ML20234C143
Text
".
., e.g m;y;f.,pi.ww54 us.h-
- ~ ~ " -
+
f
.,,.4,=.
i-1., J
.,,. ww.e. wayy
.~
,I JM I 3 [etcfSTII @4 M4 d 9 [ofe[*E I :hmj
.P t45 Market Senet
...<.. n ua.o-ban francisco 6 -
,;.........,,,,, 7,;,.;, ;; ~.-
.....c='""."'"
51ltter 1 4211
- "..;.;.*. '".."..'."** :.'.! *It".;'.fi.-
t g.;,,,. 3
.... -. ~ -
May 17, 1963'
=. : =.
\\
^ ^ " " " "
o-s N
M
/h-
\\
- 1 b
G94 United States Atomic $
Washington 25, D. C.
' Q /y
- 6 Energy Commission p
i$g g
Attention:
- Director, v,;a on of e
Licensing an Y at
.gg
., g, c.c Re:
Bodega Bay Park Unit No. 1
/,,; ~ ~' '..' ' y.
\\(
Docket No. 50-2 k
Gentlemen:
,o m.. cong
)
w i
Enclosed for your information are two copies of Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Reply to a " Petition to Reopen For Purther Hearing" (originally entitled " Memorandum of Action Concerning Late-Filed Ex.hibit No. 48 and Related Evidence") filed with the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California on May 16,1%3.. The Petition indicates that copies thereof were forwarded to your office.
Yours very truly,
(
S d.YO &~
RICHARD H. PETERSON LRS:je.
Ence - 2 /.,
~
m 4
t 0
A
- 444y2
[{}
6 0
2-1963 r '.
9
?;
ACKNOREDGED s
B7092101B4 851217 4
.f PDR FOIA FIRESTOB5-665 PDR T
t
.y.
j f.-g_
L
'g
.,_,_2. _,_ _
I
- J 4
a
..o I
t t
a d,
- k. *
,1_ g..'_I f.h[f h.,( % 4h
{
g.,,, q.
F2 T' f*",
v b berrt. f@!
- ic*w DA' L M.a.MM M '
'Mk f
'**'? & ~k W l356) y poM4 g e
LT" r -3EMos.
.~..... ESEPORTsa,...,..
.OTHEBs M.#g
".U I. i.
...=
<r.
b.# J.
o..q 3, J
,X
.go 3
~.....
.s CCs---
- o..
I.
CONCURRENCE g.
DATE A35WERIDs,
AC.nON NECISSA,RT.-; Q... pr. cat nct ' O i,
3
- g. ; m:;,cct...,
a r a..se.
NO ACTION NECESSARY O coxxtwT av.
EFLASSIT.: '
- .'7-
---f POST OTTICE - -- ---, TIll.
Es s *C
'?"
f g..,g +..
, i RIC.Nos
- - ~..~. ggyggggp To.
DATg
,qgggggygg 3y pAa j
( ESC &1FT10Ns (Must.Se UnclamaLEed),,.
' T.r...-... -..i
~.
~ '
am hfdleming as. filed with the W
. Is" Non4 S#ddE.
WN. W Q. ' ^ ^ ~ &YWf
'j
~
- ~
~
.Ga
_t kqC.Osvars,-
. (.4~ga,pse.d) w#4,,,4,,., >-
e 1- -
5NN$h f$illW p
g*
L d84R:gr,.gu g f,f g..,,
i 4
n
,,, g.g-g-+i DExAnun e, matar.:.tutamar i M.4e_.,
3
/
y a..ppz r
W i
i l
j/..
i
.a. e..
h t.
N g"g '. S. Covernment Printing f poet,J,882,.,8373C3 v.9951" TLC?S"!Py&.'* MAIL,CONTROIt.F,ORM reRuiru
~
u%In 4. A V.i. I4 APA TtMr.f.l40) i 9 ft U
.k..
..s..
m s
f l.
e d
A j
.ik e
e, -
[
1 4
I J
54 4
.r g
'.4 5
9 l
^.*'48.
- u*g-@
e.ga.ysus,,gg.ai ge.,,.,
9
,p,,
y,,
t' i
C 4:6GA 1
' 2'N,.., v
h 2
/
b af P(i
, "" M cm gf.,t" i;.
4
{.]
