ML20234E168
Text
.t.
b
]
- W 6 i en mE vc G54 1
1 1
Adolph J. Ackerman
%e M C 1-Consulting Engineer 1250 Shermco Av?nue Hadison, Wicconsin
Dear Mr. Ackarman:
This is in reply to your letter of November 9,1964, regarding the Bodega Head nuclear power plant. I an-happy to enclose the complete press release and a copy of the report prepared by Dr. Newmark.
We appreciate your f avorable cotanents on conclusions reached in the hazards study of the Pacitic Gas and 1
Electric Company application.
Sincerely yours, fr, ' ic..1 Sj H.L C :..
Richard L. Doan Director Division of Reactor Licensing i
i Enclosures as stated above j
g M, Y dfL /)D_RL DRL_
ornce,
v CSSe R. L. Doan SURNAME >
.h,I,I.,0,g3,,,
,,,,fl'/,h,/ 64
,1,1/,,,],6,4,,_,
o4rt >
11./ /64 Farm AEC-318 (Rev.0-53).
- o. a. sove....., eninvene series so--es761-3 1
~
8709220303 851217
$ b d S N oom -' r.wh :
..f y
i 'N
+
-f*, }v' - - ' - -1; Ye=** j a"__ j ',' W.. ),w "4I,,, j,Q,.e 4 is r
f h
r...
- n. s,;,
e
[
t ny psa I
A.M
< cj k,.
,ty,, m
.a me net D ATE OF DOCUMEHrg
\\.-
FILE L kATION
~
s j
7
/
, 11Lt7/*4 h ' ;
y 1
g70 v
9 ACTION PROCESSIN0 D AT $
j INFORMATIONAL COPY DISTRIBUTION
No Of Me Ac kn=ledged 1
chairman ADN5
'0M i
?
g
- r. M
_ ADA 55 Interim Reper'
~
n,g o g, ncC RR F inal
..,_ A.D.
-RL%
- - ML f*
h*
DESCRIPTION 0< tg O ceev 0 0+he-
).
e REM ARK 5 transudtstas ey of Editorist Ceumsat Post unermath Jenned, j'
}g, MY isem Elastrisal World, Me. 9.1964, for p.
oh%
3
j.
N;~
of letter to editor ter Chairman'a signataene
'I
$,p 3:-
y r.
J
?*
i u i,,
x A 1..
C..
. s..
h.
y.
q ; r. ';ty p, Q%
REFERRED TO DATE I
PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE OFs'
- ~
* ^ ' '
.t,,, 3 f' N. Prime f/astion 11/Is/d4 m
cH AIRMAN
\\
,n 3
h.
+ (
- 6-
.1
' 4Gg,f&,.
ggg, g j DIRECTOR OF REGULATJON
(<
l
. ;,j.
c'p L Mama C
(5,,, ;,,)
l 1
ImeenstMa
'~. 1 ' -
Vg-Readersas
.a-
^
My ~
Dean ----
ib
~
y DNNOT DET ACH THIS COP DIRECTOR OF REGUL ATION
' ~
"' N COMMUNICATIONS CON T pol
--'AE t
OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN l
//- / 7 (Date) l TO:
'O 2 For appropriate handling Reply for Chairman's Signature With or without copies for Commissioners For Information Ra1 ARKS: bv J u p-u -e O
'7 Iv' t
e AA<-C~w~
/e~-
Gkn.4
&n.)
l
\\
/
y Arnold R. Fritsch P.y 'd O,i!*
For the Chairman 7( Ik' l* 'l
{ c..- 2 }. -
v c.mi... -
?
i i
from bl 7,TRICLL '.<CRLD, No. 9,196h EDITORIAL COMMENT Post Mortem on Bodega Bay The Bodega Bay controversy has ended in a vacuum without the benefit of a clear cut decision on the important issues.The end came when Pacific Gas & Electric Co quite understandably withdrew its application to build the plant after a wrangle broke out within the Atomic Energy Commission over safety of the design.
