ML20234F140

Informs That Organization Being Formed to Show Support by People in Sonoma County in Various Agencies Involved in Making Decisions in Bodega Bay Atomic Park.Resolution & Dissent Conclusion Opposing Reactor Const Encl

ML20234F140
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, Bodega Bay
Issue date:	07/09/1963
From:	Golis P SONOMA COUNTY ASSOCIATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
To:	Price E US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20234A767	List: IA-85-665, Discusses Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants,Including Const of Nuclear Plants in Seismically Active Zones ML20234A761 ML20234A769 ML20234A792 ML20234A798 ML20234A803 ML20234A812 ML20234A816 ML20234A827 ML20234A830 ML20234A838 ML20234A841 ML20234A844 ML20234A847 ML20234A851 ML20234A855 ML20234A858 ML20234A861 ML20234A864 ML20234A868 ML20234A871 ML20234A874 ML20234A893 ML20234A896 ML20234A900 ML20234A911 ML20234A922 ML20234A929 ML20234A932 ML20234A937 ML20234A944 ML20234A956 ML20234A965 ML20234A968 ML20234A976 ML20234A984 ML20234A993 ML20234A996 ML20234A999 ML20234B005 ML20234B008 ML20234B023 ML20234B032 ML20234B035 ML20234B040 ML20234B062 ML20234B066 ML20234B076 ML20234B084 ML20234B098 ... further results
References
FOIA-85-665 NUDOCS 8709230038
Download: ML20234F140 (21)

Text

'

1

. i

.. - ~

.~a-++

'a

• ' * - ' ' ' ' * * * " ~

'^ -

.m.-:. w = ;+

sg...r R g nw

..,.. c.

g 4 m ;;. -

L" ySDNOMA COUNTY ASSOCIATIum y:

7' l

FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BODEGA BAY t

6950 COlGIERCE BOULEVARD, P.O. BOX :"12, ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA BWift 5 543

~p l.

.L, a ~

,s

, Liberty 5 9023 0

4

• *** sf ". ~ ;a

=j.

'D George Tiert

.? ';

1"'

t! ?',

^1 trje.,,. Presidents l

l +i ree Badger

- *n " 1 3 i-E; -

Coorse Kee July 9, secretary Peel Colle g

1neeserer j-j sash riispairtok 3

ff f

ig

}

l 2

w

. The Atomic Energy Commission

.$,- ky'I I

i Washington 25, D. C.

l

-] -

j g

Attention:

Mr..Eber R. Price, Assistant Di. rector 6i 1

-[

Division of Licensing and Regulation

. i

~

O t

Re:

Docket No._50-205 N

1 l,....

I Dear Mr.

Price:

i, l

This organization is being formed to show the ' support by the people in Sonoma County in the various agencies that our involved in making decisions in the Bodega Bay Atomic Park.

The opposition has stated in press releases to..the. people of this.

' i I

l-

,..,i. -.- county and northern Cali'fornia as follows :

l "ObvioQsly the individual citizen cannot look for protection l

,.6 at the Atomic Energy Commission.

The Atomic Energy Commission-I

}

is charged with the responsibility. to develop atomic e.nergy; X l

it has in the.past few years been shedding its health and

~

I safety duties like a serpent in the spring".

f

[p

As far as we can determine, the Atomic Energy Commission j

has an exemplary record.

We wculd like a statement from your office, e -~ if you. have such a thing prepared, setting ' forth the safety record l

of the AEC and copies of laws and regulations upon which you have.

operated.. We want to prepare a publicity release of general, dis.

tributioA,in this area to build up confidence in the-AEC.f

-Q-y a

,a,

We are sending you a, copy of a Resolution which 'we are 7

.,asking other people to adopt which fairly well set.s. feph the _ pur-

. poses of our gro e

o

?

. D&

yg 4,g

,.. S('

Yours' sincerely,,,!

r:. ev n11. '*~

4/.

M I

PaulGolis,.Sebe$mry k,N' L.LWilll.h

^ $

o-m n

N@rn PG/ch'y

~ % *. /.

-htgaW8

' l

,.M "

.-d

'h Encl.

4/

'O E *'

.{[F#f--

www i g. 9 g g.3 g _e w,,3,.m // $4%_. r.:

,,, h, h N h G,.

A m.a.tuv rk.ui v wr t

.w ww.

u

_.y._

. g, y

h Disefalons itflechnhl.tb pidiserk38e $ Se @'3iEli l

kComm61sIloh g

, 1

. ',. ~

(')

sonoma C:nnty a <

i Sonoma Ctants Harbor C:mmis lin i

Sonoma County Board of Eoiting ddjdikiNE6ki

'!',,,.;3,.

"g.l l

Sonsma County Bonni bt $npeittsbed,,, ik.

l f ',. s,,

.p.

Boant of Regents, Unitelsity bt dailf d]

l

< Department of Fisit $nd Gam 6; sik!M 6 CdllINd~

/

C,.* ", ' '

l

• je bepartmeht of Nemith; 8 tate of Callfdfiliii.

}

State Parks Consnisside; State of C f.

Pabile Utilits ebnesissi6s; state,et estifoeth

.'7 2

!).

" -\\

Noeta coast i n681onat Watne Peinatiss swa; T

state 66iddinatet et Atomic hisfB deMispeest; 8tses et df.

l k

y earpe d ensine es;if.4.Afee l

w l

U

. 8.basse cased o.

'gaggf i

i

_m gas e=n====. :

f*

BRAAI ouesnes==f*==m.

J

~~

g.

- = = - -

o f;r. ;

.I..

s

\\

l 1,,

M id

'ur'

-t.

1. m / 1 u.

j 1

.N.

p

,t.,-

4

^

~

lE g$ '

,1 BODEGA

'N., g g

CF t

g(

M.

6 t

BAY q'.

4.

T

==m.

""E "

.~

f.,.

5:

r:::

/

1 BODEG 1

i l

g.

• • ;,um===

g m

o,

.\\

,i im l

a l

HARBOR

= =

r

,,, a

'":ll* ":".'

maanon station 4.*

een.ee m m.,

\\

1

?

.;g l

y,a

.M'a, g

'='u=9 um 1

m PAR R p,

{

e

' " ~

y

~

t4 p

mas w o

goA 8 4y ar m n u p

,o

=a -

N MASTER PLAN OF BODEGA BAY AWATTING FINAL APPROVAL OF A'IDMIC ENERGY r

[

,.. COIEMISSION a

COMPOSITE MAP

~ ' "

.u,

'/ \\"

PLAN 'FOR BODEGA

.B A T DEVELOPMENT.,

\\.

iT.

'/-

81840

\\ Q.'

~

www.s e,. sosecesAlcouwfv'esaason co istecas,a,, (,.,

s

\\'

? ' '.'

Q w-

',. 7 i

=

m n,u

~., m. en.

t.

~ ' * * * ' * "

.V#

'f

~

i- +i

.g. il7 5..e

,.;.?',.s.

g j

l..s

-+

1

e..u

,,Q.

.?l

.+ L.

"*^?

y*}'

Q l

~.-

22* Cop y

\\

RESOLUTION l

l 1

lBE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:

I se believe that the Bodega Bay Projee' t, including the Bodege Bay Atomic Park,,as planned and projected for grohtth l

is a tremendous boon for the County of Sonoma, and the State of 1

l California.

We believe that the Bodega Bay Atomic Plant.will supply the necessary electrical power, not only now,' but to meet the needs of the future of Northern California.

l We believe that the California State Park, University l

of California Marine Biological Laboratory, the Coast Guard Station.

1 1

Doran Park and all the other projects planned w'ithin the area would do much for.the recreational and commercial uses of Bodega, Bay.

1 l

We believe that the agencies who have made decisions relating to' Bodega Bay and its development to wits Sonoma County Planning Commission Sonoma County Harbor Commission Sonoma County Board.of Zoning Adjustments t'*

I"g Sonoma, County Board of Supervisors g

./

Board of Regents University of California 3

Department.of Fish and Game, State of California Department of Health, State of California State Parks Commission, State of California g

Public Utility Commission, State of California

^

l North Coastal Regional Water Pollution Board, State of California State Coordinator of Atomic Energy Development, l

State of, California

~

United States Corps, of 1.ngineers are responsible agencies. and the 4.rdi d.r'umis ecmprising these

.g T

s s

e e

g'

,1

1. 's.

It 3

2 g

f<.

.[ $

I w..'

,,.- p

.b '

a..

c

, 4.j,:n V.,

1 L, 4985 /

.c i

0 l

8 d

l I

~

a. --

u.-

.h

.e

I s

.. :. t c ~---

s' v

-s agencies and their staffs have made their decisions based on the best interests of the people of the County of Sonoma and the State of California and the United States of AInercia.

We believe that the Atomic Energy' Commission has an exemplary safety record in the development of the reactor programs they~are commissioned under the laws of the United States to determine the safety of this plant.- We haite utmost confidence i

l in the Atomic' Energy. Commission and we.will abide by the decision that they make and request all other residents of Sonoma County to do the same.

Passed by this day of s

_.1963.

secretary

.c.

\\

.s

..n

~

.i...,

.4

,3

..yk..'

.. ;i.

,- 5

...i,p p

s

.e

• A.

g.-

's, -.;..,.,..

.s s.

_l

?

