ML19270G794

Opposes Facility Const.Unneeded Extra Generating Capacity Waste Problem Remains Unsolved

ML19270G794
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	05/30/1979
From:	Voss M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
References
NUDOCS 7906200178
Download: ML19270G794 (2)

Text

..

- - - Marie A. Voss 3810 W. Belmont Ave.

Phoenix, Arizona 85021 May 30, 1979 Director Division of Technical Information & Document Control Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20535

Dear Sir:

We, the undersigned, read the Draft Environmental Statement regarding construction of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Plant Station, Units 4 & 5, Arizona Public Service Company, and need-less to say are against it. We were against 1, 2, and 3; now two more are being mentioned.

Can you answer us why the plant should be located that close to a population of 13 million, including Phoenix and suburbs? Why was 2,920 acres of the land purchased for the nuclear genera-ting station land that belonged to relatives of Mr. Keith Turley, President of Arizona Public Service? Am I correct - according to my sources 75% of this site was purchased from his wife's sister and her husband? Do you find the above information as interesting as we do?

Also, why should the customers of APS pay a higher electric rate for Units 4 and 5, which will furnish power to California, Texas, and Nevada? Arizona has no need for further units. Already they plan to generate 43% of the power fron 1, 2, and 3 to California, Texas and New Mexico. And of course, we've already had several increases because of 1, 2, and 3.

According to a report done for Arizona Corporation Commission on APS's projections of its future construction expenses and how it will effect our electric rates, there will be a 595 increase in the average price of residential power by the year 1985. This does not include Units 4 & 5. Why should we in this state be expected to pay for other states' nuclear power and taking all the risks for then?

And aren't we doing just that? Until the waste problem is settled the State of California will not allow any more nuclear reactors built. New Mexico and Nevada fortunately do not have any plants.

We not only have the chance of a Three Mile Island occurrence, or worse accident from 3 reactors; now APS wants to make 5 such happen-ings possible. What about our air - it will be full of toxic and harmful chemicals. Won't these be damaging to the population in the future?

2345 326 7 9 0 620 0W b I i

0

Division of Technical Information & Document Control Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 30, 1979 Page 2 What about the BIG problem of nuclear wastes - won't that cause a lot more radiation in this ares? I heard Congr saman Morris Udall say each state will have to be responsible for its own waste.

Also Arizona was recently opened up as the storage place for radio-active waste materials, which means we could eventus11y become the

' dumping ground' for not only our own but other strites as well.

Why should one company be allowed to cause so many possible future problems for so many people? What a legacy to leave our children!

We do not approve Units 4 & 5 Isn't it true no more nuclear plants can be approved for six months? We certainly hope this is the case.

Yours truly, FaV 02 D ~ m . % (a p .2.2)

N"'s 7 f<kmek < (.zy 2345 527

i m -

.3

] N <

l ,,

LO v

m N

M.A.Voss -

3810 W. odlmont Ave. .

g . /4 -

Phoenix, AZ d5021 .'

f pu '.?, -

DFJ(1,BQ -

~

I

{d i

MUSCUI AR *6},E3EiEE5!

SilPPORTQ(Dfj& ._.

[ ]a n \

r

\

ctor Divis of echnical Nuclear latory Commi formation & Document Control on Washin6ton, . . 20555 N 4

9 e