ML18139A273
| ML18139A273 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry, North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 05/13/1980 |
| From: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Moore D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005290641 | |
| Download: ML18139A273 (4) | |
Text
..
e e
t,P.I' REG<,t
~e,'-'
.q,...o~
UNITED STATES f ¥,} ~-
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
. :,, ~ JS: -...::.L...
S0-3.S '/. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
~
s
.... ~
o'
- 2 ~ I o -t/ o 'l MAY 3
"*,H*"'~
- 338'. 50-lfoS 1
1980 Mrs. Denise L. Moore 1705 Foxfire Circle Richmond, Virginia 23233
Dear Mrs. Moore:
Your March 27, 1980 letter to President Carter has been referred to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a reply.
In your letter, you express concern that the NRC is giving the Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) the "green light" to build another nuclear plant in Virginia.
VEPCO does have two nuclear power stations. The first, Surry Power Station, has two nuclear plants with operating licenses.* The second,
- North Anna Power Station, has four nuclear plants or units in various stages of licensing. Unit 1 construction has been completed and it has a license to operate at 100% power, Unit 2 construction is essentially complete and it recently received a low power operating license for start-up purposes prior to receiving a 100% power license, and Units land 4 have construction permits which were issued in 1974 and they are less than 10% complete at this time.
We have no request from VEPCO to build another nuclear plant.
The present cost of fuel for generating electricity in baseload units in Virginia is about 25 mils/kWh for oil fueled generating units, 16 mils/kWh for coal fueled generating units and 8 mils/kWh for nuclear fueled generating units. Thus there is a strong economic incentive to use nuclear units to generate as much electricity as possible within the constraints inposed by regulatory*bodies and the technical capability of the generating unit.
If one is considering the construction of new generating capacity for operation in the late 1980's or early 1990's, the only two options available for baseload generating units are coal and nuclear.
Our economic studies indicate that the total cost of generation for the middle Atlantic Region in 1990 dollars* is:
Fixed cost on capital investment**
Operation and Maintenance Fuel TOTAL mils/kWh Coal Nuclear 32 6
30 68 40 3
15 58
- Assuming an average inflation rate of 5% per year between now and 1990.
- Includes return on investment, depreciation, insurance, interim replace-ment, local and state property taxes and state and Federal income tax.
Bo 052 on t:..rLL
e e
Mrs. Denise MAY 1 3 1980 The above cost estimates do not include transmission and distribution costs which are generally more than the generating cost. Further, our cost estimates are generic for the area and are not intended to take precedence over a utility's detailed engineering analysis which may show differences at specific plant sites. Inasmuch as, Units 3 and 4 at the North Anna Power Station are in the early stage of construction, VEPCO recently announced a delay in the construction of these two units and they plan to conduct a feasibility.study to convert these two uTiits to coal fueled units.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is responsible for the licensing and regulation of nuclear reactors in accordance with the statutory requirements of the Atomic Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
NRC's jurisdiction is generally limited to consider-ations of radiological health and safety, the common defense and security and environmental impact. Although we do review the need for power to be supplied by proposed nuclear plants and whether alternative means could supply this need, NRC's authority does not extend to planning for adequate capacity of electrical generation absent an application for such capacity.
Since our regulatory responsibilities do not include intercession in.state and local decisions regarding electric generating plants, we are unable
- to make further response to your request.-
However, utilities such as VEPCO are regulated by State public service commissions and can not proceed with large capital expenditures required by the construction of electrical generating plants without their approval.
We believe your concern could best be addressed by the State* regulatory agency.
In your State, this is the Virginia State Corporation Commission, Richmond, Virginia.
As indicated previously, the initial decision *by the NRC to allow the construction of the North Anna Units 3 and 4 was made in 1974.
To assist you with regard to the background for that decision, enclosed is_ a copy of the "Ffoal Environmental Statement - North Anna.Power Station",
Ap~il, 1973.
I trust that you will find this information useful.
Enclosure:
As stated
e The Honorable Jimmy E. Carter Mrs. Denise L. Moore 1705 Foxfire Circle Hirh1111111il, Viq1,ini11 :nn1 March 27, 1980
/
President of the United States of America The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Washington, D.C.
Avenue, N.W.
20036
Dear President Carter:
I am a residetit of the State of Virginia.
As you know, the State of.Virgini~ is serviced by Virginia Electric & Power Company (VEPCO).
The State of Virginia presently has two poorly constructed and hazardous nuclear power p] anlie. -
Just y~sterday, I received my electric bill and a printed bulletin as to why the cost of our electricity has skyrocketed.
I would be more inclined to label the bulletin "propaganda".
Many of the reasons stated in the bulletin are valid.
The cost of oil, etc. have risen astronomically over the past year and because our nuclear power plants are running at half their capacity, *or not at all, VEPCO is required to use more oil, etc.
However, I would like you to know that as~ resident of the State of Virginia, I do not appreciate the Nuclear Regulatory C01mnission (NRC) giving VEPCO the "green light" to build another nµclear power plant in this state.
This to me has to be one of the most absurd decisions the NRC has ever made.
As the President of this country, I would expect you to be apprised of these types of decisions, not to mention the fact that you are a Nuclear Engineer.
President Carter, I know you are very much aware of the dangers associated with nuclear energy.
It would seem to me that since coal is abundant in the states of Virginia and West Virginia~ VEPCO should be required to build.a coal powered plant.
The.reason why not is clear to everyone; -namely, sell tnecoar-to-*other states and make a fortune.
It is inconceivable to me that our country should allow another nuclear power plant to be constructed anywhere.
We have too many already.
Nuclear power is the beginning of the end and* to allow another plant to be built, let alone allowing another plant to be operated by a company that is already being investigated for gross mismanagement, in a state that has two nuclear power plants now which cannot even be operated at full capacity because of poor construction, etc., and in a state where truckloads of nuclear waste are being hauled through to a dumping ground in a neighboring state, is absolutely beyond my comprehension.
. v**
Honorable Jiuuny E. Carter March 27, 1980 Page 2.
~Ll-ru:-:t:.~OII1!!1!!.!!~}.!!B...~ allowing _a ___ ~hinl. nuclear pow_e_r plant for t~e ~tate of _yirginia? u _tne'y"-ar_e_ recommer:iding a third, they sh6uld be investigated along with VEPCO.
If they are allowing a third, they will be held responsible by the people of Virginia along with every politician in the State of Virginia and Washington, D.C.
Sincerely, Denise Lynn Moore cc:
Honorable John N. Dalton, Governor Honorable David E. Satterfeild, III