.e;,, r...,., J. '. -

n,;

.(

.. - 4985 y

,L g

9 e.*

P 4

t

)

. -.. - -....... -.. - ~.

g

• l'.'

~e

..s..

o w nes s mme y

e =mm.

wa+

fgg, f

• WQ1 - _ :. '. i '.

--- K [ ky

-^}~

1

- p *-

l v.

TECMI -

.j ~~

~ ~ * * " " * "

4 4 4%.@

r*JetJC t*I1LIfD.3 (R5GE.1GB 480J t,

DA UMENT:

DATE ptttt' ses, Fra d s<* 2, $slaf.

W WW,

')

5037 L T R.

ASE MO:

REPORT:

OTHER:

g gg g

, p 2/ //

(A.k) W, finent I

• m.% pa==UMf ORIG.s CCE OT H E R;-

i

_, y.

ACTION NECESSARY Q

CONCURRENCE-DATE ANSWERED:

NO ACTION NECESSARY COM M ENT '

O evi CLAS$4F,a POST OFFICE HLE CODEJ E.

.s REO, Not DESCRIPHONs (Must Se Unclassified)

REFERRED TO DATE RECElvtD gy SATE mid g

M$

hf 4.mu.trui.t "PW

'"ir.

v.ma rue. -. m ma a m aus ea.

ENCLOSURE 8s m

y the leestdosp the failnes cf PG41 to uset the safety ternes the Asear publie derire to P

, g axEGA terialate....

Mestra sy, Per Aare R. Lauenetram w/ extra ty,jha info j

(,en, c. c'/'Y & // d,.e j cy,c < W

. e, E. Frt ne s 1-11

\\

, i,

i

" "** W Y 65s W 6(k1L3 l' A

$2g(7W 4,,sy, mgg gge

=

a

& /,4,/ m7, s..s4 M - M8 O 1

PDR WnO. #6,j,,1 = la F13e a u,!

)

g-, -

.g

....n

.-,..-- us. nourc armaar cosocssrom MAIL CONTROL FORM ronx nc-asas

)

.m (s.eo)

.. a w,.-.

-y...

_.. =-.-; gya w.... _.:.:, _.

~

[.

)

^

h h

... : =.,~w.

. ~,,

x

.n. : -.-

^

" r n =. x. n,,.,.,~ * -"-:. u~-. -. u n..

_~ =

-;. : - h. -

s -n. a :~~ '-- : -

-~~~

- * ~ -

~ --. '...

'N j

....g.

".. ?. f,,*,D-e- ~

I,If J-i t--..

y.

.,.i;.

- ;s T^

' '.Wo y=f' N..'

"bh,

+; ; ::%.. 4.:-Aw,.. :;p-:-*:--i.~ -- -p'enA^.M" p R"j. d.. wf:O m...

L ac..

h

,,,) **** ^

.. ; ~ a gr. L. w..

3 1

-+

, - - - ~

.-l'.*

.y 6 *....s r * ".

~.~. ' ;,

• 1.

"'",/--M-TL%)_... - N"** Q **. ;. _._,. -..., _

3-**..

+

.t

,~..

mue-8B e

M~

h

~

, n..

'a

. ~.. : n.. c.-. -; ;~...W,. -z.c...e*

-'.a: *;*t.:msu. ~ M.-

~..a....

g.w s.;.-

u-

. u - ~.. :.

~ :- e.

• /

.r..

~ -~

"*- ~ ~ '

'..C,T P'.'.

' ~_;--*,, ~~

?'-~

-J

.., +

l 3-o,

,, 3_

.p--~~

w--

-~

~~,.l*':,.

' * ^ ' " -~~~ ~ ~ "** ' " ^ ^ ~ ~ ~

~.

v r ~-

.. _,,. 4 4 4

. v s*r'h- =m. "

-E

-+W" s+n 1

1 Im J

i k

l

)

}

j j

t..

6 l

E !

l I

f I

\\

n,

...e

-a1 1

' ' ' ' ' ' * ^

• 1 s

1

. $.... f.v m

.1~.

I J

\\

OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN t

7 /1 (Date) 3D To:

i I

Pau,em i

f For Information

.-. jj

) V For appropriate handling

--..,,._, w.

For preparation of reply for Chairman's

~

signature (Refer to Manual Chapter 0240)

E. $ ' ' ~~~

- 1.,

..A For discussion at Commissioners' Indore:ation I

~

. L ' ~. -

Conference

.~.

-u.;-

.. =,...-

.. - ~ ;.,....--.

i

,, 7.7 -

p.._.._-#

For distribution to other Commissioners

. r.

t 2

. p;C -- a

-. :=-- ; ;;; x.::.g

_. -~. ~ :: - :., :*'

w.

r

'= -

Daily Log.

..-.e.

-~.-

u,

.,. ~.. s

,.s

.w...., _ -._..,._,. *~.

.(

.. _s __

w--s... ;.a.

'? y. c _ 3 1..T. __.; N..S...,.. m.

REMARKS:

+.u...

n.

=.. -

• 'b I

M J N F M d'u fTi d N;, N 'Ei l i d n @ f d Z

~

sg;;r ~.59-Mt.....w:pg e g:.

'\\

... : w.u.c:.

.n

. - _=..- m_. u.

.;.; - 3 :...;. 7..;z..

-4._-.3. ~.... w.

-~

E

=

2.. ~. n___._.z.._.

.,.z -

....a..=.

%'~..' ~ M; -? i. ~._.M. '~'~~ <-E21%c...

m

.f m.. w m..._. - _.. - - -

W....C 5:l--5l 5*.gi._5. _,.5$kTM5

'O'

~

~

?

5 r,;

.... :. 7- --,.t..;

3 :L I

1

..,-n._-

m 4,

~_

.i '*.

H d C. Brown, Jr.

.--e.'=...-e.-

"- o-

~

y gy

+

r g

a E

s

l r

+

,Z

.....,.,-,,,.,_.g..

,y,y..

)

~'-

~

fi

,(~

A.4%08 Dist.er.t la CONCLUSION Accordingly, taking into account the location of tia

plant, the questions of the public safety as evoked by th e locatir,;

the fallure of P.G.6 E. to meet the safcty issue; the clear public desire to hecp Bocega inviolate

- all of these thi ngs and ctrrh.

tively lead u to the conclusion that the authority heretofore given should not have been issued end should be rescinded P.G.6 E.

is not giving proper weight to the total sxial values which inhere in the Bodegs hay alte and which 4.re being dec troyed.

Steel, concrete and energy are not a fair exchange for precious and beautiful land, sea and sky.

I F.G.6 E. has in the past she its concern for public opir. ion.

I suggest that it reconsider its decision to place a nuclear plant at Bodege B l

that it withdraw from the site, ar.d that it ay, sclect another.

(

/s/

William M. Ecnnett UlLLIAM M. E C W Cc11.issioner 6

\\\\

l

\\ \\n l

l wl 11

^

g

_ ; J..

4 4fL f,. " ' [ '. ;..;%

.y p,,

nLullI;LU coeweitt cJ f t.i d M [J%C

/

e d

a

)

O 13 e.

?

M 'JUL161%3* E

-d.s-j

.1 CLAtdW3Cmd 0

\\w! axh j

f6-j.<._-.':.

G 4

..yTI,WilliamN..Coac.iesioner-ThiJN T$1e Copt & _e A )

15 'the hignly 1.d J Sadega Bay nur. lear. powr unit controvctsy.

]

d e has 1

, u m.e i t.2 sub)ect.,f p ublic dLaloguo end has evoked spirited FLli:

4 2,t vit ic;n.

Ir.e.Patific Cas atd Electric Company (P.C.'6 E. ),

m, 1

~

v app ice:.r, he.

requested approva1 >f 1ts proh, sal iri ene ntac of l a

the pvM ic convenience and,t',ecessity.

(

..1

.d u

The matted is nod bofore this Cordlasion upon a pleading t

b ryJ ed "A Pe ts,r.40.i j

to Reoper, and f or furthet Hehring."

This petip tion nr 'nigd co 't.ay 6,,1M3, by ihe mtbv(rn f alif

'\\

to Pres;rn Podega hwl arf. Har>o, r, Inc orniaAssociatiQ s

(tna /f sociation).

i V

The'Assx. tat. ion evokca the broad discre.

j cienoftnePubNe

\\

\\

l'tilitars Com.16sior? of the State of California (Cocraissi Ep.

9

{

3 o

to

'l s

resi M the record hirein and the. decision and order made f

s s

I N

i This is' 4

a teat ter of cuch import as to cru for my coc:plete review of th

' y gi e

record.

I did not previously par ti.cipr.te in this matter, not then s,

being, a member of this Coamisrion.

i

~)

Y From g complete review of the record herein I a::

i

, compelled

' to the conclu on that a nuclear power unit at Bodega Bay is not

.I compatible vuh the public convenience and necessity.'

t Let me articulate these things m.

t

.t d reasons which drew me to this resul.

T__tc PUBLIC C9tWENIE!;CE AND NECES'ITY l

Publ.ic convenience and neceJaity is not so precise a con-etpt as te he subject to exact interpret glon.

1

+)

It'is un elastic

- )

standard but by lav its interpretatig ar.d application to a giv

't set of fact /ad circu:n.unnces as pertaire To Califacnia'public en i

+

utilities rests with this Cormirsiaa.f Tnis Co::rd astW is the n

s l

.J 1

crone..dc duurt 6f 0alifornii and f t rsret,erts thegapl

,Y 7

t' 1

e of thin j

nate in approving er disuppronhg on their behalf Lpropose), mad

.W e

}

}

4 s

Y

\\.

{i

. i.

Jb37 v

i /

3 t,

1 t

, (( s 4

/

k E

'}

r

.g g

i

,\\

j 1

1 k

• h

(

s

.c Ys ;

.j t.

i 5

ga a

d r

e

.)

~..

. +

o j

"w

r).

.... a i;,,. i t

.O

.)

i 1

l l

l l

i i

i r; ict.11, utilities. In arriving at the true public interest a l

. t w. vi tactors, and in this case a vcriety of special circum-

)

. m ca. must be given preper weight.

In considering public convenience and necessity in this i

1 are met with a showing of strc.ng public opposition to the

.x w-1 3

4 yect; a strong public concern for public safety because of the-e sn.imity of this proposed plant to an active fault line; and a r

j

.rong public opposition to the location of this plant at Bodega Bay because of its impact upon the natural beauty cf the area. All of these things have a bearing upon my position herein.

THE ST ATED POELIC POSITIOli s

Th. proposed plant of P.C.6 E. is regarded as an unwanted j

intruder by an impressive public representation. Individuals, l

speaking out in protection of their interests as they conceive them i

l r

1 l

to be affected, have been quite vocal in their opposition. Public l

witnesses expressed concern as to the location of the propcsed plant and public witnesses expressed grave concern for their future safety as residents of the area in the event the plant were con-structed.

The Sierra Club of California presented a spokesman on behalf of its numerically substantial membership to voice its dis-pleasure and opposition to the chosen site because of its claimed a

impact upon the natural beauty of the area.

The public opposition is not, of course, measured here by q

so clear and conclusive a process as the popular vote might be.

Nonetheless the record gives the clear icrrression that the vast 1

majority of the public does not want thic unit at this place at this i

time. The Contiosion, consistent with irrt genesis, is bound to give weight to this public expression.

2 1

s w

i l

t l

t

l 1

~

()

i:. _..% L is b*.nt

!L' j

j 1

PCF';A E.r3 AS A tR'CLEM. SITE We are here talking about Bodega Bey, so-called af ter i

J,an Francisco du la Bodega y Cuadra, Captain of the Spanish ship,

.anara, the first spear point of the Spanist in their explorations j

if the nertnern coast of California. As it is related:

"On i

t tetoner 3,1775, the weary voyagers found themselves in a bay about four Icagues to the north of Point Reyes, on whose besatiful green i

.anks bear and deer could be seen peacefully feeding. In honor of the captain of the ship the bay was named BodeEa, e name which it still betrs." ("A Short History of California" by Rockwell D. Hunt, Ih.D., and Nellie Vnn De Crift Sanche: (1929) at pase 141.) While tie bears have lor.g s'ince gone, still an occasional deer crosses the I

landscape and aside from the intrusions of roads and casual j

structures, Bodega remains substantially as it was when first seen by the Spanish.

1 l

Bodega ic one of those places which is a unique combination I

of sky, land and water. It is a joy to the eye -- 6 pleasure to behold! The sea cocat, the wash of the ocean, the rolling hills with their seasons 1 colors, these have been made by the hand of God.

There is only one bodega Bay and there will never be another.

I It is to be noted that Bodega, while it has not been reserved by Goverrnent as one of the playgrounds of the future, nonetheless 1,s part and parcel of that recreational cemplex which stretches from Stinson Beach on and up the Marin and Sonoma coast line.

The region is frequented by beachee, intermittent State parks and recreatient.1 retrcats. It enjoys the advantages of possessing Ereat and rare natural beauty and most importantly is in close proxtmity to the population of the Bay Area. A nuclest plant in the heart of this area is out of place. Indeed there is an inherent i

dissonance in the concept of a nuclear plant at Bodega Bay.

i C_______________-----

~

I %11 eve txt, the pt.blic wirnas ' to guard ar.d to care for

. t, r. ;.:rd.u ri t age..

Theodore kooso e.t and Gifford fir.chot e.ade

.. m u.

..n a ns.:fonal ideel.

Today as the natural pleecs of this

o.r.tr,..d vf Lalifornia in particult.r, becoric more cbmpressed y

c >nsersation becoues critical and sh:mid properly figure in a deter minat Hu of the public convenience and necestity. Nhile CLere is narr.>v utilitarian cett and value to a nuclear plant'at bodega, there is a far greater r.ocial benefit in my opinion, to California, in pre wrving B:.dc.ga Bay so far a5 possible even~though sach social benefit cannot be precisely measures..