The affair has terminated in a manner that reflects scant credit on the licensing processes of the Commission and that reveals weakness where strength should pre-vail. In an unprecedented move the staff of the Division of Reactor Licensing took exception to the report of Commission's tough, blue-ribbon Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. They concluded that the 325-Mw atomic plant couldn't be built safely at Bodega Head because of danger of ground movement from carth-quakes.
Thus the industry and the public are treated to the spectacle of a staff division of the AEC impugning the Commission's own committee of experts. Such a situa-tion immensely prejudiced the process of resolving the touchy technical question of whether, in point of fact the Bodega Bay reactor design could withstand carth-quake shock and ground movement and led to PG&E withdrawal The areas of difIerence were these:
- The Division of Reactor Licensing has said that the plant is safe in all respects except its novel method of situating the reactor on a bed or cushion of sand as a guard against shear ground movement from a severe quake. This method, it said, hasn't been and cannot be tested adequately.
- On the other hand the Commission's independent Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards drawn from among the nation's leading experts on nuclear safety, claim in their report that "there is reasonable assurance that the proposed reactor can be constructed and operated at the Bodega IIead site without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public." The report also said "The Com-mittee believes that. the engineering principles and general design are sound.
These considerations atTord that degree of assurance required for protection of the reactor in the unlikely event of the predicted maximum earthquake."
Under the rules, licensing of Pacific Gas & Electric Co to proceed with cons'ruc-tion couldn't be decided until a public hearing had been held by an Atomic Safety &
Licensing Board appointed by AEC. The initial finding of this board can be pro-tested to the full Commission by the company, the public, or other interested parties before final action.
As we see it, the issue of whether the Bodega Bay design was safe is a technical one and couldn't be resolved by making it a public issue and the subject of a public hearir?g. This is a highly technical question calling for the judgment of the industry's best experts. The public and the industry is entitled to a clear-cut unequivocal decision on the technical adequacy of any proposed design from the' agency established to render that kind of decision. Moreover, the public is entitled to assurance that its safety and welfare have been protected adequately.
j In airing an internal difference of opinion on an issue as technical as this.
l the AEC has certainly damaged public confidence in its competence. Beyond that.
it has permitted its stafI to publicly impugn the judgment of its own Advisory Committee and so cast doubt on the Committee's competence to judge future cases.
And last but not least, the airing of this technical w4 angle has immeasurably delayed and jeopardized prompt and definitive revispzf of siting criteria for
. nuclear plants.
/
The AEC will be a long time crasing the effects of nis arry affair.
.J
/
d I
I v
l 1
-Q d {
9a l
C. 'i :,1_ gy
- . es t Jtts i
The Coensis41.m has read your editorial in ti,t' C TA IC A L G LD, tievemoer 7, 1964, i.naer the title of Pos t, 14srt ee on toJe m u
Psy."
we feel knat you may have some misunderstanalnt'. Of the regulatory function of the Atomie guergy Commission as l
talc uwn op the Con resa, l
Unaer the law and commission regulations, every application for a power remotor construction permit is subjected to t.hree separete sac trusepomleat safety reviews before a cecision van be asas by the Commission en whether or not to y ant the permit.
The appliost,t on swet be reviewed, t.y the Coeweission's R*hulatory starr, ty the statutory Advisory Committee % Heactor ':araguards, and cy the atstutory Atomic
]
.arety ano Licensby Board at a while hearin,,
j e
1 in each oi tnese groups there are qualified experts ir; the j
Jielo er retector technology with many years of'eaperience.
Untser this systen of asperato, independent review by tnree
{
41rferent aroups, and finally by the Commisalon itself, tne j
Coomissior. Joes not attempt to utatate the opinions of the responsible review reodies, nor to decice the merits of a case prior
',o the time that it resenes the Ccamisalon for
'bs1 cecision.