, V
\\
L. /
5
)
f 7
f 8
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9
10 In the matter of the application of PACIFIC OAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY for ?.
/
11 a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, install, qApplicationNo.43808 12 operate and maintain Unit No. 1, a J Decision Nos. 64537 nuclear power unit, at its Bodega J
and 64731 13 lBayAtomicPark.
/
(Electric)
'i 14 "
15 REPLY TO PETITION TO REOPEN FOR FURTHER HEARING 16 17 Pacific Oas and Electric Company, hereinafter referred 18 to as PGandE, replies as follows to the Petition to Reopen 19 for further Hearing (originally entitled " Memorandum of Action 20 Concerning Late-Filed Exhibit No. 48 and Related Evidence")
21 l filed herein by the Northern California Association to i
22 lPreserveBodegaHeadandHarbor,Inc.
23 I
24 The Petition seeks relief which is not available, as 25 pointed out in II below. Furthermore, opportunity for 26
- responsible criticism of P0andE's conclusions on the subject i
jofsafetybeforetheAtomicEnergyCommissionatillexists, 27 28 laspointedoutinIIIbelow.
Therefore, the relief requested, 29 which is unavailable as well as unmerited, is in addition 30 l unnecessary. Since, however, the Petition's potpourri i
1 i
2
.f4mm
j i
, ~.
i i
1 of epurious allegations and misinterpretations could be 2
misleading to the casual reader, they have been sorted out 3
and attention directed to the record for their refutation 4
and correction.
6 gy 6
The Commission received late-filed Exhibit 48 on 7
July 9, 1962, handed down its interim opinion by Decision
~
8 No. 64537 on November 8, 1962, and denied petitions for 9
rehearing by Decision No. 64731 on January 2, 1963. The 10 subject Petition is dated May 6, 1963. -
11 l Apart from the question of its intrinsic merit, the 12 Petition cannot properly receive the consideration of this 13 Commission. It is $n substance a petition for rehearing.
14 That the substantive nature of a filing rather than the form 15 !! chosen must control the Commission's treatment of it has been 16 made clear by the Commission itself in Desert Express 6 17 Victorville-Barstow Truck 'Line,}/ and by the District Court 10 of Appeal in Young v. Industrial Accident Commission 2j.
19 In those cases, the petitioners had failed to seek a rehear-ing within the statutory period. They then filed petitions 21 for further hearing and petition to reopen, respectively.
22 The petitions were properly denied. The matter at hand is a stronger case for precluding further attack on the decision.
24 The Association 8e unincorporated predecessor filed, in 5
addition to several other documents, a petition for rehearing 26
[on November 28, 1962, nearly five months after Exhibit 48 27 was filed. The.t petition, which was denied on January 2, 28 1963, by an order appealable to the California Supreme Court, 29 se cal.ruc (1997) 30 63 c.A.2d 286 (1944) i 2
L I
4%
d V
p.
t 9
1 idid not mention Exhibit 48 or the lack of an opportunity for 2
the Association to examine P0andE on its contents. Now, a 1
5 different avenue, including undocumented allegations of a 4
denial of due process,is explored in an attempt to gain still 6
another " day in court." Aside from the fact that the time
)
i
'6 to seek further hearings of the matter has long since 7
elapsed,3/ there is the controlling principle, ignored by the 8
Petition but noted by the Commission in the Desert Express l
9 case, that "there must be an end to litigation p/ The l
10 importance of that principle is well'. illustrated by this 11 case, in which the on-time fulfillment of a portion of 12 Northern California's power requirements is at stake.
I 13 777 14 The allegations of the Petition are intended to cast 15 doubt on the safety of the plant. This Commission has I
16 considered the question of safety and has supplemented its 17 own review of the subject by requiring as a condition of 18 receipt of a final certificate of public convenience and 19 necessity that P0andE obtain a construction permit from the 20 Atomic Energy Commission. Upon the occasion of AEC hearings, 21 all qualified persons will once again have the opportunity 22 to cross-examine P0andE witnesses. Abundant opportunity for 23 1public review of P0andEle conclusions, therefore, still 24 exists as does the opportunity to prove the allegation that 25 P0andE seeks to mislead the' AEC, It is to be hoped that the 26 Association, in any future participation,will demonstrate 27
! recognition of the fact that no contribution is nade by 2B 29 3/ The Commission's Order in Decision No. 64537 dated November 8, 1962 reads in part, as follows: "The 30 effective date of this order shall be twenty days after the date hereof."