Pre'.jects sc distasteful and so offensive to the broad standard of public aesthetics are not, not 'can argurunt :neke th in the true public convenience and necessity.

er.,

Accordingly, I would disapprove this application because of the location s l e ected as well as for other reasons to t,e given herein.

THE NUCLEAR PL).hT A'O TFJ. SAN AhTPEAS FAULT The chosen site, in proximity to the San Andreas Fault placed upon P.C.6 E. tha high burden of satisfying this Co ns:ission as to that absolute safety of its-proposal.

This fault has been described as the er.:th's greatest continents 1 rift San Franciscans and North Bay residents do not need any special rccinder as t j

destructive pctc;ntisl. The mere mention of 1906 suggests a o its catastrophe to cost peepic.

It is only a c.atter of cormon sence that great concern exists and should exist as to this issue in these proceeding s.

The record is plain tha.t the proposed nuclear unit will be in close prui.:.ity to the fault line.

)

A dispute catsts as to the precise discaz.cc betwen the unit and the S 4

ca Andrets inalt hne.

Huwt ver, in the words of I.f,.6 E. 't. expert, Profes6er C. W. Ilousr.c.,

s i'

I gr e

' ~ ~

,i a

r

)

.I

,A.433u0 Dissent Nd (Exhibit 48, T6b 12, letter of Jcnuary,1961), "Tn16 site ir cl. so to the San Andreas Tault Zone which passes a mile or so to the east.'

The report of Clark E. McHuron. F.C.6 E. consviting er.gir.eering geologist, says:

"The general site of the propos:d bodega Bay Power Flant is known and recognized to be within sc.t I

very close to the San Andress Fault Zone. The San Andrer.s Mcl.1.:

I knovr. to be active and to have been active in the pas t." (t.aulvic 3,

Tab 3.)

1 Other opinions place the Fault Line in closer relatioceh'.y l

to the plant but regardless of the exact distance it is a iner t ee.;

)

I t_his plant will ha very elect to ene earth's grectext con:ir.zatra i

1 setive fault line.. and there is no other accurate'way to state it!

The opinion of this Commission heretofore issued, sta'.e *

"... in addition to the San Andreas Fault Zone which s:cordirg to the record i_s more than one fourth mile east of the proposed reac ts:.

site..." The confusion as to the precise distance between the proposed nacicar plant and the fault line is evident, but it is L.st.e l

to conclude that despite the lack of clarity in the record, the i

1

\\

plant is none the less in proximity to the fault line.

F17nmE QUAXE ACTIVITY CONSIDEPID The San Ardreas Fault Line has been active for thous.nds I

of years and will probably continue to be active for thousaads aoru.

It has visited its rolin and shocks upan this arcs, either vi'.; P.

with so:te severity, almost wichout eurcosse. That it viD -

t is eteted in Exhibit 4B, Tab 12 by the F.C.6 E. expert, pro..

Housner;

'The preposed site is a region of high seis::ic actiu.

It has been ectitr.tted that a large earthquake su:b no the 19f..

w..a -

I may be expected to occur along the San Andreus Tault in the IV.es.

Bay region pethrps thrce or four tiws per one thoa:.and ym.s,.

9 I

l l

O 5**

+

L'

)

/. 4 E.L Dissent t$

tu,s inte ine ground tution can be expected to occur with greater frequency..."

Ccology, as it furnishes the basis for tiuman spinions as to future fault lino activity is not free fron, human Lonc +.xperts expect core frequent occurrences of violent cror.

r.rivity apen this line and no experts car. state precisely the dare of suwh future nappenines nor the seismic it. tensity thereof.

It seems safe to conclude then that despite the range of epinion as to future occurrences that there is a consensus that tnere will te future occurrences and that soue of then: may well be quite severe.

THE DETECT IN P.C.6 E's SHORI!C_

The issue of safety loored large in these proceedings and P.C.6 E. carried the burden of meeting that issue.

Early in the proceedings P.G.6 E. related that it had retained Dr. Tocher, a con-sulting seismologist, Dr.Quaide, consultant geologist, Professor Housner, professor of applied mechanics, Dames and Moore, soil mechanica engineers, and others.

Their einploy was for the purpose of studying the proposed site in tet1ns of its safety aspects.

Their opinions, then, were crucial since they formed the basis upon which P.G.6 E. elected to proceed at Bodega Bay.

During the first day of hearing Commission counsel inquired 1

of P.G.6 E. as to whether any of the reports of its experts were goind to be available or were going to be put into evidence. P.G.6 E.

stated:

"Well, we didn't intend to put any of the:n in.

They are quite lengthy, they are quite volun.inous.

Certainly they were avail-able for the Ccartission staff to look at and to study.."

