ML20234D683
Text
i l.
~
.r
..s e
.g; :,..: -
.y _ +
DLR8CTE v-boexet se,30-205 AUG6 196' nA. m.
W'.
Mrs. Har:aret C. Hayes 117 fanalpais Aced Berkeley 5. California l
Bear Mrs. MayeS8 This replies to your letter of July 9,190, addreseed to chairmen
- -a Seaborg. You expressed eenoem alth roepeat to the proposed son.
9 struction of a maelear power reenter at Bodega Baad.
'.W Before the Scanissian aan reach a decision en the issusnoe of a
. j pensit authorisLng eenstruction of a power reactor like the one
_ f_
proposed W Facifis Oss & Electrie Compery, car technical staff
' _51-mut make a eauprehensive safety murieur of the proposed design, erestruction and location at the plant. In additim, these matters saast be revissed W the Advisory CamaLttee on Reactor t
N Safeguards and the reports of the Committee must be ande publio.
~
b Advisory Committee on~ Reector Safeguads uns est m sh.4 y Congress to advise the C:ssaisoim co matters of thLs kind.- It
@J.T
'is mode up of seientists sod engineers the an aminently r in d u
e in the seientifie dLsdFi relattag to enester safety.
l Atter these revious have bens completed, a public bearing must
=
'_ e be held before an AtomLe safety and useneing Bond. At auch 7&
a bearing the comparty g the plant must present evidence O.
i jutifying the frca the standpoint of public health M
and safety, and ' members of the technical staff of the Cammission f - i.
t their evalustian of the safety espoets of the plant. In
' hearing, aanbers of the public who have an intemst in the
\\
matter may participate in the hearing in accordanoe with the i
C<sumission's. " Rules of Practice",10 CfA Part 2, a oopy of which e
s
$,.s is enclosed,
\\
)
^
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the AtcsLie Safety and i
Licensinc Board renders an inLtial decision and this decision l
is then subject to review by the Cassisalon at the request of l
a party or en the Cassisaico's corn motion.
t n
.se <sy The purpose of these extensive technical safety refleus'and I
prooechtres is to assure thorough consideration of allfespects f;
of the proposod plant bearing upon the question of ubetber it l
ry,.g....
5, 4
I i
i j
8709220164 851217
]3 j
(
FIRESTOBS-665 PDR
.... _.,... -. _ _ -, _ - - - - - ~ ~ - -
j!
"-I
i
~
3 c
)
i AUG6 1963 I
Nrs. Margaret C. Hayes T i
..p.
, /g
-y
)
een be somstructed smi operated at the proposed alte without 0
u tae risk to the health and safety of the public.
the matter of discharge of radiometive efflumats to the enviramment is one of the important considerations.
A mort detailed description of 1,~
3 the regulatory reviou of meetar projects is provided in the l
enclosed pelghlet.
At the 8'Emaion's request, the U. S. Geelegical Survey has
.-j been conducting a thorough field stady of the geology of Bodess Mand sinos early May.
Further, the Fish and Wildlife Service has antasitted a report cancerning the effect of operation of a i
resetor as the marine environnant. A copy of the report is i 7R enclosed. In addition, esport oansultants have been. retained
(
to assist the AEC angulatory Staff in evaluatlag Recific Gas 4
-~t Electric Congeny's application mLth respect to the seissology
- 9 of the area and structural design of the proposed plant. Final J
action en the Posific Gas & Ilsetric Campany appliestion util 14'~j act be taken until the report nr the V. 4. Geological Servey has been recalved and evaluated. Parther, a obstruction permit I
t uL11 mot be issued maless the Commission, thm a publis bearing and a decision ny the Atomic Safety and Licensing t
.;,3 Board and considersuon of all factors hearing upon safety is eenvinced that the facility esa be constmoted and operstad at '
1
(
the proposed location uLthout undne risk to the beslth and I
rc
.M astety of the pahlio..
?$
e-soning questions,. omsersatian astters and the estheuse of the site are not within the jurisdiction)et the Atambo Energy GJ9 MMon and, therefore, ers~msfaceisidered in the course l
Q t
it.h of the meist and evaluatico at the agiplicattom..
- 02....:
Slancerely yours,
- ri Org!n! stped br i
+
ne n. Prb M
j Eber R. Prios 1
.{I Assistant DLrector Division of Ltcensing
/
and Regulatice
/
DLatribution:
Enclosuress '
Formal 1.
10 CFE Part 2 Supplemental 4 w..,
g(M Y.^hQ 1
2.
Pamphlet Public Document Room (2) 3 Report G. Hadlock, 000
/
C. T. Edwards g,g*g.,,y b.s.f;,
1 omer > DLR i 9((///h smc.v M
J crrld'ided oT m2 om 8-2-0
% -63 8.- k63 j;
n,- ac.m u.
0, em e.ut j_
j
~ _,.. _... _. - -
- ~ ~ -
- " ~ ~ "
~'
~
i
. a. w.. _
.o
)
17T:CTEsbsb.
7-30-63 Mrs. Margaret C. Hayes
'117 Tamalpais Road Berkeley 8, California Dear Mrs. Bayes This replies to your letter of July 9, 1963, addreesed to Chairman Seaborg. You expressed concern with respect to the proposed construe-s
- __a tion of a nuclear power reactor at Bodega Head.
1 Before the Commiission can reach a decision on the issuance o
~
j petsit authorizing construction of a power reactor _ like the one pro-posed by Pacific Gas & Electric Company, our technical staff must make a comprehensive safety review of the proposed' design, construction and location of the plant. In addition, these matters must be reviewed
.c-c by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and the reports of the S
h~G Ccamittee must be made public. The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safe-guartis was established by Congress to advise the Commission on matters 7
of thLs kind. It is made up of scientists and engineers who are eminently qualifi' d in the scientific disciplines relating to reactor e
.;J
safety.
4P5 After these reviews have been completed, a public hearing must be
='.
held before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.. At such a hearing.
g the company proposing the plant must' present evidence Mtifying the,.
~j.
proposal from the standpoint of public health and safety, and members
]
of the technical staff of the Commission present their evaluation of the
'aafety aspects of the plant. In this hearing, members of the public
,q who have an interest in the matter may participate in the hearing in y'
accordance with the Commission's " Rules of Practice",10 CFR Part 2,
'~
a copy of dich is enclosed.
!= r
)
uww. wasoecuvu.,..ie...a ^.74 ? s I au su
-.,x+~...,.
yy
_ _g
,ma an.a. l_.. 4 3. _ _, m u_
. _..c v4..y
, _ - :.r ' -
- w. 4._u4 f.,3.
__,m2-At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board renders an$ initial decision and this de' cision is then sub a..je,ct to review by the Commission at the request of a petty or on c -. Aw 225ownnogon.
1*
i a
_ u..
~ _- -_
m
,e.
2-
~ N- -. :.-. -
e.,..,-.
.n.-
)'
)
-s a
n Mrs. Margaret C. Hayes - The purpose of these extensive.techkical safety reviews and procedures-1 is to assure thorough consideration of all aspects of the proposed plant bearing upon the question of whether it can be constructed and j
operated at the proposed site without undue risk to the health'and
)
i safety of the public. The matter of discharge of radioactive effluents
]
to the environment'is one of the important considerations. A more 1
detailed description-o' the regulatory review of reactor projects is i
provided in the enclosed pamphlet.
= _ "
At the~Commisadon's request, the U. S. Geokogical Survey has been j
conducting a thorough field study of the geology of Sodega Head since 1,
early May. Further, the Fish and Wildlife. Service has submitted a report concerning the effect of operation of a reactor on the marine
, -Q3 environment. A copy of the report is enclosed. In addition, expert r
consultants have been retained to assist the AEC Regulatory Staff in evaluating Pacific Gas & Electric Company's application with respect a
to the selfmology of the area and structural design of the proposed plant. Final action M on the Pacific Gas & Electric Compaqr N,hd l
application will not be taken until the report by the U. S. Geological n =
Survey has been received and evaluated. Further, a construction W,
..~.;_g permit will not be issued unless the Commission, following a' public
- ~
$5 hearing and a decision by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and consideration of all factors bearing upon M safety is convinedd that
~
the facility can be constructed and operated at the proposed location with undue risk to the hilth and safety of the public.
a 4.L Zoning questions, conservation matters and the esthetics of the I
l site are not within the justification of the Atomic Energy Commission and, therefore,'are not considered in the' course of the review and evaluation of h application.
The application by Pacific Ges.
Ele rio Company is before the Commission as a regulatory matter.
e actor projeet covered by the application was conceived by the Compa on its oub initiative and is proposed to be entirely financed with vate capital. No financial b
orothercommitmentsbytheCommissipa involved.
Thank you for your letter.*
+
pp4 Sincerely yours, ja hse '+
g/
Eber R. Price
- ?"'Y
.b '
g o
..a..
- l
.