ML20234D987
Text
(
yfL $2
~
y 1
jg 9
DRAFT:b l WARDS:bmj
,' Y CTED Dockit No. 50-205 DL&R 1/29/64 Mr. Anthony II. Perles 1056 14th Street San Francisco 14, California 1
Dear Mr. Perles:
This replies to your letter of January 14, 1964 to Chairman Seaborg
)
concerning the January issue of the Pacific Gas & Electric Company's "PG and E Progress" which contains excerpts from Chairman Seaborg's address entitled, "Why Nuclear Power?" presented at the National Convention of q
Sigma Delta Chi on November 7, 1963.
First, let me say that the speeches which Dr. Seaborg has delivered as Chairman of the U. S. Atomic Energy Comission have been released without restriction on their use and, therefore, are considered to be in the public domain. The Pacific Gas & Elcetric Company did not request, nor did 1
Dr. Seaborg grant specific permission to include the referenced article in their publication.
Dr. Seaborg stated in his address, the full text of which is enclosed, that he would live next door to the atom and that he would not fear having his family residence within the vicinity of a modern nuclear power reactor built and operated under our regulations and controls. Since the Commis-sion has not made a decision on the reactor proposed at Bodega Head, it does not now have a judgment as to whether the reactor could, or could not, 8709220252 851217 9' f f,
FIRESTOOS-66S PDR gs g g y- ) p', >r 3
(
(
Mr. Anthony H. Perles 9 be built and operated under our regulations and controls. At the time Dr. Seaborg delivered his address, he added a sentence to his prepared text to unke it clear that his remarks were addressed only to the general subject of nuclear safety and not to any particular reactor plant. That j
statement is included in the enclosed final text.
You also ask why nuclear power reactors should not be built near l
the areas which they can most effectively serve.
Proposed sites for j
q nuclear power reactors are selected by the public utility or other organiza-1 tion planning to construct and operate such reactors. The Atomic Energy
)
-l Conn.ission then evaluates the sites to determine whether there is reason-l able assurance that the proposed reactor can be constructed and operated i
there without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
i l
l You note that the scenic values of Bodega Head may be adversely af-fected by construction of the proposed reactor and feel that that is per-
)
l haps the most controversial aspect of the case. However, the Commission's j
jurisdiction relates only to matters affecting the public health and safety l
and the common defense and security.
Local zoning and the esthetics of a proposed site are matters more properly within local and State jurisdiction.
They are not within the perview of the Atomic Energy Commission.
I hope that this letter will help to correct any possible misunder-standing which you may have concerning the article which was published in the January issue of "PG and E Progress".
Sincerely yours, Eber R. Price Assistant Director 6Y Division of Licensing and Regulation
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _