ML20009A437

Supports Licensing of Facilities

ML20009A437
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	06/26/1981
From:	Eastman K AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8107130083
Download: ML20009A437 (2)

Text

. _ . _ _ . _ _ _ - - _ _ _ . _ _ _ - ._. .

- n . - -

/

"; '--

• N 0.?:?.1 qW,qq E Q-g v.; l ..

e I, b ys 1

g 1

bL '

1 .;

(kJUL 10 M a$ - L -

n M, , _.. .im d _astman t

gC a uA # p, y .g 105 Churchwood 3an Antonio, Tx. 78148 4

g to > .. M June 26, 1981

~: ..

Cear Mr. Bechhoefer, i I am writing this letter to you solely on my own behalf, NOT as a representative of Citi:: ens Concerned About Nuclear Power.

- I have been a member of CCANP since December 1979, and became involved wi th the interven tion at about the time of the Show-Cause order. I attended both the November and March prehearing conferences, as well as a few days of the hearing.

Over this time, I have learned many things (I am only 19 years old), but have also been disappointed on many occaisons.

There have been many times when it appeared that CCANP might not even participate in these proceedings, and I believed we had finally overcome all obstacles. Like the other parties to this hearing, CCANP had truly Soped that i t would be over with before September. Personally speaking, I would like to see Lanny Sinkin go to class once and awhile. But it looks J

like he will begin next semester the same way he ended the last one.

l

! ^ince the Board has scheduled the hearings to continue in Houston, CCANP r

and Lanny Sinkin are faced wi th three choices: 1)Lanny can cut class l*-

2) CCANP can attempt to find an attorney, or 3) CCANP can just not partici-pate.

I am shocked at your decision to continue in Houston for two reasons.

First/ I think that each partner to the "M' should have a portion of the hearings in i ts city, ei ther divid . t : ty among them, or based upon their s6are of the 3TNP(Austin has lh%; san 3 y.ic has 28%). Secondly, I cannot 8 N

l believe that you told the recresentative of the League of Women '/oters g gs

! that you objected to holding hearings in Austin because of a Seotember

, 8107130083 810626 l PDR ADOCK 05000498 H

PDR__ ._ __ __ _ , _ . , _ _ . _ . _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _

is -

bond issue or referendum. She said that your decision was based upon the fact that the Board tried to stay out of politics. Making the decision NO,T to hold the hearings in Austin, based upon upcoming political events, is in itself a political decision. It is an attempt to squa:sh publici ty about the STNP, which simply vill not work. (By the way, Austin will have a referendum in Nnyember, not September,so if the Board wishes to stay unpoli tical, September hearings in Austin would be better than October hearings. San Antonio will have a bond issue in August or September, but i t is of no political concern, as citizens do not have the right to vote on this issue, 2

and the San Antonio city council would approve it even if the STNP sank through the ground.)

Austin owns a share of this project, and should be included as a hearing site. I :: ope that you will give serious consideration to reconsidering your previous decision.

Respectfully submitted for the record

, , ~

g .+

Kim Eastman

,=m , . - - - - - - - < - -,-- ,-,-- - . ,-. - - . , - - . - - - -

r -- -,-r - r