b] 56 Ca1.PUC at 6 i
t 3
.u 1
j i
l 1
1-unfounded, and in the case of this. Commission, erroneous 2
allegations that the reviewing agency has not considered all l
3 the evidence before it.3/
J 4
It is apparent from the approach of the Association, 5
from its failure to rebut specifically the conclusions of 6
P0andE's consultants expressed in Exhibit 48 and most' clearly'
)
7 from its stated purpose, namely, "To word for preservation 8
of the scenic and nistoric headlands of Bodega Bay and to 9
insure the ecological integrity of the surroundin6 marine 10 environment," that it seeks not a review of the issues 11 d raised but a further postponement of the day when a necesary k
12
- generating plant, the building of whien is already behind 13 schedule, will be located at Bodega Head.
14 IV 15 Comments on specific allegations contained in the 16 Petition follows 17 1.
Tne Petition at page 1 alleges' discrepancies 18 between testimony and the contents of Exhibit 48 which 19 "strongly suggest that Applicant nas attempted to deceive 20 the Commission." Accepting for the moment that which is 21 expressly denied, i.e.,
that there are discrepancies, it l
22 must be apparent that P0andE has not, by placing on the 23 public record in Exhibit 48 not only the reparts of its
{
24 20
$/ The Association, which at page */ of its Petition asserts that "the Commission... neglected a close examination 26 of the substance of the exhibit," also at page 45 points l
out language of the' Decision which demonstrates the l
27 g reverse. The Commission is quoted as saying that.
"' applicant's civil engineering witness testifica that the i
28 consulting geologist engaged by applicant to specifically l
l study the area in question reported that he could find no.
l 29 g
signs of active faulting on Bodega nead.... This testimony was supplemented and substantiated by,appli-30 cant's Aate-11Aeu z.xntols *o '
pmpassas aaaea; 4
i
6 pas 1
consultants but also its correspondence on the subject, been 2
bent on deception. Jurt the reverse is true. Exhibit 48 3
was a compilation of written information possessed'by.P0andE 4
and naturally includes discussion of the disadvantageous as 5
well as the predominantly advantageous characteristics of-6 the site.
7 2
Great emphasis is' placed on the proximity to the reactor of the San Andreas Fault. The Atomic Energy 8
9 Commission's Reactor Site Criterfa,p/ which was Exhibit 23 in 10 the proceedings, is fragmentarily quoted at'page 9 of the 11 Petition. The purpose of the. Criteria. cannot be understood :
by such a' quotation nor can it be by reference to it as'"one of the few verifiable, non-discretionary criteria of the AtomicEnergyCommissientsreactorsitingrequirements."J/
First, its purpose is "to describe criteria which ruide the 6
Commission in its evaluation of the suitability of proposed 17 sites."p/ (Dnphasis supplied) Second, the portion quoted in 18 the Petition is placed in proper context by the following 19 quotation from the Criteria
'20 21 "In particular, the Commission will take the following factors into consideration in deter-22 mining the acceptability of a site for a power or testing reactor 23
"(c) Physical characteristics of the site, 24 including seismology, meteorology, geology and hydrology.
"(1) The design for the facility should 26 conform to accepted building codes or standards for areas having equivalent earthquake histories.
27 No facility should be located closer than one-fourth mile from the surface location of a known 28 active earthquake fault. pmphasis supplied) 29 10 CFR 100 Petition, p.10 30 10 CFR 100.1(s.)
5 L
~.
I i
i h!
i 1
"(d) Where unfavorable physical character-istics of the site exist, the proposed site may 2
nevertheless be found to be acceptable if the design of the facility includes appropriate and 3
adequate compensating engineering safeguards."p/
4 P0andE has proposed a reactor location which is not S
ene-fourth mile from the westerly trace of the San Andreas 6
Fault Zone as depicted on the map of William Quaide repro-
)
7 duced as Exhibit B of the Petition. That site does, however, 8
satisfy the optimum conditions described in the AEC guide.
