ML19259D568

Responds to Request for Submittal of Specific Contentions. Alleges That Problems of High Level Radwaste & Spent Fuel Storage & Transportation Have Not Been Solved So as to Permit Licensing of Plant

ML19259D568
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	09/11/1979
From:	Wilson C AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Sobinki S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
References
NUDOCS 7910250111
Download: ML19259D568 (2)

Text

00CXLI huMMR ERQQ -

& UE fJGa. D

~ .

• ~....r~

i 002 Ong -

5tephen H. Schinki U. S. Nuclear Re5ulatory Co= mission gg8Ea Jashin6 ton, D. o. 20520  ; SEP 181979 In the Matter of: Houston Lightin6 and Power Company ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generatin6 Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-466 Gentlemen:

This is to repy with your request for a supple = ental letter providing specific contentions. My contentions are listed below as follows:

1. I object to the radiation risk imposed on me and my family by the construction of the Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station. According to your book Final dupplement dated August 1973, I reside closer than previously thought; I now estimate my distance fron the reactor at between 30 and 33 miles. In the event of a serious problem at your plant--

I would evacuate my home if I knew of c problem and I feel this constitutes proper interest.

2.

I contend that the western side of Houston should be left free of hazards such as could Occur with a Nuclear plant--

the western areas are being developed into lovely residential subdivisions around Katy (19 miles from site); Pecan Hills, Indian Hills, Foster Creek Estates, osaver Creek Istates and many others much-much closer to the reactor. On the other hand Bay City is already contaminated nuclear complex-wise--

why not put it there. This would free the west of Houston, to remain safe for the greater number of people. By using less land, you also spare the Brazos of good surface water which is of great value to the people of the area. I therefore, contend that the plant should ff built; be built in 3ay City.

3. I contend that the licensing if this plant should be denied because as of yet there is not solution for hign-level radio-active waste and spent fuelv-storage. I object also, to the idea of of radioactive materials being transported down II0 to some out of state depository. This makes me participate in the risky business of highway accidents which are sure to occur as the number of plants increase. There are statitics about misles traveled versus accidents occuring--I do not :ee what would exempt radio active materials from these facts. I live very close to Il0 and feel threatened!

4. I contend that a solid waste plant would be more suitable for this site. This would be in line with conserving our resources and also take care of part of Houston's garbage problem. I have rsad where these systems worz very well in other places and would hope solid waste could be considered in this case.

1213 159 7 910250 k k

.- Page 2

5. I contend that the licensing process for this plant should be held back until President Carter, congress, the NRC and the public has had tine to evaluate and decide what they thina about nuclear power in light of the incident at Three

.111e Island. I also, think it very odd this process ic being allowed to continue during a period when licensing is prohibited.

I think a six month study period followin6 President Carter's Special Oo.nsittee Reportins date would be only reasonable.

P]DR BRGNAL uC Connie ',filson r'(C* a n o c3 p - -

- s u:ui, z,,,

Hottag-L, c .a 151

• - g y,ca

@f 1ilU.' fog w 7'mep us f,; air ns . ute  %

n:..m. : ,

. T '6@,1klS74 h7p t

236

'_ g5, & .d

\

u;

\4 s . c .? . .

% t& . . . -

. _ _ , . .