ML20234E451
Text
sN I
E* r.,,g 1e x
l I
y:33':
g. :: 6 %[
iwB.M&
yI s.
l
. 7 l
g r it
.t
- t 0 f, s1 ^[.
t g IE g
g
$ gl
=
y$M l
DI I
{
- 3E
~-
I,h Ig Y
gI l
g I ea I[3 t k i
?
Il
[I g3 '{
V g*
[i,8 g g fl t
gg f
I-(i i.
3" y
fEL
?
=
R E 5g, o
t*
{
g*
g
{U >.
- p ;% -
O 1
I, i
,f3.gd, pie.'R.is;s..'.
M M
Jfg 1
C T
g d'.. ' C L
(
A.
J -
U ;.:.,
f'
..wi+,Whc*:~..
Y D
a.
GFu t
E p
R0G V
EfE r.
iap' I
fR E -
H0
' w y, i "!NIS&
1 C
^
I t i f
E l
$.4'A
%Wh,eN.Qg.a R
fVG W v; h ; f. V: b i hI q :.
, l J, D E4 t
DIN 9? f T
S I
A N 4
E
- $.7, '
$. oe. '
Eb i C t
3 i
3 Y
?
)~f<{
?
g.
t.33,9 9
~?
mygw
- $e" i
i mh
-ri$as
.aE
,E i ;;.
_m n
1 l_,<,.
RADIO *i V' REPORT ). INC.
]
g t
i
~
=,
1005 MARKE'T STRS CT. S.AN FRANCISCO. 3. C A'MFORNIA i
i f
i N
F RMM-
{
PACIFIC GAS & IIECTRIC COMPANY ns.o:o rv w: :ts, ixc.
FOR g
s:c s vs c..nr sr. -
UAn ranscoco :2,cAur.
THE OWEN SPANN SHOW STATION KGO' PROGRAM i
4 DATE MAY 6, 1964 crrY SAN FRANCISCO I
2:00-2:30 p.m.
BENNETT CHARGTS P.G & E. WIT ! 'MISIdADING8 PRSc3 I
N$
F h__'
(WILLIA'4 BENNETT, PR2SIDENT OF TH2 P.U.C., 'IS
\\
j pj...,
BEING INTERVIDe!.dD BY OUSJ SPANN.
H2 HAS 3.;iN j
M DISCUSSING T*-IS TELEPHOMS Co?f?ANY AND WIRE-E TAPPING: TH3N TURNS MIS 'AT':SNT ON TO P.G A E. )
Rs ks.
- SPANN:
"We've talked about Pacific Telephone.
We've j
discilssed the S.P.
We haven't mantioned P.G & E.,
sir.
The atomic power plant at Bodega.
Were you involved in that, e"
or are you involved in that?"
\\
BSNNE7T:
"Yes, I'm the commissioner who has str>ngly dissented and pj. aced in writing.my opposition to the placing g
~
of a nuclear plant at Bodoga Bag).
2 "I do it as a commissioner, and, personally, as a Calif-
-a ornian, a native here.
I'm grieved as to,: hat is going to h
happen to that coastline once this plant goes in.
Now we, I Fa think, as Californians, are becoming more and more aware of the need for conservation of natural resources.
Sat's what the p,
wealth of this nation, this state, is.
It 's the beauty of y
this place which brings people out here, to visit or to live.
And we're rapid 17 Eiving it away.
\\
I "The redwood controversy is illustrative of that; the j
sudden concern about aesthetics in planning illustrates, I I
think, what most p'ec.ple want.
And this app' lies to Bodega.
."You know, for example, that the American Petro')eum j
Institute, in one of its advertisements, describes.the renion from the north side of the Golden. Gate dridge to the Orsgon coast as one of the last wondreus nature places of.the United j
Stat.es of America.
It's almost tutouched.
Now with the population of this state and its needs for recreation area, i
i i
1 0
e y
,, v n. ~. - 4.w a -.
a-~o~
~~
m
______.________________.__._.__-_..,..,p-
l-
'I.
L J.
g
+
.if we keep intruders such as a nuclear l
we can save that, j
plant by P.G & E. out."
j SPANN:
"So you are basically agains't the plant being there,. for conservation reasons rather than the possible earthquake-- " '
BM!NETT:
"No, I'm against it for two reasons.
The first i
is, that as a conservationist, I think. that under t he concept of public convenience and necessity it should be rejected.
But d
equally important, I think that in terns of safety that a 1
public. utility has no right to gamble upon expert guesses and l
i know more as to the esfoty of a nuclear plant upon the fault l
.f line, San Andreas fadit.
It's almost ridiculous'to even des-i W
cribe;it to say 'let's put a nuclear plant on a fault line '.
LW It's a contradiction of terms end yet sensible men are seriousi,ly defending this, proposition.
It reminde me of the story of the I
..T king going down the street on a horne, unclothe 6 and naked, cnd all the g3pulace agreeing he had a be'autiful suit of y
l clothes until some little boy said, ' Father, the kinF; is naked'.
I h,
And then, of course, the thing unfolded.
We're deluding our-Q selves that us haven't the right to take this chance with the 3r2 publi'c safety to put this plant in that place.
It's dangerous.
]
?M "And the Alaska, q'uake is a very.recent, experic.nce.
You know, people have been accused of tiapitalizing on the Alaska
,"d quake to frighten other people abodt the Bodega plant.
I 9i suppose logically will be the next; charge that people like 3
myself forced the Alaska quake so we could talk about it, and g
argue against Bodega."
i e
i gI SPANN:
"Are you against P.G & 3. putting this' plant anywhere?"
p*-4 1
I L'.J BENNETT:
"No, I'm not against it putting it anywhere.
t In f act,; today I've signed an order authorizing a nuclear y
plant at Camp Pendleton,' California, to be built by the
,r Southern California Edison Cox.pany."
\\
SPANN:
"Are you a member of the Sierra Club, by the 3332TT:
"No, I 'm r/ot. "
SPA 3N:
"You've been talking conservation,s.Itost along thair line.
That's why I wondered."
1 3RPJ4TT:
"Well, we are all conserva~tir.irts.
If you mcw the lawn, you're a conservationist."
?
"You've been involved in th'is controversy at, SPANN:
p
.,r..,......__._..
g L___
o 2
- [
~
-3 1
- y,,..
o
.}
f i
L Woodside, about--whatt a been happenin6 down there?"
~
i t
. BENNETTI "That's before my cor2 mission p,renently, and i
we Vill deciae whether to, set the matter. down for hsaring, cnd j
' determine what. judgment we'll reachi, t ',
"I can'*
cnamit my'self o$ wh '; the commission will do,.
9et11 have to' take some evidence on.it.
But again, the i
utilities of California have been cdvised by' me in public speechos that they must become concerned with aesthetics,,
beauty and planning.
And either they will do it voluntarily, or the government will make them do it.
i -
(
"A speech was giiren recentiv in Seettle, '4shington, by 3.-
Q i
a vice-prasident of an out-of-state electric utility, 1
said exactly what I'm saying, that we can no lorger wa, and he
- f., j i
it'to Mh put money into research for the methods of underground.ng
,l utility facilities, for improving our plants, for doing all-manner of things.
b If we don't do it, government will compel There's no question about it.
Look' at it this Jj us to'do it.
h If we have aesthetics, and recognition of beauty by way.
P.G & E.,for example, at 245 Market Street, where there is a j
Nj handsom, nsrble-faced office building that fits in nicely L:Q with the style, the architecture of the financial. district.
F
, Now that was because there was a can'scious, sub-conscious, realizaticCof only that kind of a building belonged there.
.That builiing's paid for by rate-payers.
l 3
Now does that obligatiod cease.when they go into the suburban areas and even further beyond, such as Bodega? I don 8 t think so.
Public utilities are servants of. all of us, nnd they should be the last to deface and to defile the landseqye.
The last, b
."And I'm angry about the Bodega thing, I think P.0 &'E.
h is conducting the battle with a barrage of misleading press Er.
releases and statements.
So far as I n concerned, before my
?'
commission there was no showing whatsoever as to the safoty of
{
this plant.
Their showing was contradictory.
They didn't put on a single witness, when thero u. n a soil expert who was g
(
a seismologist, or a construction enginaer to 00stify how and what manner the plant would bi built.
t Instead, a vice-president J
of P.G & E. took the stand and,related what other people had told him, related what they'd reported to him "2ut never once were these experts themselves exposec to cross-examination.
hou that is a fatal defect in a record, so far as I'm concerned.
And people aren't aware of this.
And they should be.
P.4 & E l
never exposed to questioning the opinions of its experts who i
say that.this plant can be built there with' safety.
If they 8 re so sure, why don't they do it?"
(THIS WAS ALL IN THE INTERVIEW CONCFRNING P.O.& E. )
l m.;.:; = &
r;;N.,
7 _.
