ML19294B586
| ML19294B586 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/14/1979 |
| From: | Gibbon T NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bradford P NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19294B552 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8003050110 | |
| Download: ML19294B586 (6) | |
Text
.
i
/
~
t s
4
'E v
u
.u
/
e 1
\\
5 4
ATTACHMENT.2
-r, I
I e
e s
c h
t
.A f
a f
n i
r J
I f
e a
O h
s 1
i 6
1 0-(
300305
/ q.
!!A f~di l.f 4 ~l'l HEMO TO:
Commissioner Bradford TomGibbonk/h' FROM:
SUBJECT:
PHONE CALL FROM CHARLIE KOMANOFF ON NUMBER OF h
BARRELS PER DAY REQUIRED BY SHUTDOh'N OF FIVE 3
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS y
Ex. >,'
f a
3 He called because he
$}
was concerned with the figures that NRC and DOE were putting li
~
out on the number of barrels of oil which were going to be required by the shutdown of the five plants.
Komanoff said there are two issues: (1) the percentage of capacity to be.
used in the calculations; and (2) the percentage of make-up
~ generation f rom. o.il.. He says that NRC has assumed 100% on both issues for four of the five plants.
Thus, NRC is assuming that each of the four plants is running at 100%
' capacity and that the 100% capacity is going to be made up completely by oil gener.ation.
Each plant is approximately 800 megawatts and everybody agrees that to generate 800 megawatts, you need approximately 32,000 barrels per day.
Komanoff comes up with a total of 64,000 total barrels per day as a result of the outage of these four plants.
He thinks the following table is reasonable:
~
Percent Percent Capacity Make-up Oil Maine Yankee 90%
90%
i Surry 1 75% (Plant has a 60% life-60% (There is large time factor and has amount of coal chronic problems) fired base capacity in.the Southeas t)
L Surry 2 Eliminate - Down for steam generator replacement V-N Beaver Valley 40%
(supposed to be shut 30% (Located in' s
down for fuel next heavy coal i
month.
The lifetime area with a
capacity factor is excess coal fI 36%)
generated base I
capacity)
Fitzpatrick 75% (Lifetime capacity is 80% (Located in 57%.)
Plugged into Canadian generation)
_. = -. 9._
..,h
.-}
- y
b$
I 4 Komanoff says that DQE is using a 100% factor for both is eliminating Beaver Valley and surry 2, and is, 6y
- issues, therefore, estimating 100,000 barrels a day.
He says d
is that utilities plan on 100% capacity,
?j DOE's argument He did not. elaborate on why they assume all replacement y
power will come from oil.
3 if all Another way of stating Komanoff results is that five plants were running at full capacity and all of the gi it would require 160,000 capacity is replaced by oil,However, because the plants will not be barrels per day.
running at full capacity, one can eliminate 70,000 barrels about of.the 90,000 barrels per day remaining, per day.
A further-26,000-will be made up by non-oil generation.
way of stating it is that of the 4,000 megawatts of nuclear approximately 1,580 megawatts will be replaced
- shutdown,
~
and 1,770 megawatts by oil, 650 megawatts by coal and hydro, would not have been generated by the nuclear plants anyway.
Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.
cc:
Myu Campbell
~
~
, j 2
I r-
? <T q
6 i,
J.
a i
N' f
e
.,~
/
W E '
't
./
s I
g
.,. t r,
i.
~
i 4
-g.
a Lt.
' ' a
~. ATTACHMENT 3 f.
'ji t* j e
r 1
. f
\\
s t
e e
/
^
q I
/
6 I
e o
q 9
/
3 e
f 1
t n
9 4
s
)
i e
I
.f i
o
/
4 I
6 s
y
/
o 2
N T,
s t
4 I
I i
4
Charles M. Pratt, Esq.
Power Authority of the State of New York 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 Re:
F0IA #79-77 (Appeal)
Dear Mr. Pratt:
The Commission has acted on your appeal dated June 15, 1979.
In that appeal
=
you sought two documents from Commissioner Bradford's office.
Document 1 is a memorandum from Thomas Gibbon to Commissioner Bradford dated March 14, 1979; Document 2 is a memorandum from Hugh Thompson to Commissioner Bradford dated March 15, 1979.
Document 1 will be released to you subject to the deletion of one sentence.
This sentence is being withheld pursuant to Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(5).
It contains a frank expression of opinion by a member of the Commissioner's staff, and as such falls squarely within the purpose of Exemption 5 to ensure that " persons in an advisory role would be able to express their opinions freely to agency decision-makers without fear of publicity." Ryan v. Missouri Public Interest Group, F. 2d
, D.C. Cir. No. 79-1778 (January 7, 1980).
Document 2 will be withheld in its entirety.
It is an advisory memorandum from a member of the Commissioner's personal staff concer71ng communications with the Department of Energy.
While the memorandum does contain some factual material, this material is inextricably intertwined with opinion and comments
Charles M. Pratt, Esq.
2 and is thus withholdable under Exemption 5.
In Ryan, supra, the D.C. Circuit stated that " factual segments are protected from disclosure as not being purely factual if the manner of selecting or presenting those facts would reveal the deliberative process, or if the facts are ' inextricably intertwined' with the policy-making process."
(Slip opinion at 16)
A copy of Document 1 with the deletion noted above is enclosed.
The Commission denies the remainder of your appeal based upon Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(5) of the Commission's regulations.
This determination is a final agency action, and as provided by the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B), judicial review is available in a United States district court in the district of your residence, principal place of business, or in the District of Columbia.
Sincerely, Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission