ML20234D692
Text
[
y
(
y e
/% n.
)
i yw s eaw d
_D V
'M i
67 i
I Joe Feuchard, News Service Branch June 4, 1963
/
Division of Public Infeannation BQ Redmoy L. Seethwick, Assistant to the j
Manager for Public Infea1metion, SAM BODEGA BAY CLIPS - SAarta 305& PRESS DEMDCEAT So -2 ef Attached are sapies of altypings from the Santa Rosa Press heat,1:scMfa8 een en the Milsom 1s ter.to SeeberS..
Attachments:
As stated - 5 clips CC: w/attashs d Barold Prise. REG. BQ Robert Immenstein, EU A, BQ severd shaper, occ,uut i
.,,,......,,s,.;,u,.,,,.,
m.
<<,s 1
- ?
t Rec'd Of. Dir. of Regn.
Date --b-4 f h l ----
n Time --- y2 - - -- 7
\\
a M ST
Gtn -----
y MI SOU1%IWICK st 6/4/63 i
B~/09220167 851217 i i PDR FOIA FIRESTOB5-665 PDR
's C__j
c c
i I
4 l
c =.mg%
m
...., - amw,-.;
m,w,n, 3x =~
a 1
r p
Udall Assuredo+f Tho+ rough i
AEC Study of A-Plant Site 4
rs.aw. tr.. eras o.,nara')
WASIIINGTON--The Atomic En' vey to discuss "what further geo. quake possibuities. before PG&E logical studies may be appropriate is given a permit to build the re-
' ergy Commission has assured In-to assure that the geological con-actor.
terior Secretary Stewart Uds11 that ditions of the s!!e are fully under.
PG&E siplied at the time that' It is making " thorough evaluation" stood."
Its experts find the site " suitable of the proposed Bodega Bay nucle-
. The AEC said it is already work-and safe," and said it is "confi-ar reactor site.
Ing with personnel of the Geologi-dent that our position will be comy' In a letter of' reply to Secretary cal Survey office who are prepar. pletely confirmed" at AEC hear.
j Udall's letter of May 20 expressing ing a report on the geology of the ings in Santa Rosa.
j
- grave concern" with the possible site'.
The utility company has filed i
i consequences of the location of the ne letter was signed by Robert an application with the AEC for i
proposed Pacific Gas & Electric E. Wilson, acting chairman of the permission to build.the reactor on I
Co. reactor near the San Andreas AEC, the ' site. 'Be AEC hearings-not
\\
fault.the AEC said it "appreci-yet scheduled-wSI precede action ates" the secretary's assurance Earthquake Dangers on the application.
that the Geoligical Survey will be Secretary Udall's letter sounded
. available to help study the pro-a warning about possible earth-l 3
'posa.
quake hazards involved in siting
. w^ ~a The AEC's regulatory staff is the reactor within 1,000 feet of the' making a " thorough evaluation of boundary of the fault zone on'Bo-the suitabuity of the' proposed Bo-dega llead.
dega llead site," and wUl talk to lie suggested the "very thor; the director of the Geological Sur. ough investigation" of the earth.
s v.
', w,.
0' H M st u's; A
+
i a
e o
l
\\q u
/
i q
7.t
. AFTERNOON,MA-90, 1963 E V cents a
[JaMaiAu Au.
4
p.#.ghgit
\\
W WV:$7..dM5 4 5:,Q G. ';' ;: ;, *.
X$k,r:;.; -r.: g:::n.- -
, j j;;,gMy; Q.
... t
'. : A y, '.l:?..
[
@,y,,,..rg.Q%y#;QhdyM &
g
- ,. n e
,sr g
Y
^ '.
/cc '
w.< ;my J*
Q;Gfhh.pq K.55 ~* f%g?.1 Q.uut"N;y 7 y, Q.#
~ ;'l s.,
bt dQ&
, u Ciu.H 1
wm.m_.n :yjgs.3. ;; -..
k h.f'
{
j f.h '
h,
-l) g:..p 7.
.c
. m,e m.:e 7,,;x.
pj.p 7.a c
- p.
., c;y;,
2.ww
$ L k M* p ::....,W n % :,
.... ip
~ -
I
' %d
?Di i ht~W@ W.6 ff"i, M
Mga;g6j?9 Mp
...! N 1
M
- <.-?9 ' ;
%q Mm W ~.- w :-
- q,
.,, 4 p pp:'.. g
- g RL
-w < +.4~&{;y: %;; _.
l hy;g i
3 6 ~.~ ~ h
- 25W =?::rr:mm i V 9
~.
4-74
~?s q ~0p;yy: w,J#3%
cQQ:rA,9*%.,,g j; pjiy;h,,"7j;'j.g v
q;yl a
4., g*m e
- m w wa ~. gsr pnga4S yg g;yf;u
~
..s~
y 9
i p.,
g, md s.
wwt s.e,q n;p tu ;4 h
$h[hS.
wara:eg a=w w$h ((w' mu..$eAm,,,h f
E N
k I
I r
o 1
dsiare enaeo tw. win Leseren 2
PG&E ROAD WORK CONTINUED AS SCHEDULED AT BOLEGA BAY c
~
7 l'i WharfIn Foreground Removed By Workmen l
e.
e i
i ' Battle of ' Bodega Bay
~
i 1
\\
- Fails to Materialize?
By staff correspondent.
plied. by r'emoving a boat tied to feet.of their 100 foot pier which,
BODEGA BAY - %e anticipat. the pierJ extended into the'right. of way,
.l ed 1.howdown between a Bodega They;then allowed construction and the ' firm continued its dirt.
Bay property owner and a' con. workers to' chop away so'ne.20 filling operations 'without incident.
tractor building the westshorel road for; Pacific Gas & Electric
,j I
Co. failed to materialize yesterday.
)
The property owners.' Mr. and i
Mrs. Lloyd W;od, offered no re.'
. sistance when it came time for them to r.' move a boat and a'por-tion of thev pier which was block!
4 ing a.right of way.
The county had anticipated trou.
ble from the property owners, who had been served with notice to re-move the pier 'a year ag'o, but hadn't done so.
I i
ne' Woods were served with a i
court order demanding that they remove a boat and a portion of their pier just as the construction
- firm's dM fi11i n gi operations reached within a Jew feet of the Property.
Deputy Sheriff Edwm' Cameron, 3
who served the legal. paper, said I
~
the Woods accepted the writ peace.
ably and they immediately com-
.s...
h.
I
..i1. i
.., -. ~
I 7 q.p%p.? i Q:.;?, -
r 9
g 7. m g,,,,y
~. m y*,
v.7, py. a,,w.,,,f..p
, W T"ng.' > -...,
Nph
,y.y s
.l
's
.m
. g'.m., %p.. y; ;;g,.y g gv _ ' z ~ ' :1,.
. v..y; y., p -'
g c
a g..
+,m u ;
u ch-
, y^zs o w.. _.
k,M, ky EQ M.% D
$f. j."/',YQMk" H*%_ ;hh
. ' ir i :s l
>., G.':h b9 '
.+., e.
s c
- ' R kg,( :.v:y. g;@
M
]
s Sn W.
e
,\\'ku. gn,.- 4 w: %..,y w. m y,r,. w.?
.m:%.y
- /w "pv^n
- ... ~; m%q ; g, m, a r...x v.g. o v., n m
,u
- ,n mi e qmw
. n
. -lM.,(*~G% yi:%;) RS v.w. 99 e
~
y y j%.y :k :v --p $
.[.i A
a t.:
~ W a:
, @4 m
, u'.
wEp, ):# h> 'b g.,'f'.,-d [g od$$
]$
i
. S-
-e r.
q.
'%.y(y@[
- M.
{14y y Q} & *& T,R'M,% g(. K '* )., '
lh,. +,
4,
.s M& &nQ Q' ~q,
MpN.p'lb~hf <.
q\\k
^
g q
n 4,#M.a.M'
.T [
R./
[]
M"5f(QiW' i
h s
ik%.
<. - MM
.M N RY
,4(4 F7 3 d I %i
.',Y Sq
[id@W) 1 Ow %
Q g. g? %=g y.w
, d.'N f.4 4
s$ *.*m n m;s,=,$
i WD
+ ;I L.g.
T
+
- (y r w w;.
o L
h lr).
k W', g M@
Oc M Am
% M 9:
+p 9W V!
MM $ g$ >
1 h
h 94
- hp a'9 t
S t p.w: 4 yw-u i
(p$g $q.
g
. e.
4 s
&kW
.h.
b 3:
h g; y!y g y
. C;..mw@%. y i
W.
,.t 1
L.1 gy%-
y
.L. o, -
.3 j
-m m. %,c m,+
f mw w
i y.g mn..
?
-a L
\\
I N
u w m :.L,. % h. %. _l'..h.k. ;.
f.
M.
id n
-swr ma sma usaron I
JAZZ AND BALLOONS A7 BODEGA HEAD ANTI.A PLANT RALLY
,g g
-Qrm.5.Omtc'c)r*7 Lu Watters in Checkercd Shirt, Turk Murphy on His Left
{
(cp*Ba.Il,ooz1s au :
azz gly s -5
-~
,g'
'. Float 1 cross Hee l
l j.,...
1 Py Siaff Correspondent They contained space for th7' Sha pointed out that radioactive I
~ iUress Democra't5 estimate!
finder to record time and loca*.lon partic!cs probably would. behave !
-w' BODEGA BAY - The St. James T
infirmary Dlues rolled out over was from 230 to 300, while PG&E y finding. and instructions to differently than the balloons, and {
the Pacific here yesterday as a crews reported.they counted 90 stamp and mall to Mr. Watters that the gas release stack 'of the in Cotatt.
proposed plant ivould be high in to 95 persons.
ia--
The first balloon reported re.
Despite imputations of the note.
the air,: while the balloons were i j
{
holiday crowd released a flock of ass ci.ition officials said the bal.
released at grou.'td level.
{
loca launching wasn't intended as toy balloons bearing warning of PG&E's crowd. counters w e r e atomic fallout.
covered was picked up by Tim members of a crew working on a j
The balloons, released about. 2 Borba. who lives oo Bodega ave.
less spoetacular sort of wind.,
p.m. from the site Pacific Gas &
near Petaluma, about four hourt
..any kind of valid scientific ex.
g device - N hlog I 1
Perant.,
Electric Co. proposes for a nu.
'after the release.
i
%w oithe headlands.
clear fueled power plant, drifted Mrs. Dom.
.m.
Sebutopol, A Note (Continued ou rage 2 Col. 5)
"M unusual demonstration was-to the southeast.
The jau background to the Me.
"Ihe balloons carried notes that or.ly one phase of the ar.sociation s
< morial Day affair was provided said: "This balloon coald repre.
running battle with the util'ty com.'
by im Watters, who came out of ser.t a radioactive molecule.of
~
. retirement to play the one day strontium 90 or lodine 13t. It was (Comunued from ra;.1) pany over the power plant pro...
stand, backed by Turk Murphy's released on Bodega IIcad on Me.
the county coadinator for the as-posal. The next event will be a
- band.
'zr.orial Day,1963. PG&E hopes to sociation, said the group was onlY court hearing in Santa P.osa nr Officials of the Northern Call.
' build a nuclear reactor plant at attempting to " demonstrate thati Ic a.m. Monday on the vali:;ity fornia Association to Preserve Bo.
this spot, close to the world's big-the wind blows inland *
- 3Ad of a use permit the county issuN i dega IIead and liarbor,' which gest active earthquake fault. Tell, if there is fa!!out it will blow in,.for the plant more than thcee sponsored the demonstration, esti.
your local newspaper where you ;,t;... direction."
Jlyears ago.
mated 3 4. persons gathered at the
' found this balloon."
)
a
- ::. *. dna mad.
s
. W
g
+
w-a
., em:n.
d(d4 Me:5.t. N u, b Ekb 5 5
More n,alloons i
4 1.
From Bodega i
. Bay Reported l
j More reports of balloons came i
In yesterday from the Bodega Bay barrage loosM 'Itursday to h3[A protest possibilny of radioactive
./
poisoning from a Pacific Gas &
1 3
Electric Co. power plant pro. p
' posed for Bodega Head.
l
(
Mrs. La Watters, Cotatl, said {
five cards arrived yesterday two l from San Rafael, one cach from 'I 1
. San Anselmo, Petaluma and the
- shore of Point R!chmond.
',y One thousand hellum-filled toy-b
- baloons were. released is demon.
a i, strata wind, patterns that could
. drop fallout from the nuclear t r::ss,
i j
plant, according to members of I
the Committee to Preserve Bode.
I. ga Head.
They called the stunt "unscien.
l, tific."
l
' Mrs. Watters said the group I
1 had read press reports of a bal.
I I
nn ' falling into the San Rafael' civic center fountalo. She said Thu Borba, Petaluma, was first
. to call her, following instructions.
, on. cards attached.no each bal.
{
'. leon..
7 i
1
/
)
r e a n
d
}
i p3 s
-QT L_
+4
?
w
(.
.. smynagnR.m am l
~ l-
- f A-Plant UsePermil L
wktw % au.ua m
o
\\
i Fight Remmes Monday; By DON ENGDAITL.
Without such a decision-or with ;
The court fight over the uselout the preliminary trial on the' 1
., '. ' permit for the propokd Bodega question-the full trial on the pe-i j
t.
Bay nuclear-fueled power plant is tition could,take in a lot of terri-i' scheduled to resume at 10 a.m. tory.
l tomorrowi Among the arguments advanced!
1 The hearing on the petition that in the original petition.are conten-!
1 attacks the validity of the use per-tions about what might have been!
)
mit will be before Superior Court shown about the dangers of tiie!
f
' Judge Lilburn Gibson in Sonoma plant if a hearing had been held!
i County Planning Commission cham-by the county.
),
bers at the county's administra-Conceivably, the court trial couldl 1
- ion building.
take in all that ground, including!
Judge Gibson, retired judge from testimony about hazards of nuclear.!
j
+
I.
Ukiah, is sitting on the case which fueled power plants.
~l i
I has gone through prelirninary skir-
' g mishes in which the county sought Pandora's Boi j
'4 s.
tmsuccessfully to get it cut down Beyond the immediate questioni i
, or thmwn out.
of the Bodega Head plant stands!
l On the basis of his earlier ruldan issue packed Pandora's box of
' ings, attorneys for the opponents troubles for this and other counties!
of the plant proposed by Pacific in the state, depending on finall Gas & Electric Co. have scrved rulings on the need for publicI b
notice that they'll ask for sum-hearings when the plant permit!
'i <.
' mary. judgment in their nwor.
was issued.
l t
'., ' ' And the county has fired back The permit was issued'in a twol f
i h
with notice that they'll scck trial year period from 1959 to IM11
-l first on arugments that opponents when state law spoke of a require-delayed unreasonably in bringing ment for public notice of hearing 3
the action and that while PG&E on permits, but was silent on the
. roceeded in reliance of the per-question of requiring hearings.
p mit the opponents " slept on their The county interpreted that as
[* rights."
a meaning ihat no hearing was If the opponents' motion is actually required.
A granted, that woukt apparently In the plant question, the op.l simply void the permit.sThat would ponents-four county landowners; i
open the door for one or more of and the Association to Preservel l
a number of things,like:
Bodega Head and Harbor-argued'
' 1-An appeal by the county of that the notice requirement wouldn't!
the decision.
have been in' the law unless a!
2-An attack by opponents on hearing was' required.
l
? ' \\'the validity and interpretation of Ruling on a county motion for!
l
'.a new zoning for the Bodega head-dismissal, Judge Gibson agreed.
' lands site which goes into effect A hearing should have been held,
[,sThursday and which-the county k
h s4 commdrig that "th say sn't req *e a permit for law neither does nor requires idle.
.7 t
,' $~A new use permit application ben there was a requirement S..,. -. by PG&E, involving a round of V:
.l county hearings and possible even-f r public notice, he sa.d, "what i
93
' tual court action there.
notice could be given.if there was
).4.
5
",,)dranted.and the county's motion If the summary judgment isn't no sharing?. Absurdities have no!
standing in the law. It must be y
E, * ;ito separate and try the issue of concluded that by necessary impliq; h.' '
' delay is, that could also be a short, cation a hearing is required and;
,' c term affair, notice thereof must be given."
l
' r.
If the judge decides there was
'Ihe point: If that ruling should s
14
. unreasonable delay, the petition stand, there are literally hundreds l
', '? ? could then be dismissed on those of use permits now outstanding P grounds. g that were issued by Sonoma and N
?
c.;,M.That, too, could lead to appeal, other counties during the two year,
. t and perhaps s o m e of the steps period that would be wideopen to!
... outlined above.
g b.
court challenge.
m
,.,._,,-...n 1
6 3
_,__.,_____.,._.m.-____m
e
_Lc.4 -
(
(
C 6
NORTHERN C ALIFORNI A ASSOCI ATION TO PRESERVE BODEGA HEAD AND H ARBOR 2731 Durant Avenue Berkeley 4, California (Tels TH 1-6399) 3 i
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE l
REPLY TO PG&E'S " BODEGA 4
l 0FFENSIVE" FILED WITH PUC SAN FRANCISCO, June 5--The conservation group which. hac opposed plans by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company for a nuclear power plant on Bodega Head has filed a reply to PG&E's defense of the Company's f
1 testimony last Spring before the California Public Utilities Com-mission.
In a formal rebuttal filed today with the CPUC, the Association to Preserve Bodega Head states the. tr atomic Energy Commission
'g has no jurisdiction over the issues raised in a lengthy petition for rehearing filed last May 6th.
fnat peultlen, says the Association, "does not seelt to ce.st doubt on tne safety of the plant. But it i
clearly does cast doubt' on the testicor f
- f PG&E's engineering witnesses with respect to safety.
Contrary to allegations by the company, this is the second petition filed by the Association and tne first dealing with the f
proximity of the proposed atomic reactor to the dan Ancreas Fault.
David Pesonen, Executive Secretary at tne Association, said today that "there has been no expert te intsony aefore,cs PUC rega rding carthquake hazards." He noted what c ot,
,tal e
reminds the PUC that "all of the evidence" on eartaq.ai.
ards at Bodega Bay is either hearsay from PG&E's engineers (none a: whom is a seismologist) or it is late-filed material on which there has been no cross-examination.
-ware-l i
f<
<l
_ --__ _ ___ 1 _- _- b
s.
e
(
(
"Thus," said Pesonen, "our rebuttal points out that the original petition raised a procedural, not a technical question."
,/'
1 l
The Accociation's reply notes that the law cle arly states: "no (nuclear) facility should be located closer than one-fourth mile from a 1
I known active earthquake fault." Pesonen said he wonders if the San Andreas isn't a known active fault, what is?
PG&E's reply, filed on May 16th, cor. ceded that the Bodega plant i
te is closer than a quarter mile from the f ault,. but argued that the
/
AEC regulations permit exceptions to the one-fourth mile' requirement.
l The Association's reply charges that PG&E is only trying to inject ambiguity into the only AEC requirement which is not now
]
ambiguous.
j 4
i l
"In addition," Pesonen said, PGLI is trying to skip a step in
{
l the formal step by stop regulator-or : es.
They have urged the PUC
]
to pass the buck to the Atomic Ener3r Commission.
But our petition did not dispute the safety of the p.at.t--we only promised to bring forth expert testimony which would dispute the plant's safety.
But first we need a hearing."
The Association's petition now before the CPUC charges that PGLE gave " transparently misleading and impeachable testimony" i
in hearings last Spring.
"This," said Pesonen, "is not within the AEC's jurisdiction."
The company's reply of May 16th to the Association's earlier petition for rehearing admitted that the company had been reluctant to submit the late-filed material on earthquakes to the PUC--because 1
it would be misused.
"This is astonishing from a supposealy regulatec monopoly,"
-mate-i
s.
'l
-3 Pesonen said.
"Apparently PG&E is saying that they should only submit evidence which 1s to their advantage.
PG&E seems to think it enjoys a monopoly on due process before the law."
Further, according to the Association's rebuttal, PGLE "has not answered the Association's allegation that the company has failed to submit any of the reports on foundations for the proposed facility to the Atomic Energy Commission."
"Does (PG&E) fear that this information also would be applied to his disadynatage by the AEC7" asks the Association's 'robuttal.
The Ad.c?i. tion's rebuttal notes that if the PUC passes the question of safety to the AEC, it is not difficult to anticipate the
" dismantling of this Commission's power" to review additional atomic plants.
The Association's reply did not..ention the statodent of
" grave concern" over earthquake ciazarle at Sodega Bay, expressed j
two weeks ago by Secretary of tne Inter or JdalA. s s
NN a
l l
l l
.,,3 s.
i i
j n
~
/
j BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIE3 COMMESION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the matter of the application of
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ')
for a certificate of pubile convenience )
Application No. 438CB and necessity to construct, install,
)
operate and maintain Unit No.1, b
)
Interim Decision No. 64537 I
nucle,ar power unit, at its Bodega Bay
)
)
Atomic Park.
)
(Electric)
)
REBUTTAL QJ EEPLYIQ PETITION TQ REOPEN FOR TURTHER HEARING J
The Northern California Association to Preserve Bodega Head and Harbor (hereinafter referred to as the Association) files the following i
rebuttal to the " Reply to Petition to Reopen for Turther He,aring," filed -
before this Commission on May 16, 1963, by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, hereinaf ter referred to as Applicant.
I The reply seeks to deny relief which is necessary before this Comtr_ission. Such relief is not availardt casewhere, nor is it merited before any other tribunal. Applicant has brought torth nothing to support his allegation that tellet must be sought elsewhere. Indeed, the entire g\\
weight of Applicant's reply supports the Association's prayer for relief
\\
before this Commistdon.
II The Association concurs with Applicant that "there must be an end to litigation." A speedy and proper relief is sought. But Applicant's haste is no answer to the Commission's proper concern for public health, safety, convenience and necessity.
As the record now stands before this Commission, a)_1 evirience respecting the safety of the proposed facility es it relates to the San Andreas Tault is either hearsay or evidence on which neitner the public nor the Commission itself has enjoyed the right of cross-examine.on.
In f act, the material submitted by Applicant in Late-filed Exhibit 48 on which Applicant
..as relied most heavily in his reply came into existence only after the close of proceedings before this Commission and apparently in response to the q
Comtrassion's order for submission of Late-filed Exhibit 48.
1
1 and' labelled Scheme VI.
h.
(Petition, p. 26; Reply, p. 9, line 19 to p.10, line 24)
Applicant takes note in his reply of the letter from witness Worthington to Dr. Hot,;ner, stating that "the quality of the rock is inferior to our original assumption of ' solid rock,'" and that "the granite rock is highly weethered at the earth-rock contact and is highly jointed at lower elevations." But, says Applicant, this letter only reflected "the Company s disappointment... with l
the reactor location contemplated ci that time." Yet ExrJ, bit 48 shows no subsequent chaLge in the plant location or orientation.
Further, the letter in which this statement appeared preceded by, o_ng week the testimony of witness Worthlncten that the underlying abedrock" was a "l_QO percent suitabio foundation It31tagl.". Is Applicant trying to tell this Commicsion that he was " disappointed" at.tnding a #100 pe.' cent suitable" g
N site.? The contradictions in Applicant's pcsition proliferate with ecch documenf he flies before this Commis sion.
1.
(Petition, p. 30) By having now conceded'thet the appurtenant turbine-generator will not be founded on even tiu poor quality " solid rock" at Campbell Cove, Applicant finds it impossible to explain away wime ss Nutting's testimony that "it will ce possible to place f),g plant,a,LM j,,t; reactor on a solid granitic formatica."