7 a y y ~,.s
- =- -
y
~
. c. a )
~
~
...w UNITED STATES GC hNMENT
=-
Memorandum BH,Clhl USi OWN 7 /.2 4/
To Files DATE:
FROM :
Edson G. Case, Acting Director i
7 Division of Reactor Licensing
SUBJECT:
ACRS HEETING ON BODEGA BAY ON MAY 8,1964 So -R OS During the May ACRS meeting on Bodega Bay, PG&E was asked
^
to describe the proposed design of the containment system, L
particularly with nspect to its ability to withstand N
vibration and displacement effects of a large earthquake j
occurring at or near Bodega Head en the San Andreas fault.
e l
5 Dr. Housner, PG&E's seismological consultant, sketched a k
design on the blackboard which was generally similar to C* ~
that described in Amendment No. 7 of the PG&E application.
h;r.-
He indicated that the clearance between the vall of the
(,~s containment vessel and the rock interface was approximately En 18 inches. He stated that a movement of 12 inches along the
~E..
Shaft fault would result in a rock movement towards the
[._..
containment vessel of only 8 inches, since the fault is on m.
a minor chord of the reactor pit. He stated that this
@g movement vould be absorbed by the frangible material "i.f. -
between the containment vessel and the rock and would S-f-result in little if any damage of the concrete side of b
the containment. Housner vent on to indicate that even gnater movements, tp to as much as two to three feet, gJ could be tolerated along the Shaft fault without loss of containment integrity or the ability for safe nactor M
shutdown because of the orientation of the Shaft fault yd in the nactor pit and because of void spaces interior Q
to the containment. However, he gave little if any py-quantitative indication of what interior damage inside tc. ~ ;
the containment might be expected if the movement along the fault were great enough to crush the containment h
walls. When asked about vibration design, Housner Q
listed two different values of acceleration to be applied at the top and bottom of the containment vessel. The relation of these numbers to the maximum expected ground i
acceleration of.33 g listed in PGLE Amendment No. 6 was j
not apparent to me.
Dr. Newmark was later asked by the ACRS his opinion as to whether the PGLE design represented an acceptable
~_
approach from a vibration and displacement standpoint.
(y e
W
g I
1
(.
00 3 i,
2-
<( ( 2, fy Files
~
i His response indicated that although he had sme specific reservations with the PGE design, particularly with the.
vibration aspects at high frequencies, he believed that it was possible to pmvide a design that would withstand the expected earthquake effects, including a relative displacement of two feet. He stated that in his opinion the vibration criteria were about 25% too low in the high I
frequency region.
U This oral judgement expressed by Dr. Newmark at the ACRS
[..
neeting was at variance with g previous understanding t.
of his opinions. ftr understanding was primarily based on P_
discussions with him in a meeting at Bethesda on April 14
(
vith members of the ACRS, and a subsequent meeting in Harold Price's office that afternoon in a discussion attended by Price, Mann, Lovenstein, Henderson and Case.
F:
At that time I understood Dr. Newmark to believe that W
the vibration criteria proposed by PGE in Amendment No. 6 f
!f.
vere approximately. 50% tm low in the high frequency P
region. Also, he stated that although he believed that C
it might be feasible to provide a design suitable for i
g withstanding about one foot displacement, such a design c:
vould be significantly different from that described l
E.-j by PG&E in Amendment No. 7 Further he indicated that gj the ability to design for displacements of two feet or l
pq greater was a much more difficult, if not impossible, Ea -
undertaking.
%~Q In a private discussion that I held with Mr. Williamson g
on the same date, I asked him whether he was still Ed-concerned with the potential effects of aftershocks G
on the containment structure after the frangible material 59 had been crushed by an assumed large displacement. He ii told me that he had gathezed from Housner's presentation Lmi that there had been some change in the design proposed by
'~
PGE at the ACPS meeting from that described in Amendments 6 and 7, ubich resulted in taking no credit for the U
restraining effects on the containment valls of the sur-rounding rocks and e,ediments. For this reason Williamson stated that his comments on PGE's ' Amendment No. 7 with respect to this point, which were furnished to the regu-latory staff on April 21, should be disregarded. He did indicate, however, that his understanding of this matter was not too clear and that he felt the design proposals of PG&E should be documented in writing in much more det ail.
i, 6 e4B
]
I j
L___________
.I.-
n;
$ffC 4l JC l 0 fy A
b 0*
s Files 7,,,
h-!b Edson G. Case, Aeting Direeter k.
H j
Division of heaster Liseesing Tf)7
.y c ~
ACM8 DEETING Og ansna 3Ay a NAy 8,196k A
Durtag the May ACES meeting en Bodega Bay, P0&E was asked to esseribe h propeoed design of he ecstat====t syntes,.
particularly win respect te'its chility te withetend '
_d vibration me 41 C 4 offhete ' of a large earthquake
~~~~~f' escarring at er meer Bedega 5eed en the Se Andress fuelt.
. = ~ _.
