ML20234D037
Text
.
.b
(
(
r P. A. Merris, Assistaat Director for May 14,'1963 Reactors, Division of Compliance, saadquarters R. E. Engelkea, Easctor Inspector (Supervisory) ymt DHD M l
g, ;;, QS!
Region V, Division of Compliance BODEGA S4.7 REACTOR DOCERT 30. 50-205 CO:V:REE o
Attached is a.elipping from the May 13 edition of the Atoude Eastgy Clearing Bosse describing soms of the more recent attempts of the opponents of the Bedega Bay reactor to thuart construction of the
.iS N plant at 'its proposed site.
As you can see.from'this latest legal maasever, this group is increasingly determined and very resourceful. - Of particular interest are some of the allegations contained in their "Memoreadas of Action" which petitions the California Public Utilities Commission to re-open 9
the hearings which authorised PG65 to proceed with'their plans to construct the plant at Bodega Eend. specifically, it has been charged by the Association thats (a) Tha borings into the foundations show that there is no solid rock at the reactor site.
w.-
g:
and has failed to submit the mest recent and damagias informa-tion to the Attmic Energy Commission.
(c) Outside experts brought in by the Association have found evidence of an active earthquake fault right through the proposed reactor site.
(d) Discrepancies between information submitted to the PUC and information submitted to the ABC in the Preli=i==7 Essards Ama1ysis.
i
,/
It becomes apparent fram the above that these er similar charges wh.11
/
be made at the ABC hearing for a construction permit if there is
/
formal intervention. These points might well constitute some of
/;
the more controversial testimony at the hearias.
<t
/[qf In view of $ha above, it appears that.there now may be additional 1
sig;aificance associated with the ACRs., recommendation that careful in il l, '
l l'.
1' j
l 3562
.i 1 l 8709210499 851217
l
-(
(
u P. A. Morris
-2**
May 14, 1943 emanimatisas be ande.of the quarta-diorite reek during buildias azoavattee. We are unausse of any farmally established precedure withis the Commissian for awaimiar the addittamal informattaa uhAch the Aces suggests he eh*=8==d "daring ameavatisc". As we i
reported is our inspeetian neport dated March' 26,1963, eseawation has boea la progress at the site for some the. With this in stad,-
I I informally disemesed pg6g's site preparaties and emple1 Latten plass en the telephens with F. F. Maats and W. Wetting today.. In summary, this is what they r. eld us.
(a) The surrent sentaast, Centreet No.1, just covers puelimiury I
emesiastem and will not be sempleted until August. As,present only about half of the werborden has best removed from tee building site.. The aseess road is only parcially o g 1sted.
(b) Najor ' reek"*a==e s=== have met yet been reached. It.is not
?
expoeted that they will be reached until after the me. 2 site psepasaties osotreet is in full seing ta september er Detober.
1 (e) Last week three geologists from U. _S. Geological survey, Clebseh, semilla and gehoekter visited the site in the campany,ef 7063
. representatives.1 Asserding to Mauts, clekseh was' identified as an ABC==d*a=*.
Although, it uma agreed that11tiums seek too early to.ebtain informaties of the type suggested:
L.
by Acac, Msuta ' stated that tbs prelimiaa'cy results of their taspeetten aa=84==ad the observaties of PG&g's sessultants, as quaide and Techer.,.
. m.Aen (d) Mauts stated that 7063 esmouitants would periodically armW the eneavattaa as work progresses and abat full informaties of tbs type regnested by ACRs will be obtained by 70&E.
It is not espected that this inforumcism would be available before the hearing for a seastrusties permit.
l i
i (e) Mauts savited%he gagian Y Coup 11ames inspeetors te visit the site at as/ time mai said that he aise womid be happy to arrange i
for us to accompg their eemsultants en ese of their visits I
to the site. Na patated eat that the latter suggesties had I
paref M== merit sines the emperts womid be available to answer any questians we might have er to interpret'uhatever observations
]
might he mode.
)
r' The godega p==rimer due to its essereversial assure, is senmuhat unique. It. secure to es that because it is unprecedented it may generate urpresedented problems' t the hearias. It slee seeers to a
us that due to same ef the questians raised conceratag sitinge,'the couplimmaa Divistem adabt he ealled spea to perform fnastians met I
4
)
(
(
+
.t F. Au Barris.. Assistaat Diuctor for May 14, 1963 Reactors, Division of CJapliance, Easdquartors l
R. E. Engelkea, Reactor T. aspect a (Supe M eory) g yn 5 0 LY 5,;j, g 3fS!
Region V, Didsion of Compliance 300gGA B&Y EIAC10R DOCERT No. 50-205 1
CO:VsEEE 1
j o
i 1
Attached is a clipping from the May 13 edition o$ the Atomic Energy
.l Clearing Bosse describing soms of the more recent attempts of the i
opponents of the Bodega any reactor to chuert construction.of the W..
plant at~its proposed site.
')
j As you can see from'this latest lessi maneuver, this group is i
increasingly determined and very researceful. Of partientar interest are some of the allegations contalmed in their ".4esormadas of Aettua" which petitiums the California Public Utilities Comadssion to re-opea the hearings a$ich authorised pC&E %.o proceed with~t.nair plan 3 to construct the p?. ant at. Esd.aga Eeset, specifically, it has been charged by the Association that:
(a) The horings into the focadatioso show that there is no se12d rock et the reactor site.
6mm
.g.:
and has failed so subutt the amost recent and damaging informa-tion to the Atomic Ensw Commission.
(c) Outside experts brought in by the Association have found evidence of as active earthquake fanit right through the proposed reactuc sica.
(d) Discrep4acies between infonnation submiWed to the FUC and information submitted to the ABC in the Preliminary Essards
- Analysis,
,'/
It becomes apparent from the aheve that chose er similar charges wkil-he ande at the ABC hearing for a coc%truction permit if there is i
/
formal intervention. These pohnte right well countitute soms of
/;
the more contrevetatal teetirway at the bacaring.
t i!
L
~
k f
In view of'the;above, it appears that there som any be additi Mal
}
/ /,
significance associated with tha ACES,tecounsadatioe that - te*=1 la
/..',
4I il 5
3562
/,
'f 87092104?9 851217 I
PDrs F07A FIRELTOBS-665 PDR a
,u
\\
<Y
~
(
.(
3 P. A. Marris
-2.-
May 14, 19$3 I
.f i
I enemina.tions be unde of the quarta-dierite reek darias building essavetten. Wa are unsaare of any formally establishai precedure within the Commissian for oh*=i=<=g the additiemal informatiec whfeh the ARES suggests he'ehemi w "during ensavatten". As we reported is our
- nd= soport dated March 26, 1963, eseavaties has boom Aa pregassa at the site for some time. With t'ais in mind,-
1 informally disseseed peas?s sica preparaties and emploratism plean en the telepheme with F. F. Maats and W. Wettia6 today. In summary, this is what they told me.
(a) Tbs surrent sentanet, Centreet go.1, just covere pratweary emessatten and will met be sempleted until August. At presamt aaly about half of the everburden has been removed from the building site. the assess read is saly partially asuplated.
t (b) Maj$r rech iferiant*srzsa tewc a$t yst b::n tw.kc4( It is est espeeted that tdisy will be rwehed until aftw the No. 2 site psopesettom eentreet is la full swing ta september er Osteher<,
(e) Last week three geologists from U. s. seelesteal survey, CZ.eboet, l
Beatila and setmekter visited the site in the campaar,ef p065 reprocentatives.. Asserdias to Mests, Clebeek was' identified as.am ABC senaultaat. Although, it was agreed that'it;was ameh too early..te.(ebtata informaties.ef the type suggested-by Acac, Nossa stated that the pre 1Maary results of their 1
1aspeettaa -84===d the 'observaties of p048's samsultants, a-quaide and Tscher..:..weP L
(d) Mauts stated that pela sensultants would periodically====4v.
the essavattam as work pregaseos and that full informatiana et the type seguested by ACRs will be obtained by 706E. It is not expeetted that this Laformaties would be available before the hearing for a eaastrusties permit.
(e) Maints ingf2edftbe gegien V Complienew inspectors te visit the site at anytime and said that he also womid be happy to arrange.
l 1
for us to assempany their sensultants en ene of their visits l
to the site. Be pointed est that the latter suggestion had partimaise merit simas the emparts would be available to answer any questians we udght have er to interpret whatever observattens might he made.
The sedega situatiemi due to its aestreversial nature, is samsubat weigue. Et pesars to us that besause it is unprecedented it sesy temerate unprosedented probimos 'et the hearias. 'It also escurs to
/
us that due to sans of the geest1eme raised esmeersias esting,'the Complissee Divistem udght be called open to pertens feuwtions met i
3.
1 l
.4
t Y
(
(
P. A. Morris
=3-May 14, 1963 normally seasidered in our area of interest. A number of questions
)
arise when one considers' the progression of che' Bodega application thru the review and hearing stage. For example.
~
(a) Charges' have been made that 111esci construction has taken place on the site. We tisit6d the site in Match and found no basis in fast, Ger thess' charges. Should sa plan another l
visit to the site just prior to the hearing.co obiserve the.
status of sita preparation (b) 2xediation is proceeding. It is unlikely but entittely possible that sceful and perhaps,important geological talhrasacion might i
be 'availabas frie direct observations df the excavation prior J
to the haaring.< Who' is resFossible for obtaining'and prosesting g' "g this information at the hearingt Is p068 solely responsivist I
If Leo, it right well be' cha11 eased by interveners.
.I i
1 (a) Would'it not be prudsat. for the Casaission to'hkve independent esperts follow the progress of the:ez6avation and report their f h M =es to Lg! Is the, Compliance Divioica espected to repoit -
geological observations'as excavation progresses? Without cyalifisd experts < ta thf.s' field,~ vould it 'not -be assential for cospMance ta obemis. consultanu to perform this 'functiont J
The Division ai cs3pliWcha:%r ' spa?ftwWE we:?developa j
and er. acute e prostm. feic auctiir.speations 'andiluvestige.tions 1
of activitissirf licensees ainavgaecesspy Sc ratnnectfn i
with the icamence et denial gt a gelructip perg,? boo g t i
asia.
this includs activities.such as,itspecting a aita to det*tuine i
if it is a9 described da the.apolitstius!.
1 l
(d) to what extent shc214 we hscose iuw ived bs inepe?. tion visico I
to the otte prier to Lasuance cf the constructies permitt Do yon consider it advisable to accept Mauss offer to inspect the l
e!te in the ccupay of PGM sonsuTtsats?
)
+
(e) What is the Sature of the AgC contract with 5. s. Geological l
titurveyt We would appreciate your cosments on the stove and partianiarly-3 your advice ceaearnias the questions os raised in the last paragraph Attachmeat
.... %![ h
'T I
~ (O O
V [ 4*)
\\
V.I. d l) j.7 7; lg,wct g
EiN +,
m q
Ck tyy
...-4
o c.
, e n
4 t
'[ '
4
./
M M
d.
DATE OF DOCUMENT Df.TE RECEIVED NO.s
",3 wo, s p 43 3J6
_1 gg) '.
FRobis a
-ye-
$.r_._
.. g:
LTE. "
MEMon REPORTS OTER:
..,h g
g.
i 9
t-9 saa (2de,n 6. % se)
K DATE AEWERIDs J ACT.4N KCESSARY Q A CCNCFBRENCF ]
NO ACTION DCUCESARY,C COMMD""
C 17:
CLASSIF=
JOST OfIICE FILE CODis -
i
'EEG.Not DATE L.ETCaLRED TO.
DATE
,RECE!VED BY >
DNO WWM UhadM)
,i i ME EMA Ns7 auc? sir.
$/4 A 'f "
"l C
2442%
.' 1lcs,& t' DDe 5o 203 2.
3rysm
./
gg_,.
o 4
cw mene, ?,acelken % wer:1s, 4465/14/4 r
ParxARxs.
l
. < isc;,
=
y-m.
u g.
k.
s.r.newcnutaar coxmss " MAIL CONTROL FORMVronxAd,.. i p),,,,,
- U. f. Government Prinung 01561: 1962 637308
,,..r a
h h
e g.
I i',
- A (g
&