J. (Petition, p. 37) Applicant has not answered the allegat? ort, that
~
the Summary of Exhibit 48, prepared by Mr. Worthington, does not coincide 7
with the body of the exhibit itself. In particular, the stateraeut in the summary that later sections of Exhibit 48 " deal with variations in des.gn from' Scheme 7,'" leaos to confusion, since Scheme 7 (or VII) was the layout which had long been abandoned and which was ninety degrees out of line from the plan with
)
which Applicant was proceeding,
- k. (Petition, pp. 39-42) Applicant could be no less astonished at the Association's allegation that the conclusions of the Tocher and Quaide repm hed been altered in the " Preliminary Hazards Analysis" submitted to the l
AEC than was the Association in discovering the alterations.
1 Unaltered, Tocher and Qualde's report appears as Appendix IV to the 1
hazards analysis. In the main body of the report,Section V, " Plant Site and j
Environment," Section D, " Geology and Seismology," Applicant states that the Tocher and Qualde report has been included as Appendix IV and that "a summary of their findings f.121%2a.[n.th,g conclusions 1.tbj.# Ie.2.9.G is as 9
e follows." (Emphasis added.) It was from the conclusions which followed
%[)(
3 h0M MI!id, l
m
=
this statement that the Association drew its allegations on pages 39 to 42 of the petition.
As the Association pointed out (Petition, p. 39, lines 1-3) the difference between the original, uncitercd Tocher and Qualde report and the altered version is significant "particularly in light of the wm in which it diUers." Applicant has altered 'the conclusions "to give the impression of s
3911 favorable conditions than would have been suggested by the original
\\\\ s version of the conclusions." But correspondence included in Exhibit 48 and i
ng1 f_c; yarded MitldEQ clearly shows that Dr. Tocher was emphatic in o
E finding the site to be 1epl suitable after inspecting the 30 April 1962 report
'I of Dames and Moore. As just one example, Tocher's anticipation of an earthquake of modified Merca111 intensity IX at the site, rather than VIII as given in the 14 Feptember 1960 report, has not been transmitted to the AEC.
i IV Applicant concedes that he was reluctant to submit Eate-filed Exhibit 48 to this Commission (Reply, p.15, line 4-11). However, the reason given is inconsistent with the record. When witness Worthington stated (Petition,
{
- p. 6) "I don't think it [ Exhibit 427 would be helpful" he was replying to a request from the Commission itself.
Further, Applicant's position (Reply, p.15, lines 4-8) that this reluctance stemmed from apprehension that the evidence would be applied to his disadvantage can only be viewed with great concern for tn a future convenience and necessity of the citizens of the State of California.
Applicant, a utility which is to be regulated by virtue 'of the ;..onopoly position it enjoys, implies that he shoulc t.ubmit to this regulatory j
commission only that evidence which he 1:nds to be to his advantsce.
Applicant appears to suffer the misapprehend !on that he should erJoy a Inonopoly on dut process.
The Association's allegation that Applicant has obtained a ca.tificate l
cf public convergence and necessity for the Bodega Bay facility throughi misleading and impeachable testimony is corfirmed by this policy. Indeed, the facts which have led the Association to submit its petition to the Commission spring from this very policy on the part of Applicant.
Applicant has not replied to the Association's allegation that he has failed to submit any of the Dames and Moore reports on foundations for the proposed facility to the Atomic Energy Commission. It may be that Applicant i
i has so failed for precisely the same reason that he was reluctant to submit 4
i
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^ - ~ -^ - ~
_)
l i
Exhibit 48 to this Commission. Does Applicant fear that this information also would be applied to his disadvantage by the AllC ?
The Ast ociation's argument, therefore, is conceded by Applicant:
that this Commission possesses in its files more recent, more accurate, and more pertinent information concerning the safety of the proposed installation with respect to earthquake hazards than do e!ther the Atomic Energy Commission or the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
i V
5 With respect to the actual nature of the foundations for the propos$d
/
facility, the record stands as revealed in the Association's petition.
~
\\
Applicant's assertion that foundations for the facility are simultaneously
" solid rock" and " inferior to ' solid rock'," serves to bewilder an increasingly
/
restless public. Nothing more need be said on this subject bu?. to, urge the Commission to reexamine that portion of its Interim Opinion No, 64537 (p. 4) which notes that a desirable feature of the site is "a solid granitic type of rock."
VI Applicant cogcedes that the distance from the western margin of the San Andreas Tault to the p.roposed reactor is less than one-fourth mile. The Commission's attention is drawn aga'in to Applicant's statement (Petition,
(
i p.14) that "the western margin of the han Andreas fattit zone is... the closest known active fault jine to the plant site" and that "the distance from j
this western rnargin to the reactor is approximately10221eE." (Emphasis added.)
l 1
Becausu of the confusion which Applicant has thrust into this matter, 1
i it bears repeating that both an active fault zone and the closest known active fault line are one and the same thing at this site and are less than one-fourth mile.from the proposed reactor.
Therefore, that portion of the Commission's Interim Opinion No.
64537 (p.19) which notes that "tbe San Andreas Fault Eqng.
. according to the record is more than one-fourth mile east of the proposed reactor site" must also be re-examinwJ.
VII At one point in App 14 cant's reply (p. 7, lines 3-9) he atteupts to -
show that the tostimony of witness Worthington (Petition, p.10) concerning the dist:ance from th9 reactor to the fault really referred to the " manifestation i
of faultingin modern times" near the eastetn edge of the faut zone.
5
.N
4 f
.~
I Acce'ptar.ce of this allegation as true would lead to a technical absurdity.
Since the fault zone is approximately a rnil6 and a half wide, and since the alleged "mor.ifestation of faulting in modern times" lies naar the~
eastern matgin of the zone, Applicant's prosent interpretation of the meaning of "an active earthquake fault line".would permit construction of the reactor within the fault zone itself under provisions of 10 CFR 100.10(c)(1).
Yet in summary with respect to the possible underground location of power lines over Doran Park, which lies wholly within the fault zone, Applicant's chief counsel Morrissey noted that " alternate underground construction across Doran Park is not practicable because it ivould have to pass through the earthquake fault zone within which the Park lies..."
(Tr.1484)(Emphasis added.)
i
'l Thus, the real manifestation of faulting in modctn times is the entire zone. Applicant's presens quibbling over what%r his 2estimony dealt with a " fault," a " fault zone," or a " fault line" is not consistent with the tattimony itself, serves only to divert attention from a known fact, and lends nothing to the Corranission's pr.Isult of a proper and swift end to litigation.
VIII Applicant clouds the issue by his analysis of the Federal Regulations dealing with reactor siting (Reply, p. 5, lines 21-28; p. 6, lines 1-18).
As our petition shows, the regulation as to the distance required butween a nuclear facility and a known active earthquake fault line have changed from the original requirement of 2.Df. belf m_[le fu 1960, to 1/4 te 1/2 mQe in 1961.
and finally in 1962 to one-fourth mile. The petition (p.11) presents the J
statement in correspondence from AEC Dir1ctor of Regulatien Marold L. Price that the most recent change was made to " avoid the ambiguity."
If the requirement for distance between a fault and a reactor was intended to be a mere guide rather than h precise and specific requirement, there would have been no need or reason for'the successive changes since 1960. These changes were made to permit construction of reactors nearer eartnquake faults while remaining within the limits of ste.tutory requirement.
)
l Now, by attempting to show that another section (10 CFR 100.10(c))
j l
contains a generaE caveat, Applicant is attempting to inject a new ambiguity Into the t;eactor site criteria. But 10 CFTs ISO.10(c)(1) specifically states.
t "no facility should be located closer ther. one-fourth mile from the surface location of a known active earthquake fault." This is the only provision of 10 CTR 100.10 which is specific. Therefore, the general language of subsection 6
e I
j
' l
- I 1
)
(d) cannot mitigate or diminish the speciijc requirement of subsection (c)(1);
i The cardinal rula of statutory construction and interpretation is that th,ee 90edfle _ controls 15,e ceneral, e
Preceeding with construction at a site about 1000 feet from a known (g
active earthquake fault line is a clear violation of the 10 CTR 100.10(c)(1) i requirement for nn intervening distence tf nsd less than one-fourth mile.
Toderal law does not prevent this Commission from enforcing compliance with Fe63rsl requirements in areas over which this Commission has i
jurisdiction. Indeed, the Federal System requires that states exercise judicial power commensurate with Tederal regulations.
IX Elsewhere ard before this Commission Applicant has affirmed his customary reliance on the step by step process for approval of his intentions.
Now, in the reply, Applicant seeks to establish a dangerous precedent, urging this Commission to forego its properreview of safety,, Application I
No. 43808 is not a special case; yet Applicant urges that in this case the Commission permit him to skip a step in the formal procession of scrutiny and approval.
Applicant has publicly announced his intention to construct additiend nuclear-electric generating plants along the California coast, including three more units at Rodega Head providing that experience with present prototypes is satisfactory. It is not di!!icult to anticipate a dismantling of this Commission's power to review these additional facilities, were that power to be transferred to the Atomic Energy Commission.
The scope of jurisdiction before the AEC is as yet unsettled. If this Commission were to defer jurisdiction in the matter te the AEC, the Commission
\\
would be saying that California has nc unique interest in the location of
'{
nuclear reactors. Does not the State of California have an interest in the health, welfare, safety and convenience ofits people ?
X j
Applicant atterepts to persuade this Commission (Reply, p. 3, lines 20-25) that the Associanen will be alforded " abundant opporturuty" to present evidence and to cross-examine Apphcant's witnessts before the Atomic Energy Commissien. Besides having no material beariN on the issue brought before this Comthission in the Association's petition, this assertion by
(
Applicant is not true. The rules of procecuro before the Atomic Inergy Commission will bar the public from effective participation in hearings before l
7 l
z-- -
a
the AEC.
There is absolutely no doubt that Applicant will oppose the Association's effoits to acquire standing before the AEC. It is demonstrable that the Association's status will be substantially diminished by the language of the United States Supreme Court opinion in PRDC vs. International Union of Electrical Workers, 367 U.S. 396 (1961).
Indeed, this Commi4sion itself may be precluded by this language i
from obtaining status before the. AEC. The matter of ucquarirsg standing before the Atomic' Energy Commission has assumed increasingly troublesome proportions in recent years and has attracted the attention of 6tudents of Law throughout the Nation. (2 AtemMpero** Eaw Tournel 1051 110 Univ.
of Pa. L. Rev., 330 g11.e2.)
The Supreme Court in the above cited decision
.j has left open the possibility that even a labor union, representing workers employed in a nuclear facility, rnay be berred.from acquiring the status of intervenor before the ttomic Energy Cea.imietion.
The itlknuing frem the Georoetewn Law Pevieyy (v. 47, p 87) is a typical observation on putaic participation in AEC licensing procutures:
"... The Commission's alcs and regulations... obviously were drawn with great care and with meticulous attention to preserve the unfettered freedom of acticn so, uniquely an attri,
bute of the Atomic Energy Commirsion since its birih. It is ts though they constitute a protective ahteld surrounding the actions of the Commission, meting thert almost as impervious to attack as are the various containments that shield the reactor itself. "
Thus, this Commission should not be rr.lsled by the blandishment af pending AEC responsibuny being held out by Applicant. The only tribuul to whien this Association can reasonably appeal and expect relief-even, 1
irdeed, expect to be heard-is this Commission itsulf.
XI A
Allega'tions by Applicant, that the Associat$on's pet: tion contains a "potputti of spurious rdiegations and misinterpretations" anc tnat 1. is
" selective" are merely aimed at obfuscation and are unbecoming to Applicant.
All petitlens are selective. For Applicant to observe that his reply is directed to this "potpurri" because l'. may be " misleading to the casual reader" lends I
no dignity to his plea. The Commission is not a casual reader.
Applicant has misread the Association's petition. It does not seek I
to cast doubt on the safety of the plant. Eut it clearly shows excessive 1
s ambiguity in the testimony of Applicant's witnesses with respect to the safety of the plant. This is an issue which may of may not concern the Atomic Energy Commission. However, it does concern this Commission 8
~
' i l
i l
l
/!
The Association has assured the Commission that it will bring forth expert testimony on seismology and earthquake hazards which, the Association is confident, will give the Comrt.ission sufficient grounds to doubt the safety of the plant. However, we are hero concerned with Applicant's testimo,ny under oath before this Commission.
The Association takes no pleasure in bringing to the Commission's attention that portions of the Commission's Interim Opinion No. 64537 must be re-examined in light of a close reading of Exhibit 48. The Association does so respectfully. And the Association stands firmly by its earlier allegation that the need for such re-examination springs from Applicant's apparently misleading and impeachable testimony.
That is the issue brought before this Commission. We ata confident that the Commis sion will not dismiss it.
XII Wherefore, having diligently pursued a public cause in the public interest, having shown that Applicant concedes the argumer.t of the Associatiota's petition, having shown that only this Commission can be concerned with the matter raised in the Association's petition, and having shown that a deferral' of this matter to the Atomic Energy Commission would. leave the matter unsettled for all time and would hc/7 gave implications for the Commission's responsibility in subsequent proceedings involving nuclearpower, the N
Association respectfully urges the Commission to grant the relief.. quested
.s\\
in its petition.
'\\
Dated at Berkeley, California, thu 4th day of June, d63 Respectfully submitteo, DAVID E. PESONIN Executive Secretury, i
The Northern California Association i
to Preserve Bodega Head and Harbor Inc.
P31 Durant Aver:ue i
Berkeley 4, California i
1 9
e CERTIFICATE OF EERVICE Ihereby c,artify that Ihave this day served the foregoing document upon all Mrties of record in this proceeding by mailing by first-class mail a copy thereof properly addressed to each sus party.
Dated at Berkeley, California, this 4th day bf June,1963, t
DAVD E. PESONEN l
\\
l l
l l
l l
l l
l
- 6 a
5 l
\\.
s Lt e
,, kc
?
s
.I
~,p 1
g I-g g
- /' i
.ti
.g v
w m.m._
q
' ' A