full support. Solar energy deserves to share a greater portion of the reses.rch money made available for energy. Contention No. 6)

Sincerely, u

Rosemary N. Lemmer g 11423 Ca2 Spring C1 Houston, Texas 77043 R

- 2 180 .