At this point staff counsel replied:

it appears to me that the Commission may in not requiring a full record in this matter be satisfied with just one or two sentences, in effect that the doctors.

..4,.

w en-

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - " ~

.2..se..

.s

...e i; is O. l.,

.. with referenc( to such an import u.!

a:,,, l t iiinte deserves the ecnsiduration of the bcr:ch, and I think

, s

>>u

..: ' L have cvailath to us somr-of this ir. fore 11on."-

, n....:, W. )

.:e spit e thiw o. charge the l' earing proceeded and the-mnix.>. reports ar4 other inf ertn.trien of tne selected experts of F.s.6 c. **(rc r,1ven thrcup,b. the mouth of one J. D. Worthington, Chie f Jivil :.s.gineer of tht. P.G.i E, tu one of the eFperts reisined by

{,G.6 ? t a:.* forward u:on oath to threw his opinien into the tur-bulent arent, of cross-exe-dn9 tion.

Theirjudps,n_t s were and rer.ain c

ut.te s t e d !

'iurning to the last day of hearing, dear.nd was made that r.t.6 E, present the reports of its experts. The experts' opinion, it was tnen agreed, should be reccived as a late-filed exhibit.

designated Exnibit Ho. 48, and in clorir.g the Exac:inct stated:

.. and the applicant has the responsibility of submitting, a late-

]

fileo Exhibit tio. 40."

(Reporter 's Transcript 1497. ) -

And bo, on June 7, 1962 these proceedings cloo+d and on l

~

July 9, 1962 late-filed Exhibit 48 was furnished.

'{

IEE LACK OF CROSS-EXAMItu?IO!!

i lt is evident that Exhibit 48 was perhaps the nest single important exhi:ij in these proceedings.

It contcined the written repr.,rt s and opinions of p,G,6 E, $s experts sad it certainly formed the basis for critical cross-exaninttion. Unfortunately, however, parties to these proceedings unskilled in Co x-dssien practice and indctd, it. Ictn1 procedure, were not quick to insist upon their right to exarine.tton of the docu:nent, and, secoudly, thdy were not. quick j

to demand that P.C.6 E. 'c experta give their respective opinions upon oath, i

i

.).

1

<A

{ ')

)

.re.,

4

, e...arst ab.i iri 0 d15Phill.t.t'b cf the partiet to L

s di r t.i00 c.x u ast tr.s abli;r.:lon of this Co. i:ci ::

s 4-L" s.ii up*1-L c N:plit t : IN:>rd, Tcr f. r.n Vf. 1.'1r 0% oJr I,5 SiCMihi3 31.*'

L

.a.Y. at 1. udtgy t m:u a r,i;r.

It.tsa prcu edings. repr ser.t rri.

..A..

, ct; in Phich ths. cient tice mos'. cen.'ersant with prect.curc mc cu. thz sina 'the ;,ria.

Ti.ere is c ba:ic proposition which :a.2sr ter.d.ed here and we did n :t get u

to it, in this cas:

upor, a complet.e -

< s are hiucly because of ths unwillingr.ess of thu P O 6 E. Le expo >e iw.,er.;atts t: cross e xa:r.ina 1<,n.

Inis po>es a fatc1 deficiency.

Tne cocpete e.:p*loralion of c:. pert opir. ion which was nos permitted res.alheE in an approval which should not have been issuci rct w ha:

in.

the first instance in view cf the record Rudimentr of fair play

.:.nf det prwt.u suggest to me that there har not beer. a full. hearin;;

sre ); particularly in the carter of such public importance as this E.ciIBIY 4F ANALY2ED.

I have read T.xhibit 48 in de. tail.

I It is at best a curious doc.ument.

It is a thick coupendiu= of reports - aach be.aring a con-venient tab and running from Tab 1 through Tab-24

{

At the outset is 1

- a p'aported typewritten resume'of the contents of Exnibit 46

.{

unexplained as to the manner of its preparation and by whoc f

i The i

resum::

refers to "a nur.Aer of ccaversttions with the consultants 4

and to " investigations and results" both oral ar.d written These aiv as Le r(sum.' sey6 "1.n addition to rne cateriel centained "

Ly P.06 E. 's own words t.he conversation and oral results

, whatever they were, ws.ru not trcoente*; to the Co::::tission The reports art arranged in chronological order and signif icaitly eeth report bears the month, the day and rhe ',vrer given -

,a that is, save one - amd thie 1g significant) 1: should be noted as wil thet fellwing the first report each sul,sequer.c report builds in part upon its predecessor as the basis of the opinions given.

t I

8

$49 98*~

s..,,,

g 4

_m__

/

~ ' "

e

....... 2 e. n '.. "i l

A.

