ML20104A442

Brief & Notice of Appeal from ASLB 790209 Denial of Intervention Petition.Rejection of Contention Re Location of Transmission Corridor Was Based on Incorrect Assumption

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

} .} -

S i * % --

9-

$5N 11

( .- ( g271970 h 9

9% a ** f IE 9

- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g /

l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION pg g g BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD i

l In the Matter of ')  !

i

! )

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY ) DOCKET NO. 50-466 l

) '

(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating ) -

Station, Unit 1)

~~

"; ) - '

l 1

' ~

- WAYNE-E. RENTFRO'S' - . _ _ _ . . _

NOTICE OF APPEAL -h._.  ;

~

l 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 ti proceedings, any person .

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 i all changes in the environment outside as well as inside this 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 The intent was to point out that thou-sions, is misleading.

l 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 t it was not deemed appropriate to submit it as part of the peti-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 increasinglyBiological strict safety pre- l cautions concerning secondary shock hazards. effects l

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 l 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

~ ~ ., .- n-, -., , c-, - --

--. e -+ - - . , . , , - - , - - , .,e, ,-. -, - . , , . . , _ _ . ,