To Ja ao would prejudge shu zerite of the case withu t waiting,, for the record of the public hearla; oa which thu Commission decision must be based.
1 Ait.hou6h the Commission starr anc the ACitS, workin ; closely e
together as they do, will not erten be in disagreement, it is taherent in the system of separate and independent review that this way, on oeession, happen as in the Docags Bay case.
no.no techn1oal safety problems ineolve complex matters or judpent that cannot to reduced to *e clear-cut unec.1 vocal i
OmCE >
SURNAME >
DATE >
Ebrm Arr-818 (Rev. 9-83)
- e. a. novsmans, esinvias seeice so-427st-a lE_______________
c 1
7 i
s l
(
]l 1
J 2-i.
I Techsteel espertc' ean resecutly ensa ree in decision."
their judpment on such metters.
\\
The Advisory ceammittee em P.sastor safermards j a held in high estees withis the Commmissies, as is miso the capability of
'ae de not feel that the di.fference l
wr Res.utatory stan, arrived at :27 the /.CH and t'ae f.egulatory l
3or does it in the jud41 ment of either group.
Staff 'impeg,ms the jwig, ment.'
cast doubt on the Ceemd ttee's costpeternce to judge future l
emees.
we take the view that puolic confidence in the ACC regulatory fumeties la embanced oy pub 11d +Jiselesere of the resemmende.
tions of the responsible review bodies. even thout,h they !
.>m is disagreemer.t.
in the system of nuclear emiet y rwier.
31neerely ye<ure.
I 1
I s.7 1
I ihaira.ae The cditor E1JtCTILICAL WORLD McCrew-itill Ref1 ding 330 West 42nd street g' "' j%,
New York, New Teet. 10036 C:,+ u i y
t
&a Y
c: S ebu f y l
Eray n
J/NC,C D*""/@
?
Cmr. Ramey Cmr. Tape d d' e )Gy, flti.%,.6D Cmr. Bunting T
Secretariat (2)
/2 '
6W,
,L,b~-
Dir of Regn General Counsel General Ma,ngger O/3.(#
DI.R.:..R. EG. 4 /.....
/.....
1y HLPri$,e (jd[
},.11/19/64
,,, y/ 7c /67 ',,,,,_ _ _,,, _ e
/
c 4
_l
i
]-
~
s A-
/
g l
2 f
o c
- 3 s
i m
c n
2,.
a n
r a
F 0
n t
w a
5 S
V f
~
r r e
f h
t m
o "n
r f
o i
s t
p a
=
i r
l b*
- n c
ea
= r l g a
ee u
c g
CB e
e 4
d ;AB g
o4 - -
B6 - f
/ ae o2 g w2 ea t/de 1 oe e1Bs rrrLe d'
a ee-
' e dl t e
=
=
o ecf n
t" a.
hiA E cn 7
saa" s
s ae
.w t r.
n an n
S u Ath1 2 a
M a
EA C m
u r
R t
e a
N sQ A
5, S
L 3
n A.
aR
=S s
n n
.=
m, n.
n a
a T
m P i N
o mS u
E c
P
- u. fl t
V
,pi li a
R _
R k
I t y Em k~
4_
G s
/
u
.l c
.r 3
T G
p i
o 2
U.
E E
sn wrf
/
On R
R o
.h g n 1
i Rs
^
C t M I.
1 Ow u
d e
n
) oec M m ** h Q t
r c
a h
mShi E
a i
n e
>t u
D ni M.tl M
r a.
b cB P
t
. m aLou
, du
- o. "
o n
d
.S my n
e tP ae.
eF I 1J r
a a
m P
c h
W
( e.r N
a nt o N. e D r
m c
Md sfg d o a
i e
O oe oJ l
_R I
o oR RRA T
r T
F g
i
- l Il
,tlll u
L's sa g
Nv tm e
1 Ns is r
E e
' L a
x e
Or e
J SP t
E b '~.
dW 4
Vi ias o
P uy t
ot y
de Dt fa
~
l I
e c
t c Ao ni DS abl t
e s u y
h bp T
uo st y
nciga ai v ut l
net l.
