ML19309D147
| ML19309D147 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1980 |
| From: | Hancock D BAKER & BOTTS, HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| To: | TEXAS PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004100078 | |
| Download: ML19309D147 (21) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING ~ BOARD In the Matter of S S
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER S COMPANY S Docket No. 50-466 g --
S 4 (Allens Creek Nuclear S & '/ s g_.._
Generating Station, Unit S .' ? i ti No. 1) --
E l 'AR j n <.ar - k -c APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO TEXPIRG'S SEVENT SY NMUW.h7 SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO HOUSTON LIGHTING \' ." ', l 7[#'#C.',/k '!'
POWER COMPANY Y.
In response to the interrogat.ories propounded by Texas Public Interest Research Group, Inc., Houston Lighting
& Power (Applicant) answers as follows:
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Does [ sic] ACNGS plans call for a steam driven ~
feedwater pump (s) ?
ANSWER:
Yes.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Does Applicant taken [ sic] the position its feedwater pumps would have no emotive (sic] force in the event of closure of MSIVs?
ANSI :
v The steam-driven feedwater pumps have no motive force in the event of MISV closure. One electric-driven, 80041000TB onna100078
start-up feedwater pump may operate after a MSIV closure.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Provide reference to documentation of the responses to #2 and #1 above. Produce those documents for inspection.
ANSWER:
See ACNGS PSAR, Sections and 10.4.7 and Figures 10.1-la, -lb, and -2c.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Does the Applicant take the position that its feedwater pumps cannot operate under any circumstance when the water level is normal? If so, provide reference to any studies or. tests that confirm that belief. If not, explain those circumstances when it can operate.
ANSWER:
Applicant objects to this interrogatory because Applicant cannot understand the question asked. Applicant certainly believes that the ACNGS feedwater pumps will operate when the reactor vessel water level is normal. The question appears to be misstated or to use an assumption unknown to Applicant. For a description of the normal operation of the feedwater pumps, see PSAR, Chapter 10.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Will the Applicant use any float switches in the Scram Discharge Volume Tank (SDVT) ?
ANSWER:
Yes.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Does Applicant maintain that, in the event of SDVT switch failure and slowing of the CRD (. Control Rod Drive), it will not be slowed sufficiently to impair its reactivity control function? Produce and list by name all documents and studies within HL&P's possession that are relied upon in answering this interrogatory.
ANSWER:
Applicant objects to this question on the ground of vagueness. Applicant cannot justify hypothesizing that a SDVT switch will fail or that a single failure will cause any
" slowing of the CRD."
INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Will the Applicant take the position that its hydrogen monitoring system differs significantly from TMI's?
If so, then state in what ways it is different.
ANSWER:
Yes. The ACNGS hydrogen monitoring instrumentation is described in Section 7.5 of the PSAR. The TMI hydrogen monitoring method is discussed in Final Safety Analysis Report: Three Mile Island Nuclear Station--Unit No. 2.
TexPirg may draw its own conclusions about the differences.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
- Does Applicant believe that no explosion of hydro-gen occurred in the containment building at TMI in the March / April, 1979 accident? Produce and list the names of all documents or studies relied upon in answering this question.
ANSWER:
The extent of Applicant's knowledge about a possible hydrogen explosion in the TMI containment is limited to ihformation in public documents such as Three Mile Island:
R4 port to the Commissioners and the Public-(January, 1980)
,and Report of the President's Commission on'the Accident at Three Mile Island (October, 1979).
INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
Does Applicant plan a system for taking primary coolant samples which does not require entr, of any personnel into the containment building?
ANSWER:
Yes.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
What is the normal operating practice for personnel if the water level indicator shows " low"? !
, ANSWER: t Applicant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds of vagueness. TexPirg has identified neither the circumstances of the hypothetical low water level indication, the severity of the low water condition, nor any other indications or measurements which would indicate to operating personnel what appropriate actions to take. Without this information, Applicant cannot respond to the interrogatory.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
Provide the following information on the P. A.
[ sic] Robinson and Cedar Bayou Generating Plants:
(a). MWe capacity.
(.b) Average temperature of water at plant discharge outlet and cooling canal discharge point for (i) summer and (ii) winter.
ANSWER:
' (a) Plant MWe Cap.
P. H. Robinson 2314.5 Cedar Bayou 2295.0 l
4A -2+ m3~ss-2 4:1 -' . -. -_ -- 4.. , ,: , 1 rAa--s- _a-w :--- -;-- -- -,- 6-n a- --L+,- J -+--+ .- 1 n--,-,,-,s 6 ,m-r e .JL,-
'r
-L (b) Plant Location Month / Year Average Temp. l t
P. H. Robinson condenser January, 1979 64*F' outlet !
condenser July, 1979 104*F
] outlet 4
outfall to January, 1979 64*F Galveston Bay [
l
- outfall to July, 1979 91*F' I l Galveston Bay Cedar Bayou condenser January, 1979 69'F outlet
, condenser July, 1979 105'F ,
! outlet t
outfall to January, 1979 50*F i
- Trinity '
Bay outfall to July, 1979 87*F ,
Trinity i Bay .
INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
l Provide the following for the W. A. Parish Generating
! Plant:
(a) MWe capacity.
t (b) Average temperature of cooling lake for (i) i summer and (ii) winter.
\- (c) Water losses in acre ft./ year.
ANSWER:
I Ga) Capacity.was approximately 2650 Mwe as of January 1, 1979.
f (b) Temperatures at the W. A. Parish plant are recorded at the plant discharge canal. The average i temperature for January, 1979, was 69'F. The average
- temperature for July, 1979, was 110*F.
(c) Forced evaporation and miscellaneous industrial uses at the plant consumed 13,563.4 acre / feet of water in 1979. ,
INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
Is it HL&P's position that nuclear fission generation of electricity is environmentally superior to natural gas generation? If so, what is the basis for the alleged superiority.
[ sic]
ANSWER:
Applicant has not alleged a quantifiable superiority in environmental impact in favor of generating electricity by nuclear fission compared to generating electricity with natural gas.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
Can the P. A. [ sic] Robinson, Cedar Bayou, or
, Webster generating stations be converted to nuclear power plants, under current licensing requirements?
ANSWER:
Applicant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not related to any admitted contention.
Nonetheless, Applicant does answer that it has made no such investigation.
~
INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
/ Is it the position of HL&P that P. A. (sic] Robinson, i s/ Cedar Bayou, or Webster generating stations could be converted j l
l l
~
to coal generation units under existing air quality regulations and EPA non-attainment designations? If Yes, state any assumptions as to means of controlling or offsetting SO2' NOx, or particulate emissions.
ANSWER:
HL&P has not examined the conversion of Cedar Bayou or Webster to coal generation capability. HL&P did examine such a conversion at the P. H. Robinson plant and concluded that the likelihood of obtaining necessary permits and approvals under existing air quality regulations and EPA nonattainment designations is highly uncertain.
INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
Does HL&P believe it is entitled to an exemption for (sic) the Fuel Use Act of 1978 for:
(a)_ New natural gas plants?
(b) 1990 retirement of existing natural gas plants?
ANSWER:
La) HL&P has not evaluated the ability to obtain such an exemption for new natural gas plants.
(b) HL&P believes it will qualify for a five year
(.1990 through 1994). retirement exemption for existing natural gas plants. Whether HL&P can qualify for this exemption will, however, depend on laws and regulations existing at the time application for an exemption is made.
INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
N Name by title, and produce for inspection, any
} document in HL&P's possession which forecasts, predicts, I
r
J
~
hypothesizes, or describes possible effects of EPA regulations or non-attainment designations on industrial siting or electrical demand in the HL&P service area.
ANSWER:
Any document called for by this interrogatory may be inspected and copied by TexPirg at the Energy Development Complex.
INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
Is it HL&P's position that the front-end fuel cycle for nuclear power plants has less environmental impact than the analogous phase of natural gas electrical generation? If yes, state the manner in which the nuclear cycle is superior,
- and any documents relied upon in answering the interrogatory.
ANSWER:
Applicant objects to this interrogatory on the ground of vagueness. Applicant cannot ascertain the meaning of the phrase " analogous phase of natural gas electrical generation."
Moreover, Applicant has not alleged a quantifiable superiority i in environmental impact in favor of generating electricity by nuclear fission as compared to generating electricity with natural gas, in total or in part.
INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
Describe any expansion of electrical generating .
capacity involving natural gas as a fuel within the HL&P system during the last five years. The term " expansion" is meant to include the addition of gas turbine peaking units.
ANSWER:
4
_ See-the answer to Interrogatory No. 20.
T l
~ INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
What was the cost of each expansion stated in response to #19 above. (sic)
ANSWER:
Expansion of natural gas capacity in the last five years (1975 through 1979) and the associated cost of this expansion are as follows:
Installation MWe Date Cost T. H. Wharton 360 November, 1975 $45 million gas turbines Greens Bayou 360 December, 1976 $50 million gas turbines INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
Describe the extent of natural gas exploration activity undertaken by Houston Industries, Inc., or its subsidiaries, at the present time. Include: the current numbers of wells drilled and producing wells, the yearly production of natural gas, the approximate number of leases held and amount of acreage held for natural gas exploration either now or in the future.
AlSWER:
j A wholly-owned subsidiary of HL&P drilled 49 wells through December 31, 1978. Of these wells, 26 resulted in commercial producers, principally of natural gas. In 1978, 13 wells were drilled, and 4 proouced natural gas commercially.
Net production of natural gas for the account of this subsidiary i totaled about 11,049 million cubic feet of gas during 1978.
The subsidiary as of December 31, 1978, held a 50 percent interest in a venture that leased approximately 57,000 offshore acres. In addition to its active exploration, this subsidiary in August, 1978, became a limited partner in a drilling program by Shell Oil Company. At the end of 1978, this.
subsidiary was participating with Shell in 19 exploratory wells in 9 states.
S N
1 INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
)
Provide any estimates made by HL&p or for HL&P on the current and future supply of natural gas available in the intrastate and interstate market. Make all documents related to-this interrogatory available for inspection.
ANSWER:
HL&P has made no such estimates and had no such estimates made.
INTERROGATORY NO. 23:
Has HL&P's experiences indicated difficulty in maintaining natural gas facility air pollutants at environ-7 mentally safe levels? If so, describe the nature of the difficulties.
ANSWER:
All natural gas generating facilities are operating in compliance with applicable air quality standards.
INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
Describe and provide any internally generated or consultant generated reports or documents resulting from complaints of QC or QA engineers (such as those complaints noted in NRC inspection reports 78/14, 78/12, 79/09, and 79/04).
ANSWER:
The requested documents will be produced for inspection and copying at Applicant's Energy Development Complex.
i INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
Provide any interviews by HL&P (or summaries of interviews) between HL&P and Albert Fraley, Jr., of Brown &
's Root Construction Co., with respect to the firing or other activities of Dan Swayze.
} ,
_I ANSWER:
Applicant knows-of no interviews between HL&P personnel and Albert Fraley, Jr., Brown & Root. Construction Company, of the variety described in this interrogatory.
INTERROGATORY NO. 26:
Has HL&P or its personnel ever contacted the owner or any stockholder of Houston City Magazine regarding an article entitled " Einstein's Ghost: Trouble at Houston Lighting & Power's Nuclear Project," or any other article concerning construction problems at South Texas Project? If so, describe the nature of those contacts.
ANSWER:
Applicant knows of no contact between employees.of HL&P and the owner or any stockholder of Houston City Magazine regarding the cited article.
INTERROGATORY NO. 27:
Does HL&P have any position as to whether the firing of OC inspector Dan Swayze was proper and justified?
If so, explain that position.
ANSWER:
Applicant has no reason to disagree with the summary of facts and conclusions drawn in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Investigation Report No. 78-14, dated September 15, 1978. It is Applicant's understanding that this report covers the incident referenced in this interrogatory.
INTERROGATORY NO. 28:
Does HL&P believe ACNGS will provide less occupational radiation exposure than similar-sized BWR's operated by other utilities?
~
- s.
INTERROGATORY NO. 29:
State every fact and belief' relied upon in response to interrogatory #28.
l I
I
l ANSWER:
The HL&P Health Physics Program is described in Section 12.3 of the ACNGS PSAR. ACNGS is ccmmirted to Regulatory Guide 8.8, Rev. 2, and the plant is designed to ensure that occupational radiation exposures will be "as low as is reasonably achievable" (ALARA). HL&P anticipates that its success in minimizing occupational exposure will be no less than that of other utilities operating BWRs of similar size.
INTERROGATORY NO. 29:
State every differentiating characteristic--either in design or proposed operating procedure--for ACNGS which is relevant to reducing occupational radiation exposure comparative
[ sic) to other large BWR's such as Browns Ferry Brunswick 2, Dresden 1, 2, 3, Fitzpatrick, Oyster Creek, and Quad Cities 1, 2. Explain the manner in which that differentiating characteristic is relevant to occupational exposure levels.
ANSWER:
The design and basis for operating procedures for ACNGS relevant to occupational radiation exposure are primarily described in Chapter 12 of the PSAR and Chapter 5 of the FES. The corresponding designs and operating procedures for the other referenced BWRs is similarly contained in the respective SARs and FESS for those plants. TexPirg may draw its own conclusions as to differentiating characteristics.
INTERROGATORY NO. 30:
Does HL&P require that all operators in its nuclear power plant control rooms have college degrees?
\
ANSWER:
No.
INTERROGATORY NO. 31:
What is the method HL&P uses to select its potential control room operators. (sic] List every required qualification and every aptitude or proficiency test used in selecting potential operators.
ANSWER:
The minimum qualifications for ACNGS operating personnel are described in Section 13.1 of the ACNGS PSAR.
INTERROGATORY NO. 32:
The following questions relate to the computer on-line in int (sic] the control room of ACNGS.
(a) Explain the significance of the control room computer to the safety of the plant. In particular, to what extent is the computer relied upon by control room operators?
(b) How many processing units are utilized in the control room?
(.c) Describe the contingencies for computer hardware failure.
(d) Are their (sic] provisions for a back-up to the Central-Processing _ Unit (s)? Does use of the~back-up capability reduce-processing capability for lower priority operations? Is the.back-up CPU of equal capability in all respects to the unit it may replace?
(.e ) Does HL&P plan to have customary engineers on duty in the control room for maintenance, repair, and program alterations relevant to the data processing-
equipment? If not, how does HL&P plan to carry out those functions?
(f) Who will or has prepared the programs for use in the computer? '
(g) What standards are used in preparing the program (s)?
(h) Explain or describe how quality assurance for the programs is maintained during the' pre-test-technical review of programs utilized in the data processing equipment.
(i) How is quality assurance for program performance maintained during the testing of the program utilized in the data processing equipment? In particular, what standards must be met during the test period? Are the_
tests designed or reviewed by independent consultants? ,
(j)_ Have the programs been tested yet?
(k) How many computer terminals will there be in the control room?
(1) Will a printer be utilized during control room ope' rations?
(m) If "yes" to 1., what is the line speed of the-printer?
ANSWER:
- (a) The control room computer is not safety related.
(b) Six.
(c) See response (d) below. -
(d). Yes. No. -Yes.
(e). No. Maintenance, repair and program alteration;
'\' will be done by_the1 appropriate trained personnel as needed.
(f) General ~ Electric.
(g) None.
(h) Applicant assumes that TexPirg is inquiring about how General Electric assures quality in writing the program. General Electric informs Applicant that programs are written by qualified personnel, then reviewed independently.
(i) No formal testing is contemplated.
(j) No.
.(k) Two.
(1) A line printer will normally be on during operation.
(m). Six hundred lines per minute.
INTERROGATORY NO. 33:
List by title, and produce, every document within the possession of HL&P which relates to the computer planned
. for the control room.
ANSWER:
The documents requested are available for inspection and copying at the Energy Development Complex.
INTERROGATORY NO. 34:
List by title and produce for inspection every document HL&P plans to use in rebutting:
(a) Amended Additional Contention 1 of TexPIRG.
(b) Amended Additional Contention 2 of TexPIRG.
_ (c) AMENDED [ sic]' Additional Contention 3 of
'N TexPIRG.
(.dl Additional Contention 15 of TexPIRG.
(e). Additional Contention 22 of TexPIRG.
(fl Additional Contention 32 of TexPIRG.
-p
(g) Add'itional Contentions 34 and 48 of TexPIRG.
(h) Additional Contention 46 of TexPIRG.
(i) Additional Contention 47 of TexPIRG.
(j) Additional Contention 49 of TexPIRG.
ANSWER:
Applicant has not completed preparation of testimony or other parts of its affirmative case on these contentions.
Accordingly, Applicant cannot identify "every document" that might be used in rebuttal. Numerous documents have been identified to TexPirg in previous interrogatory answers and responses to request for production. When additional documents that are to be used in rebutting these contentions are identified, TexPirg will be informed promptly.
Not all documents requested have been identified.
All documents requested which are in Applicant's possession will be available at the Energy Development Complex, or objections will be interposed, within the time limits set forth in 10 C.F.R. S 2.741.
Respectfully submitted, C
OF COUNSEL: J. Gregory Copeland-C. Thomas Biddle, Jr.
BAKER & BOTTS Darrell Hancock-3000 One Shell Plaza Charles G. Thrash, Jr.
Houston, Texas 77002 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, Jack R. Newman AXELRAD & TOLL Robert H. Culp 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C.
ws ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY i
THE STATE OF TEXAS S S
COUNTY OF HARRIS S BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this. day personally appeared L. R. JACOBI,.who upon his oath stated that he has answered Interrogatories No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 2, 9, 10, 24, 25,-26, 27, 28, 29, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 of the foregoing Applicant's Response to TexPIRG's Seventh Set of Interrogatories to Houstor. Lighting & Power Company'in his capacity as Supervising Engineer for Houston Lighting & Power Company, and that all statements contained therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
L. R. Jacob _
re d SWORN TO before me on this the uW SUBSCRIBED Aay of Y / /,7 A f an/5 / , 1980.