9 If the San Andreas Fault has a surface location in the area, 10
. it is the single line of movement of the'1906 Earthquake on i
11 the landward side cf Bode 6a Harber, more than one mile from 12 the site. However, in recognition of the San Andreas Psult, 13 appropriate and adequate engineering safeguards have been 14 established. It 10 these facts along with the many 15 advantages of the Bodega Head site which caused Witnces 0
Nutting to answer correctly in the affirmative the question f "does the propos d site of Bodega Head satisfy the reqtire ments of the AEC regulation, in your opinion?"lof o
19
,It is alleged at page 15 of the Petition that P0andE 20 presented " misleading testimony" en the subject of the l
21 reactor's distance from the " San Andreas Fault." That 22 allegation is denied and best refuted by the record itself.
23 e Indeed if there is a place for application of the word 24
" misleading," it in to those statements found in the Petition 25 which are incorrectly attributed to F0andE by the Association.
l 26 Witneen Porthington did Ect testify "that the San Andreas l
27 Pault is 'approximately a mile' frem the reactor vessel,"
l 28
!p/10CFR100.10 29 1
30
$ Tr.1232 6
\\
1
m s
l' i
l I
)
i t..
Y 1
f4.
I
(
h.
\\
L p
1 1
as claimed at page 10 cf the' Petition. What he did say is 2
contained in the following question and answer:
. j 3
"Q.
What is the approximate distance that the 4 ~
reactor vessel will be from the San Andreas j
Fault?
A..It's approximately a mile.
I Q.
Now--
5 A.
From the, what is' considered the fault line,"_/ 0 6 It should have been clear to the Association that he was not, et that timei referring to the Fault Zone but to that mani-8 festation of faulting in modern times, the 1906 fault move-9 ment, which occurred near the eastern boundary of tne zone. 10 Moreover, Witness Nutting did D2t testify "that'the facility 11 l would be at least'one-quarter mile from the fault." What 12 Ii he said was: j 13 I "It is my understanding that the location of I 14 the reactor is at least.a quarter mile away from, H and I quote here, 'the surface location of a known 15 active earthquake fault.'" 12J' 16 3, The Association reaches the conclusion at pa68 18 17 of its Petition that P0andE's. consultants "could not assure 18 against grces ground movement at the' proposed reactor site." 19 The Association as a California conservationist organization 20 must know that all rock in this state is jointed' and 21 fractured, }JL/ and that this jointing and fracturing has occurrod over millions of years of geological history. No 22 5 23 one can say that at some time in the geological future any 24 point on the earth's surface will not undergo fracturing or 25 shearing. Dr. Housner's letter of June 30, 1960, quoted in 26 27 11 Tr. 169-1 Tr. 1232 28 l Witness Worthington pointed out, at transcript page 376, that " virtually all of the rock you might say in the 29 world is fractured to some degree or other. This rock at Bodega Head is fractured. However. it.is a very. 30 stable material." 7
- _t r ad y ,p .} e 'l;. 7 1 part at page 16 of the Petition, suggested that the site 2 should not be used if there appeared even a small likelihood 3 of [ gross ground movement produced by faulting) happening. 4 Additional information satisfied Dr. Housner with respect' 5 to this question. His 1961 report shows this, ss follows: 6 "During the past several thousand years there must have been many slippages along the adjacent 7 San Andreas fault zone so that this is a well-established plane of weakness. There appears to' 8 be no reason to expect that future slippage should go through the stronger rock formation underlying 9 l Bodega Head rather than to continue to be concen-trated along the weaker San Andreas fault zone."$/- 40 11 l
- 4.. An allegation which is repeated several times in le slightly varying forms is that P0andE has not kept its 13 consultants informed and,.therefore, that their recommenda-14 tions are not meaningful. At page.23, the Petition rea'det 15 "Dr. Housner proceeded to design.a facility in accordance 16 I with the abandoned Scheme VII. Exhibit 48 shows no active i