.. s - s t
t y
min e uo& tun oDiwnne f
s ad a
d et ndas 0FnGn e
aPtsh wA en lo r r 9
o p" s
t c
0 sb ni e 'n L dla i
f e1 aat
,o c c "w loth o eg e
a nf i a ehdyr ts s.t s
e ys r et t el dijt nbiahi n n oot iot mle t lwo Anp l
s grn n o
i mchl e
g r
e a a
o
~
b" ninc dp s
i s o ut el cpoNd k
an e
i eeC i i auie o wa h u
.- h at nreSut or t
t dr t
a u e
ns l
os h no le nf g
wi d
aht r g h
y sp s
o f
t c er ar oe t a iu i.
Tv et ic h mnnd n t
F ae o
r r
t et ToI d noh ol a r
iei aEi unct ae s
f nsh b
s rdr at r B
doeagae t
si 0dl s sel h gefi ni i neo e
n a
5l ar eadcyc
- llI
.L l :
. n
. e a
e a t'
.i!d a
nf se ea s
eie
.f 1
n e
s n n
ol elh h ok ng d
r t
el ic e
f o eh a
e t
c a
uh> ude s
p t
h me e u f
h a pc h e nd n o dbw a
t t s l
l ogtnor i a o
t r
c vi o
ag BiPms ep nt o
t s
d eweCe ld os e s
r e e w w Ms r
e hup aHh os h
o ub en.
el lu wP eCh t e eb o v, b l o
o h
r c
un t Pia io".
a e
a h
t t f e t
ei ah o "w t o
h ah ePe ev
,h r
r t
t t
hf t db e
t e ot e
d g rt n 'e t gsh d n id t.h r
ir o o
A t
t h oa ee n
t e
r h
ot qib Hr e gr s
e u rl mi s
s n
s eb
- r. c t
t t f a ch ad. r o wtsnt en d
i dvin lp wP!
c nf n o nh nr a iales h oll j. s t
o a
ar r r
y h ea f
'o s i iat yiea n a i a a et d ph as gen ignt h no il D
,h a
ri m t
+T e
I sl nat l
i6 rt M.I A A oest e e a
lp. 7 1 est ah k v o n nd ew a
f t t eogcp:g1 h.
oa s
r a
c e d
sau h
ut et t
nt d d 0 -
g er e e m
mr gdgt n h n e
r r p cs e
t eiedf ly 'r b a t
a n w ah m vi nh mei oy a s n 1
s e h
nt edt u
wt 'd n
st igat l di e 'e d p a i
s df i d n pW r o dd h
h ot s
a Spr u
ce s e
egi i
i e n ;o c y a Pc a sd a Ap" eB nie W. : v e
, i lI' o y m ;u :1 nti A r
il f
tt n eg o c e a A
w
'e P a
ri tik a S!i a ne a
h o t t Gah h
Tn wS ncw h
o1 i
t 1
}
e
~
z
1 i.
j
.~.. - w..
o
/
a,.w-- m m; The Lesson n
.- ;. n.
I Of Bodeoa cenelesson of Boa *ega o
si A..,i inm. tw n ll? finenM Cillinm need open snce for rec.. ' Park Commission can cou.
' W I' b"'
LONG b a ttle of restion, particularly along demn land for park pur.
T"o"dega Bay is a symbo! the ce=>tuae. the Pots Poses. but evea *ith the
$$ #",d[#[
p*,';',-
B cist contAins within it the men rephed that they were new funds rnade atailable 1 " 55, n don.s Wuce g ubole future of Cahfornia.
in the business of providing by the passage of Propos!.
b 1~
power-not parks. To de-In the face of doubts of. cide whether any particu-tion One at the recent elec.
