ML19246A554

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Opposes Plant Const Due to Increased Const Costs,Impact on Electric Rates & Problem of Waste Disposal
ML19246A554
Person / Time
Site: Palo Verde  Arizona Public Service icon.png
Issue date: 05/26/1979
From: Mikus P
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
References
NUDOCS 7907030294
Download: ML19246A554 (2)


Text

<

Patricia J. Mikus 113?8 N. 114 Drive Younctown, Arizona 85363 May 26, 1979 Director Division of Technical Information & Document Control Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Sir:

I have read the Draf t Environmental Statement regarding construction of Palo Verde Nuclear Generatine Station, Units 4 & 5, Arizona Public Service Company, and am very much against it. I was against the first three, and at that time, there was no mention of two more.

Fir r t , I don't believe the clant should have been located that close to a oopulation of 1; million including Phoenix and suburbs. Nor do I believe they would have if 2,920 acres cf the land purchased for the nuclear gener-ating station hadn't belonged to relatives of Mr. Keith Turley, President, Ari7ona Public Service. Were ycu aware that many acres, or 75% of the site, was purchased from his wife's sister and her husband? Isn't that interesting? '

I see no reason uhy the customers of AP3 should pay a hieher electric rate so that 4 5 5 can ba built to furnish oower to Calif ornie , Texas , and Nevada. ;e do not need them at all for Arizona. In fact, 43% of the oower generated from 1, 2, & 3 uill go out-of-state to California, Texas, and New Mexico. 'Je've already had several increases because of 1, 2 , & 3 A reocrt dona for Ari'ona Coroorction Commission on A?3's orojections of its futura construction evoenses and their imoact on our electric rates showed there will be a 59% increase in the average orice of residential power by 1935 That, of course, does not include 6 & 5 un it s . Why should Ari?onans be c;:pected to pay for other states' nuclear power while taking all the risks for then?

We definitely are doing jurt that. California will not allow any more nuclear that's notreactors going tobuilt until the waste orobler is settled, and you know hapoen. New Mexico and Navada de not have any plants.

Not only is there the chance of a Three Mile Is land happening , or worse ,

fror 3 reactors, nce A?3 wants to maic it 5 chances. In addition, our air will ba full or teric and delaterious chemicels.

ful to the pooulation eventually. These are sure to be harm-There is also the big problem of nuclear wastes. You know that will cause much more radiation in this area. I firmly believe one company should not be allowed to cease so many possibla problemn for so many people. Not one young person Ilegecy it is a terrible know 19tc in favorthe leeve of nuclear energy olants. They all feel We would move away from here if my husband were retired, but ha atill has ten years to go.

Please do not aporove Units E &5 could be approved for si: months. I Icertainly read that no more nuclear plants hope that is true, gg Yours very truly, fQ N,

j[f[/,4 '

O $$

,, 4 Patricia J Mikun

. 1907 030:27fr