l 17 effort by Applicant to disabuse Dr. Housner of this error."- 10 Again at page 42, the Association sanctions a statement that 19 "certain language in the correspondence from Dr. Housner l 20 in Exhibit 48 leads the authors of this Memorandum to be 21 strongly dubious of the information Applicant may have - 22 ' forwarded to Dr. Housner." At page 43, it is implied that though the February 2, 1962 Dames I; Moore Report was l 23 24 forwarded to Housner, the April 30,1962 Report was not.- 25 The Association's attention is directed to Tab 18 of 26 Exhibit 48, a letter by which the latter Report was forwarded 27 to Dr. Tocher. The letter indicates the sending of a copy of 2B 29 M/ Tab 12,Ex.48,p.4 30 i 8 8 i l
/ } f I; ) ~ ) l 1 that Report to Dr. Housner. As noted by the Association, 2 the Report givsa an accurate description of depth of rock 3 at the plant site and includes a plot plan depicting the 4 plant in its final location. Tab 23 of Exhibit 48, a letter 5 directed to Mr. Worthington, contains Dr. Housner's acknowl-6 edgement of receipt and examination of the Dames & Moore 7 Report. 8 It should also be mentioned that Dr. Housner did not 9 design a facility. He provided design criteria which have 10 been incorporated in the design prepared *by PGandE. With 11 respect to che new information provided in the Report, l 12 Housner said: "The estimated intensity of the shaking of the. 13 underlying rock is not affected by the depth of the over-14 lying alluvium so that the design recommendations set forth 15 in my report of January, 1961 are still applicable."},p/ 16 5. Rock quality is treated at length in the Petition. At page 23, the Association states its aim to "show that (1) the foundation for the reactor is not solid rock." ~ P0andE Witness Worthington testified that the reactor found& tion would be on solid rock.16/ That statement, which was repeated by the Commission at page 4 of its decision, was and remains correct. It is consistent with Mr. Werthington't letter of February 27 1962 directed to Dr. Housner,q%cted in part at page 25 of the Petition,in 25 which he wrote that "the quality of the rock is inferior to our original assumption of ' solid rock.' Actually, the 27 granite rock is highly weathered et the earth-rock contact and in highly Jointed at lower elevations." 29 }J/ Letter of June 27, 1962 from George W. Housner to 30 J. D. Worthington at p. 1 3.!/Tr.383 9 1
Paa [. f.. ? 1 Mr. Worthington by this letter was expressing the q 2 Company's disappointment that, with the reactor location 3
- contemplated at that time, its original assumptions of rock 4
depth and quality at the point of the earth-rock contact l 5 were incorrect. It followed investigations by Dames & Moore i 6 which had established that the solid rock at that point was 7 l at a lower elevation and was actually more sheared and l 8 jointed than was expected, ls can be seen from the letter, 9 which is Tab 15 of Exhibit 48, Worthington wanted to make 1 10 clear to Dr. Housner that rock location and quality were not 11 the same as previously assumed in order to permit him to 12 decide whether the new information affected his recommenda-1 13 ,tions. Worthington was not, as implied by the Association, 14 indicating that the rock encountered was not solid. As le lclearlyreflectedinhistestimonyreproducedbelow, sheared 15 fandjointedrockiscommonlydescribedassolid. Worthington 10 l 17 answered questions on the subject in the following exchange 10 Q. As you find (rock) in'its natural site (sic), I 19 is it fractured at all? Does it contain l significant planes of cleavage or other l 20 characteristics of that sort? A. Well, virtually all of the rock you might say 21 in the world is fractured to some degree or other.. This rock at Bodegn Head is fractured. I 22 However, it is a very stable material. 4. I mean, your statement that it is & thoroughly suitable basis for foundation, that would apply? 23 i: A. Well, it is far better material than any i conventional steam plant that we hsve, it being (, i 24 solid rock it is an excellent foundation materia 1,Jj 25 In order to take advatntage of better quality solid rock, 26 the reactor locatien wa s subsequently che.nged. Plates 3 and 27 4 of the April 30, 1962 report 1S] reflect the location of 28 the reactor in solid quartz diorite rock. The log of 29 l !!g/ Tr/ Tab 17, Ex. 48 17 370 l 30 k 10 i