In San )!ateo cotmty iust tion, the amount of land south of San Francisco, the the Atorr.ic Energy Com-lar area should be a park affected is rninuscule com.
Ifighway Commission has
- mission staff about the i safety of a nuclear power was beyond their responsi. pared with the tota 1 adopted a freenay route bility and jurisdiction.
. plet next to the San An' amount of open land in the through the valley of scen-k dreas Pault,
.% miles P a ris were a govero. State. And there is no one le Crystal, Springs Lakes.
l mental matter. And the's at any level to protect in.
Although James K. Carr of
)
northutst of San Francis
- y i
pointed out that PG&E valuable farmland from co. the Pac 2fle Gas and San Francisco's P u blic
)
Deetric Cornpany has de.
application to build at Bo.
destruction.
Ut0ities. Co m m is sio n.
j; cided that it will not build dega would have to be ap-The result is that thou.
u h owns the property the Bodega reactor
- proved by the State Public ' sands of acres of land that
$i usmoirs, is n
Utilities Commission.
But tne deeper issues mill be urgently needed for
}
3 e fhe rm ab raised by the Ctree year
'g.
.s Business recreation or b r e a t hi n g al e o the ept.
controversy rernain unre-We took the same argu' space or the production of i
sjl dered by every Cal!/orniansoh'ed and should be pon-ments to the PUC but got food for the future millions At CoHoge Park in 'the.
1 J
the same answer: This is. of Californians is being de, Waga. vahy a surmt l
t 6ng an inhabitable environ. not our affair. The PUC's stroyed every day-paved foothill ares that had been
. I i concerned about maintain.
i business is to regulate utti-over. subdjvided, industri-
- d"I'd D*""ne a n.
rnent here for coming gen-ities not decide how land alized, commerciallred.
the suboniders' trulldozers "I DN N f* 'n erauons.
.g co uld best be used. If The consequences can i Sot there first.
When PG&E first decid. PGAE could show that {"
', scribed os gal.
ed to build on Bodega Bodega was a good place In all i e cases the Head, the bign granite to produce power, the com.
Indis,idually, each single J qpe s t io n is not whether i
po:At enclosing the bay, it mission.-by its own rea.
violation of good land use
[
oserlooked the fact that soning-had no choice but s e e m s urdmportant. One p
]
both the N a ti o n a1 Park to approve the application. E o d e g a Head industrial.
'7
@~.,gM, i
Sernce and the State Park Q(ja;/
y 4
' Commasion had separate.
Th e r e a f t e r the argu.
W, one Ma Cara 1al-p 4
ly re tommended that the ments centered around.nu.
g$,"g'r f y o"r skE 4
j P
d area de set aside for park clear safety considerations pursses as a scenic and ce1ter, one Mendocino red.
"Y,'
wood grove logged over, a
. - :..m,
histiric feature of Califor. w v
- o, few acus of San hancisco D.,./,. g.,.
m n!a's var.isr'dtg shorehne.
'I ' y Bay filled in for a subdivi-
+
i
.'. fore Ter. the Legislature sion-these seem insignif houses or factories or p'ow.
-r g
had athorned the pur. 4%.q l
'{
cant in the total picture",
er M r.r t'm.m s
thne M 0.c blad as part L-but in u l t ip lie d by a should be built; they sie of rne s:ste park system.
hundred a d a il cusane p. necesury and inevitable, T*.ere was a delay by ti e TM pesW is en State a acquiring the land. and it was on this basis des'rucuen of Cahfermo' M ruaners now stand
!argely b+0cuse the cost of that the plan was aban.
P I A '.'
cials, industrialists and i
the subdhideas, utihty old.
de prcperty was greater d o o e d-a story that is 3.a r aM..qated in a%.
ucrth a rr@r nevel ard E v e r y day more Mh h i g h w a y authorities can tie.. EAega llead had cannot he told here..The ejolations come to bght.
