/ ._4

t-1 i e' h'.'

| 9g N ',\i' li

V g pCC6go sy Qi-)

'~ J _

0 t--i06 ,32

T }'hg' $.} g '[ortli 6ttrolitta 05citeral pesentbitj @ g.,

/2#cuate U~l auiber!'

5 tate i[cgislatiue Illuilbing '

lialeigly 27G11 -

*"- -

sc~4toa s4Cx CuiLocas December 18, 1979 Co- irr= == :

Howr coatss- I CMatoans Coua? Commanc CMA aw w

LasswoTom. N. C. 27292 PumLic UT L T s amo Ehroov.

APPRCPRf ATION9APPeO A C=s Comeu svTag om

Bast BucoETEDUC ATION

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7A /s"'a".lo ^u',a "s''"'"'^"''"*'

1717 H. Street, IMWashington, D. C. 20555

Dear Commissioners:

The North Carolina General Assembly's Utility Review Committeeurgently requests that you expedite a decision on licensing the NorthAnna #2 nuclear plant of Virginia Electric and Power Company.

The Committee supports efforts to maintain regulations that keeppublic safety within acceptable levels. Information we have receivedindicates that this might not be the problem with the North Anna #2plant of VEPCO. VEPCO officials tell us that they have complied withall of the latest modifications required by NRC. The North Anna #1plant on the same site (a duplicate of North Anna #2) is licensed tooperate. We find it hard to understand that, if safety is a factor,any plant would be allowed to operate.

In the meantime, 200,000 citizens in northeastern North Carolinawho are served by VEPCO are paying apprcximately 50% more for elec-tricity than their neighbors being served by Carolina Power and Lightand by Duke. One of the big reasons for th2s distortion is the factthat VEPC0 is not allowed to operate its nuclear plants and must useexpensive oil burning facilities to serve its customers. This is notonly expensive but is also contrary to our urgent national policy ofreducing oil imports.

This northeastern part of the State has little industrialdevelopment and the absence of electricity at reasonable rates ismaking it difficult to attract badly needed new industry.

The people in the area served by VEPCO find it hard to under-stand why they must pay a 50% premium on already burdensome electricbills -- and so do we. If there are problems to cause this further

1795.095*

8001240 N O'

fl'

* *..

.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionPage 2December 18, 1979

delay, we would be grateful to receive the information. Otherwise,we urge prompt action.

Sincerely yours,,

< P / Q;,'

.

Jack Childers J. P. HuskinsSenate Cochairman House CochairmanUtility Review Committee Utility Review Committee

~.

9

1795 094

qc. spduenithofjg%e.va- -

-

y,| .J CV

'

r

-

Orrect or THc ArroRNcv GCNCR ALMARSHALL COLEMAN '

m e .. e , . . . . ., 1101 East BRoAo STRccTRicHMoN o, VIR GIN I A 23 219

804 786 207

*rDecember 14, 1979

Q-o . , ,,.

g-~ h/.

$a'.-0

M g,%- q

I0 -

The Honorable John F. AhearneInterim Chairman 3'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission1717 H Street, N.W. gWashington, D.C. 20555

Dear -Chairman Ahearne:

I was pleased to learn that a nine-member task forcehas been named to review the license application for NorthAnna Station, Unit 2, and that this task force had itsinitial meeting with VEPCO officials on November 30, 1979.his was subsequent to my letter of November 23, 1979, andthe letters from Governor Dalton, the Virginia Congressionaldelegation, and the State Corporation, Commission, and I ampleased to see the apparent responsiveness of the NRC toour concerns.

On December 3, 1979 I received a phone call fromMr. Len Bickwit, of the General Counsel's Office, who reada letter dated that day from Mr. Hendrie, which I receivedon December 10, 1979.of a policy statement allowing " resumption of licensing ofThis letter holds out the possibilitycompleted or nearly completed plants such as North Anna 2"and Mr.in the near future was, in fact,Bickwit has represented that resumption of licensinghighly probable.

of any resumption in licensing.Recent events have raised questions about the timingNo policy statement hasbeen forthcoming from the Commission. There has been areassignment of leadership responsibilities at the Commis-sion, and other organizational changes have been proposedby President Carter. For these reasons, I must request.

1795 095

Mg ,cu e n W 3

_

*. , -

The Honorable John F. AhearneDecember 14, 1979Page Two

that the NRC provide the Commonwealth with a clear anddefinite statement of its position on the resumption ofthe licensing process with respect to North Anna 2.

Three issues are of primary concern to me. First,it is essential that we be assured that the application onNorth Anna 2 is under active review and will be completedin a timely fashion. Second, it is important that theCommission allow North Anna 2 to load fuel and co.nduct pre-operational tests in advance of implementing TMI-relatedrecommendations. Third, once TMI-related concerns havebeen addressed by VEPCO and licensing reviews completed,we need to know whether the Commission ~is prepared toissue an operating license for North Anna 2.

.

If the task force is addressing licensing issuesand will soon issue a timetable for continuing the licens-ing procedure for North Anna 2, then my concerns may be ~

!

met. I would appreciate your advising me whether this isthe case. i,

i5I am enclosing for your information an analysis of jthe economic impact of nuclear outages in Virginia pre-

pared for Governor Dalton by an independent consultant. ?

As I am sure you realize, precent delays in thelicensing process cannot be recaptured later and, thus, fnecessarily result in an equivalent delay in bringing ::

North Anna 2 on line. EBecause it is my statutory duty inVirginia to represent both the Commonwealth and consumer E

interests and because it is clear that those interests are i

adversely affected by each day of delay in the licensing E

of North Anna 2, I am requesting that you respond to this '

letter by December 26, 1979. /

Sincerely,h

{..

"..

Marshall ColemanAttorney General =

=

5:42/161 ~

i' Nuclear Regulatory Commissionerscc:

The Honorable John N. DaltonVirginia Congressional Delegation

"

State Corporation Commissioners ,--

..

1795 096 2=.

|

. .

.. ..,

.

SUMMARY DATACONCERNING VIRGINIA'S

PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICITY SYOIL AND NUCLEAR POWER -

-

FOR ,

GOVERNOR JOHN DALTON.

CONTENTS

PAGE--

A. Stadary Data on VEPCO's Sources of 1-3Electrical Production and Oil Usagit -

B. Summary Data on:

Impacts on Virginia in 1979 Caused by 4*"

NRC Actions

Potential Impacts on Virginia in 1980 5*

Caused by NRC Actions

* Effect on VEPCO Consumers 6

C. Detailed:

Impacts Caused by North Annc II 7*

Shutdown in 1979

Impact Potential of North Anna II 8*

Shutdown in 1980

Impacts Caused by Surry I Shutdown 9*

in 1979

Impact Potential of Surry II Extended 10*

Shutdown in 1980

Details on Electrical Usage 'll*

Summary of Teledyne Engineering's 12*

Evaluation of Piping at Surry I toWithstand Hypothetical EarthquakeLoadings

Fuel Charges by*

D. Editori is DUPLICATE DOCUMENT

1795 097 Entire document previouslyentered into system under:

ANO foc/A3olo3N o. of pages: M