Ni/f A?lbp/($/Y lotary Public in and for Harris County, Texas -
My Commission Expires E, l s /
./
I
,- ~ ~-
THE STATE OF TEXAS S S
COUNTY OF HARRIS S BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared W. F. McGUIRE, who.upon his oath. stated that he has answered Interrogatories No. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 34 of the foregoing Applicant's Response to TexPIRG's Seventh Set of Interrogatories to Houston Lighting & Power Company.in his capacity as Manager of the~ Environmental Protection Department for Houston Lighting & Power Company, and that all statements contained therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
Q McGuire A, SUBSCRIBED and pWORN TO before me on this the-1 8 M .._
t' / day of 7/ /[/ / /'/( / , 1980.
ff$/
^
N // h (/(~
Notary'Public in and for Harris County, Texas My Commission Expires . k
/
l l
+ W
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of S S
HOUSTON LIGHTING & S Docket No. 50-466 POWER COMPANY S S
(Allens Creek Nuclear S Generating Station, S Unit 1) S NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned at-torney herewith enters an appearance in the captioned matter.
In accordance with Section 2.713, 10 CFR Part 2, the following information is provided:
Name: Darrell Hancock Address: Baker & Botts 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone Number: 713-229-1234 Admission: Supreme Court of Texas U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Application pending) of Party: Houston Lighting & Power Company-
^
s s P. O. Box 1700
'\ Houston, Texas 77001 Darrell Hancock
. Dated at Houston, Texas, this 3rd day of f7hrch ,-1980. -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of S S
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY S Docket No. 50-466 S
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating S Station, Unit No. 1) S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing in the above-captioned proceeding were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, or by hand-delivery this 3<4 day of hk , 1980.
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Richard Lowerre, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel for the State of Texas U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 12548 Washington,-D. C. 20555 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Route 3, Box 350A Hon. Charles J. Dusek Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Mayor, City of Wallis P. O. Box 312 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Wallis, Texas 77485 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Hon. Leroy H. Grebe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission County Judge, Austin County Washington, D. C. 20555 P. O. Box 99 Bellville, Texas 77418 Chase R. Stephens Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary of the Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 R. Gordon Gooch, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Baker & Botts Board Panel 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C. 20006 Commission Washington, D. C.'20555 i
i
Steve Schinki, Esq. Carolina Conn Staff Counsel 1414 Scenic Ridge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Houston, Texas.77043 Washington, D. C. 20555 Elinore P. Cumings John F. Doherty Route 1, Box 138V 4327 Alconbury Street Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Houston, Texas 77021 Stephen A. Doggett, Esq.
Robert S. Framson P. O. Box 592 Madeline Bass Framson Rosenberg, Texas 77471 4822 Waynesboro Drive Houston, Texas 77035 Robin Griffith 1034 Sally Ann Carro Hinderstein Rosenberg, Texas 77471 8739 Link Terrace Houston, Texas 77025 Leotis Johnston 1407 Scenic Ridge D. Marrack Houston, Texas 77043 420 Mulberry Lane Bellaire, Texas 77401 Rosemary N. Lemmer 11423 Oak Spring Brenda McCorkle Houston, Texas 77043 6140 Darnell Houston,. Texas 77074 Kathryn. Otto Route 2, Box 62L F. H. Potthoff, III Richmond, Texas 77469 7200 Shady-Villa, #110 Houston, Texas 77055 Frances Pavlovic 111 Datonia Wayne E. Rentfro Bellaire, Texas 77401 P. O. Box 1335 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Charles Perez 1014 Montrose James M. Scott, Jr. Houston, Texas 77019 8302 Albacore Houston, Texas 77074 William Schuessler 5810 Darnell Bryan L. Baker Houston, Texas 77074 1118 Montrose Houston, Texas 77019 Patricia L. Strelein
- Route 2, Box 395C
'N Dorothy F. Carrick Richmond, Texas Box 409, Wagon =Rd. Rfd. #1 Wallis, Texas 77485 Glenn Van Slyke Donald D. Weaver 1739 Marshall P. O. Drawer V Houston, Texas 77098 Simonton, Texas 77476 Connie Wilson J. Morgan Bishop 11427 Oak Spring 11418 Oak Spring Houston, Texas 77043 Houston, Texas 77043 b6tAALA-l. YMC L- -
Darrell Hancock I
i h
N ,
, , . - ~- t