T.e.sr bur. designated as a peint to make now is that F.ecently the city of Wme.
preeropt Md without re.
rard to the people's need da gave permMsom fur i for the pr esen ation of uv. i Le Srnoma County PG&E is flee to build a
'1 a s i o r Dn -a regaae.
- n did P""Cf Pl d on drnug end suhdhbl.y a ! cpen gace, parks or farm W bay saure.aca ca tac
.a 1: f.e :. 4y Mete tark.
l j f,]M <un
]n sell the lami t.o r t h w e s t pomt of Etiy !
h,n d.
PGLE bt;4n
.+
tu.
. The sul. mon is (.bvicus
' "!;"! f.1%nd
,..: tue propert y.
.,..h Su,4 i
of ed u 4 c.y*:d n, M p na enfvF;m' w '
4ph to the rural areas of c!.1.lpmsaely h om ine g say urlan aca af "
trie hate me same princt.
heusc tone ce:e is no 1e g4..,..g ples cf mning that now
(%I.* o r f, ann er Opncy b Me o, tate of Cah.
s egulate the de t elopment i
ferma to punt *Vt po.
In Kate rounty inc Divi-of citics.
I-H6 nd e;rly ya ple's irncrat in reintain-gag at y;ghway, y p:n. y
- h:1 wr.xr sgr.1 ro.my
.rg cprn MM
- ar; to pae over many @
W' '*"
Ers L:;n PG&E olhaali
.,cres of pnme pear c.
t You em t hudd a We PGLE u.n ts.ndemn reper.
< haros betw een Kelpertme i
um ks or a sleughter house ta as attempt to ur. der.
s ta t e t.w the cornpany s p a e e for pouer plants, ud Lakeport iather than
- in an urh. n grea soned for cM ;.dfy its tak%ver The Da'ison of Highways use an alternate route on sesidences Simdarly, it '
5 can condemti cpen space poorer soffs. Lake cour;ty should he vole ful to bal:d at LWa.
for fretways. Developers f armers sola scientis:1 and f a (seeway or a dre fattory I fo,:r.ti tr.at if I Meepted u.n the mer opew space mrut local enic creamza.
' or a shopping center en t h e i r ats.mptions about for subdivisirms, shopp!
tiors (Spose the highway pdrne farm sod or recies.
tre cor..;ry's responsa$ (enW8 cr factory sden and are being badc4 by a tian bnd 1 et a p a er plant at Bo-h does not m:.tter steth, new organnahoc called j
nort. Bay Arta v.11 nde er that : ed is a historic P e o Pl e (of C' pen Space f Without a praistent piab.
cet st susufied' The nie or m cpbecab'e s6cn.
.P.O. Box 4fi8. Onndai.
i n r for unm;; ci au
- M.y
'.r.. a A d Nuer a cry neeu a b.t f,mn e et n-At King City in tne uppe? [ annues uiti; the authenty M
<t land-41.d It r n-
.o
- .n.unp. c.
milor. ' i n.s c:.h.at n Emas cley. farnwrs sie Es d
, tRn e Y.@
arf epW t..w f aim so!
Hw.tlally fighting a free' to en!crer n-iMre nill b.
v a
d 4 (3
!. ceded. -
1.' y 4A:w
, ;v that Tb of fpfq.
v Q TWie. ALpted by the t W strds of hedf.'ELs ou
. ars '
!h,Inway CoMMaston. r.b mr be.Ne.
.g v. l4 p.,
f ad/u e.e'n s ( l.me*
un; eat of Pe Fahrrs in.
. chne.
).
g., '
77 gng g.uttm; U.roNr. r4 N eO,, e.gd
'ev
- :ere a n t.~.*
n
- 1:,
- 9 % ~
r r
s e
- P'n Yd'v. " ". m.
,g..
wa
.bs e
s
'9
~