ML19246A554
| ML19246A554 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| 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?
interesting?
Isn't that 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 reactors built until the waste orobler is settled, and you know that's not going to 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.
These are sure to be harm-ful to the pooulation eventually.
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 I know 19 in favor of nuclear energy olants.
They all feel it is a terrible legecy tc leeve the 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 I read that no more nuclear plants could be approved for si: months.
I certainly hope that is true, gg Yours very truly, fQ N,
O j[f[/,4 4
Patricia J Mikun 1907 030:27fr