ML20104A442
| ML20104A442 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1979 |
| From: | Rentfro W AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903150104 | |
| Download: ML20104A442 (2) | |
Text
" ~.,
}
.} -
- Q os i
S
$5N 9-11
( g271970 h
(
9 9 a ** f IE 9
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g
/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION pg g g l
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD i
l In the Matter of
')
)
i HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)
DOCKET NO. 50-466
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
~~
"; ) -
- WAYNE-E. RENTFRO'S'
~
NOTICE OF APPEAL
-h._.
~
Ir accordance with CFR 10, Secd on 2.714a, I am hereby
~
l giving Notice of Appeal of the order from the Atomic Safety And Licensing Board. hold February 9, 1979, denying my petition for leave to intervene.
Brief
~
l It is my understanding' that U.S. Code 42 U.S.C.A. 2239 provides that in a construction perrJ t proceedings, any person i
l whose interest may be affected shall be admitted as a party to l
such proceedings.
s l
Such interest and standing has been p tablished, but the contentions are considered invalid because I did not petition for leave to intervene prior to 1975, and ther% gore forfeited my rights as an intervenor.
l The rejection of my contention regarding the location of Transmission Corridor la seems to be based on the assumption that because I have not moved and the transmission corridor has not been changed, all other environmental changes can automa-tically be discounted._ The fact that we live in a changing and l
dynamic environment does not seem to have been given due considera-l tion.
I contend the boards should make every effort to consider all changes in the environment outside as well as inside this i
facility.
Rejection of the contention appears to be based solely on the concept that I am no more harmed than I ever was.
l That the rejection of my contention concerning the health hazards associated with living beneath high voltage lines was P, M. d 2 A
( 77s 36ofoh k
j i
q J
-)
l l
l not adequately demonstrated-by the content of previous submis-
~
l sions, is misleading.
The intent was to point out that thou-sands.of pages of testimony.by expert witnesses before the U.S.
l Environmental Protection Agency, The New York Public Service Cornission, The' Minnesota Department of Health, and others has indicated a clear and explicit danger.
Federally sponsored re-search in this area was funded at over $2.3 million in 1976 alone.
i Since bibliographical references-run into the tens of pages it was not deemed appropriate to submit it as part of the peti-t tion, but only to point out the existence of such evidence.
It is further noted that neither-the Board or the Applicant has offered any evidence that such hazards ~do not exist.
It is a matter of record that the courts, PUC's, and the power.com-panies themselves have required increasingly strict safety pre-l cautions concerning secondary shock hazards.
Biological effects are more subtle, but may be more dangerous with longer lived effects.
Although the NRC's final safety report for this project has not been published, this rejection appears to be a refusal to consider the environmental and health aspects of the transmission corridor la.
I respectfully submit that it wou'E4 An constructive and beneficial to the proceedings to have mere than the applicant's point of view represented at the hear-ings, Very truly y6ur k 1m.tyvu.'
, d'
'WA7EE.REN5/R t
l l
l p
l t
~ ~
e
-+
.,e, n-,
c-,
--