Dr. Beenaer, PO4E's seie=at ap eel eenaultat, ekstehed a -
PC
/.
deelse a the blackbeart skish wee generally sistler to
_7N that asseribed in Amendmast No. Y ef the PGu appliesties.
.,4,@
5e ladiented that the sleeresse between the wall of the i._fi sentainment wesel ama the reek interface wee appresimetely L Z+-;~
18 inehee. Se stated met a newment of 12 inches aims ne Whaft fenit wes14 result is a reek movement towards the-j E_, _' -
ese4eimment vessel of m3r 8 inshoe, stase the fenit is a
'l i,{w_e:
between the oestaiammet wasel me the reek and was14 a adser eherd of the reester pit. Se stated that this assement weald be shoested by the frangible material
%O fMj reem16 la little if my esmage of the eenerete ride of 9 s
~W5=;
the oestai====t.
Eamoner west en to ladioste that even greater sevenste, w to as umah as too to thTee 9eet, yy
~
esm1A be te3ersted along the Bhaft fanit without 3ose of y
esat=f===st integrity or tho' ability for enfle seester.
in skutesen boemose of the orientatim of the Shaft funit TO f$
in W remeter pit and beemsee.of void spaces interier to the contalement. Neuewr, he gave little if emy 4= b quantitattw indiestim of what interier easese insies.
%S the sentmiament addet be expoeted if the movement along he fanit were great easegh to erush the esoteinaset walls. When asked abent vibration eseiga, Reesmer listed two differwat valase of asee2eration to be applied 3
at %e top ee4 bettaa of the ecstaf ament wesel. The relation of these numbers to he anzines expected ground S
neoelerstian of.33 g listed in PCs a==nement No. 6 was not apparent te me.
Dr. Eevaark vos later asked by the ACRS his opinica' as to whether the PG&g design represented en seesytable' approach frem a vibration and displeesment etendpoint.
.-& G %
+
hNh. h.'
WOl
//3e 0,, / y
- 4.. -m, ~ r 7.,.p n, n -wm
,.w,,y
.,-,,,, s.~,. 7,.,.m.,,.,,,,,,...w
, 3 a.
ki c./
/
$1 c. +
Q /y e
g Files,
I Eis response indiented that although he had same eyesifie reservaties with the POR design, particularly with the vibration aspects at hidh fretusasies, he beltowe that it was possible to psovide a design that would withstand h expoeted earthquake effnets, including a relative displesoment of two fleet. Me state 4 that in his opinion W vibraties eriteria were aben 25% too low in W high frotasaar region.
w I
This ersi judsoment expressed by Dr. Newmark at the ACH8
?
apeting was at varinase with ar previous meerstanding
~i of his epimiens, % waderstanding vas primarily based en M
disenssions with him is a meeting at Bethesda es. April 14
.. f with neubers of W ACES, and a subsequent meeting in
.J fp Naro14 Priee's office that aftermeen is a disenssion
.1 attended by Fries, Maas, Amesasteine Esaderson ame Case.
1 At ths4 time I andersteed Dr. Bevaark to believe that M4 the vibraties eriteria propeo64 br PGM in Amendasat Be. 6
~
vers appresiastely 50% tee 1sw in the hish freteener -
.f t cl. '
region. Also, he stated that althosch he beliewd that it m13bt be 2sasible to provide a desip suitable for i
withstandtag aheat ene feet displasemmat, such a doeip won 14 he sipifienstly differwat fram that described -
by PGM ta Aasadnest No.' 7. 7krther he Laneated that gig ;
the ability to desis fbr displemensats of two feet er
'~ 9 greaber was a ansk acre Rffisait, if est Lapossible.
-h undertaking.,3 4,
n-c
- n In a prive6e discussion that I held with Mr. Williansen en the sans date, I asked him whehr he was still
,7.Yj- --
^
esseerned with the' potential effects of aftershoeks.,
di en h esatainment strusture after the frangible as6erial
? 22 had been erushed by an assumed large displacemost. Ne
_' - N.
told as that he had gathered fran Neusser s presentation
~
a that there had been some change la the degip proposen by l
PGH st h ACES uneting from that deseribed in Amendments l
6 amd 7, which resultea in taking me eredit for the J
restraining effects'en the oestainment walla of W sur*
1 rounding reeka mi sediments. For this reason Villiansen V
stated that his commeste sa PGM's Amendasat No. T with respect to this point, which were furnished to h regn.
1 story staff en April 21, should be disregarded. He 414 indicate, however, that his meerstanding of this matter was not too elear and that he felt h desip proposals of PGU should be documented in writing in much more..
detdl.
. g. j.. l-a q
-c
. -,,.. c,,o
....,,,_.,..,...z.un_..,,,,w,.,..m.,....y.....,,_.
.m.
3,
,_,,