,j ,l t J j ] a l r i 's i -[. .t } -r t 1 boring 16 also included in that Report ~ describes the qualityf 2 of that rock. The' Association quotes a fragment of this-h 9 3 description.which pertains only to rock near the top of the .J 4 granite formation and then reaches an incorrect conclusion. 5 with respect to the quality of that-rock.' It omits the 6 description of rock near the base of the boring and at the 7 . foundation of the reactor, which ist i 8 "(Orading into blocks up to 38). (Tight-Joints) (Few, if any, shear zones)" 9 10 6 At page 23'of the Petition,'thelAssociation's other 11 aim'-- to show that "(2).what passes for. rock at Bodega Head' 12 is much deeper than Applicant's testimony has. led the-13 Commission to believe"-- is expressed. The most obvious I 14 answer is that Exhibit 48 was provided to the Commission. 15 Aside from the Dames t.: Moore Report at Tab 17 which clearly 16 shows rock depth, Exhibit 48 contains several-letters' 17 mentioning the subject. At'page 32, the Petition quotes-I 18 Dr. TocherIa June 10,'1962 lettertoMr.Worthington1,9f 9 19 noting that bedrock was found to occur.at a depth greater-f 20 than originally anticipated. The Petition does not reveal 21 Dr. Housner's' comments on this letter. Tab 23 of. Exhibit 48, 22 hewever, does contain his comments in n June 27, 1962 letter 23 ktoWorthington. It reads, in part, as followa1 24 n(N]ow the alluvium is approximately twice as deep as. was originally expected. The prob 3em 25 is as follows. The base of the reactor building will move with the rock in which it is imbedded. 26 l This base motion will excite the reactor building i i into vibrations..The bottou of the alluvial 2*/ d layer will also move with the underlying rock, 5 and hence this layer will also be ex01ted into 28 1 vibrations.' If the alluvial layer were very soft 29 30 W Tab 21, Ex. 48 11
i i l i .e e .q l ] 1 "so as to have larger motions than the upper portion of the reactor building, it would press 2 against the reactor building. If the alluvium is sufficiently firm it will move less than the 3 g upper portion of the reactor building and, in this case, it will promote lateral support for 4 the reactor building. I think that the soil will be stiffer than the reactor building.... 1 5 l Accordingly, I expect that the soil will move-l 1ess than the reactor building." 6 7 The statement was made several times by P0andE witnesses-8 dthatthe" plant"willbelocatedonarockbase. Again, I 9 th h ere is an allegation of an attempt to mislead because the 10 lturbinegeneratorwillnotbefoundedon, rock. A subject of 11 E I primary interest to the Commission was the safety of a 12 l , nuclear-fueled plant. That plant would be safe if located 13 on a good foundation. What will make the plant at Bodega j 14 Head safe is the presence of a solid rock foundation for the 15 reactor. The expressions embodying the term " plant" were. 16 intended to convey the fact of safety because of the l 17 presence of this rock foundation. 10 Witness Worthington, having been asked whether P0andE 19 exhibits in the proceeding showed final location and' design, I 20 made the point when he said 21 ) "The designs which are undir consideration right at the moment are different than are shown 22 on this equipment location section. da i "Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that the a 24 designs that are under consideration new won't be changed, because we are constantly seeking 25 ways to improve the economy of this project. And the one thing that will not change is the fact 26 that we a.re founding the reactor structure on solid rock and surrounding it with very heavy concrete 2., structures ",20/ 2e $ 29 30 2,0,/ Tr. 383 a 12 E
i eo ? s**. e i f' 1 P0andE's consultants were in all cases kept infccmed as 2 to the planned location of the turbine generator and the 3 nature of foundation material. As noted elsewhere,the 4 April 30,1962 Dames 8: Moore Report was promptly forwarded 5 to them.2J1/ 6 7. The Petition, commencing at page 38, suggests that 7 P0andE has provided the AEC with fragmentary, outdated and I 8 altered information. What were forwarded to that Commission 9 j are the basic reports of the Company's consultants upon 10 which continuing reliance is placed. 11 l Dr. Housner8e report of January, 196122/ was included 2 12 in the Preliminary Hazards Summary Report furnished the AEC. 13 Housner's letters of March 5,196223/ and June 27, 1962,2,_4/ 14 were not included. Their essence is that new information 15 did not create a need to change the design recommendations 16 l included in his 1961 Report.2J/ Contrary to the Associ-l 17 ation's claim at page 39, therefore, Exhibit 48 shows the lcontinuingrelianceplacedonHousnertaReport. 18 19 The Tocher and Quaide Report of September 14, 1960 2_6/ 20 also was sent to the AEC in its entirety. The allegations 21 l at page 43 of the Petition of unexplained alteration to the f conclusions of that Report are therefore astonishing. 22 In 5 23 addition to the summary of those conclusions contained in the i i 24 body of the Preliminary Hazards Summary Report, the text of 25 the Report itself is referred to in that summary end in-21 i cluded as an appendix. 27 l See text at pp. 8-9, supra 28 l Tab 12, Ex. 48 i Tab 16, Ex. 48 l Tab 23, Ex. 48 l 29 See text preceding f.n. 30 Tab 8, Ex. 48 13 l l
1 + f
- s
.g s. 1 That which was included in Exhibit 48 but not initially 2 forwarded to the AEC is in the nature of substantiation of 5 the conclusions of P0andEta consultants. Its presence in i 4 the Exhibit established it as a matter of public record and 5 rendered illogical any charge of an attempt to deceive. 6 8. Pin' illy, the argument is advanced that P0andE is 7 being forced by extraneous pressures to proceed with its 8 plans at Bodega Head "despite grave reservations from his l 9 l own consultants." A few quotations from Exhibit 48, which 8 10 l must have been read only selectively by 'the Association in l preparing its Petition, are sufficient to dispel this 11 12 misapprehension. 13 O Tab 15 is Mr. Worthington's February 27, 1962 letter to 14 Dr. Housner. He wrote: "Recent exploratory work on the 15 power plant eite has disclosed new information on the 6 geology and rock characteristics. This new data is outlined below for your information and coment.. . If any of your earlier recommendations for seismic treatment require revision, please let us know...." Tab 16 in Housner's answer. He stated: "The new infomation on the soil' and rock is not cafficiently different from the old to warrant a change in my recommenda-tions on earthquake resistant design." Tab 18, a letter to Dr. Tocher with a copy to 25 Dr. Housner dated May 15, 1962, forwarded the last Dames & O li Moore Rtport and asked: "Would this new information in any E 27 lwayrevisetheopinionsexpressedinyourreportof fSeptember 14, 1960, and consequently your answers to the questions posed by Mr. George Housner?" 30 Tab 23 is Housner's answer to Tocher's comments. 14 1 b
I i 1 1 .~. t. i l l-1 He noted that."... the added imbedment of the reactor build. 2 ing in the soil does not pose any especially severe problem." ( 3 V 4 P0andE felt some reluctance in presentin6 Exhibit 48, 5 but not for the reasons alleged at page 5 of the Petition. ,! It was concerned that misinterpretation by persons without 6 7 sufficient background in the field would result. As demon-8 strated above, such misinterpretation has occurred. Less ) 9 h:predictablewasthemannerinwhichthepredispositionsofthe 10 Association have influenced its review and its choice of 11 fragmentary quotations to reach the desired end. A good 1 12 faith review of Exhibit 48 could have prepared the Association 13 to ask meaningful questions of P0andE witnesses before the 14 Atomic Energy Commission. The review undertaken produced a 15 document which cannot even properly be considered by this 16 Commission and which is filled with distortion and innuendo. 17 l WEREFORE, Pacific Gas and Electric Company respectfully 1 18 urges that the Commission deny the " Petition to Reopen for 19 Further Hearing" on file in this proceeding. 20 I Dated at San Francisco, California, this 16th day of 21 i May, 1963 12 Respectfully submitted, 25 F. T. SEARLS 24 25 JOHN C MORRISSEY g b El f FHILIT A. CRANE, JR. g9 .n-20 LELAND R. SELNA, JR. Attorneys for l 30 Pacific Gas and Electric Company I 245 Market Street San Francisco 6, California l 15 l i
4 a 7 t CERTIFICATE OF EERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document upon all parties _of record in this pro-ceeding by mailing by first-class mail k copy thereof properly addressed to each such party. Dated at San Francisco, California, this 16th day of May, 1963. LELAND R. SELNA, JR. -l 4 9 l
y 2y 4 id L f l 3
- l i' ) .
g U ~. I
- 3..,
e o .i.. o - i .\\ i ,9-s:,l- - 1 ' ' - . ;, u %y 9 j i ) 4 I 'o, - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l ,I,. ') 1 it <i, + I hereby certify that I have this day served the. foregoing document,upon all parties of record in this pro- [ ceeding by mailing by first-class aail a copy thereof properly addressed. to each rab party.. Dated at San Fr:c,.cisco, California, this 16th ' day l of May,1963. l LELAND R, SELNA, JR. .E T l. (1 \\ n I f i g f 1 9}}