". W. e'.o sner, the crper t with ti ! bO. say upon the safet y '

plant, vac askad 1.hether a power plant L;.r of th: n6 ture and

.t < t m as proposed could - be safely built to withstano earthquakes t.sh area.

Ly le t ter etyled Gecrge W. Ibusner,..

-3 January 1

t, to %

J. D, Worthit.gton, Chief Civil Engineer of P.G 6 E.,

n otessor Housner statto:

"In cv opinien a power plart of th e n;tur.

u J location showr. as-Scheamt 7 caa be safely built to withstand

.arthqucke in this arec if the design and construction are done in at cordante with proper seier.it specifications. (Tab 13.)

Stra'y,ely, however, Tab 12 the report inun.3diately preced-ing Tab 13 is'unlike every other dated doew.ent and merely states

• Janut.ry 1961" - thc day of the sotti. beir.g omitted.

In this report J abeled "Jan,ta. y I?61" Professor slousner saye this: "Since it is quite impossibic to der,ign a pow plant to survive without des se.

the large permane.nt ground surface displacements that might o ccur if the carthquake fault slippage occurred on the site, this possi-bility :nuot be given special consideration."

I can only speculate what cross exaa:ir.arier. sight have been dane with theco two reports, laying in Exhibit 46 next to each other Was Tab 12 raercly dated Janus y 1961 rendered before or after th e

written opinion 3f Professor Het:ener on 3 January 1961

, wherein le opined that a 'powr plant could be safely built ?

Why ware the Tab 12 separt merely dated January 1961?

The wealth ef quertions which occurs to one when confronted with this date discre'psney need not be distussed in detail.

But I as intrigaod.

{

vith the p;>Psible reasons for the sharp thsnge in Prof. Houcner'r opinions fro:n "Junn.r> 1961" to "3 Jar.ut ry 1961."

P.: s; ppa e the

• • Jar:ucry 1951" repxt was scritten af ter the "3 Jaruary it'01 '

3 repoc.'

1

.c.

._- _.-__-_---- ___ - -.-__ w

l

' i A, *.k w bv c:.t

+

.w I

i j

l i

I remind th.: re W r that Exhibit 46 represents at: a:cun:le--

tion of independent expert piniens, each opinion serving at the 3

fn..ndation of subsequent opinions. Darws and teoro, consultants in 1

applied earth sciences, rendered reportu on Jcnu m 25, 1960 (Tsb 5),

and on December 2, 1960 (' lab 10) in which they ventured the opinion:

that tne site was safe as a building location ar.d that "The proba-Lility of sittiificant structural damage fran the San Andreas Fault Syste:n is recote during the life of the proposed construction." but then, as Tab 17 ditcloses, on /,pril 33, 1962 Da:nes and teore 1

reported to F.C 6 E.:

"We do not kncv of any sound cethod of inter-pretation for this ca'se, therefere w conclude that at this site th,-

resulte of the seferie studies should be diererarded."

j This revised opinion, of course, ca::n are than a yc4.r l

af ter the opinion of Professor Heusner, rendered en 3 Jant.ary 1961, in which he said that a plant could safely be tvilt "in accorda*ur with pro.>er seisaic specifications. ' But now say Dams and !bere l

1

"*he resalts of the seisede studiec should be disre;:erded."

What

~

change in position would have resulted$ on the part of Professor

~'

llousner in view of the change of position by Damas and Moore?

We dn l

not kntu and we are entitled to know.

1 It canst be apparent by now that the failure to test Exhibit 4E by cross-ersaination, and, in particular, the specific deficiencies I have pointed out, resulted in an approval which should taot bive been issued in the first instance, considering tiu state of the record.

I can only spe ulate as to hev fir::: tin opfnions of the experts would be after exposure to keen questioning. Even without cross-eaa.~.inatina 'the opir.loas and rc: ports ef the experta are con-tradictory and confuning. They leave a wh en be desired r.n.1 du twe

• _ e m..,., e w

o I

vi.. -

l satisfy my conecrn as to the future safety of th:s preresed plaat.

It at arels out ir. E.xhibit !.8 tl.at thorc is 1 aching any cicar,and gut 11-fled expert judgaent that this plant can be built with s'afety read, cf varre, thi, r.nm m ion is entitled te no less an opinion thra that,

.E:Gil!!T 48 A2 TC COtMISSION OTIli10N That Ixhibit 40 played a decicive reic in the decision of the Comission is evident.

In that portien of the opinion styled

' Safety" at Page 19, the Cocer.ission seeks to alley public concern u te qur,ke activity by citire by way of rebuttal "applicat.t's civil enginecting wJtneto". -- Worthington -- whc gave the opinion of the p

cansultint geclogist -- hearsty! t,nd then to buttross the hccrary, the co:rrnis. ion fcund:

"This tactimony was supplemented and sub-stantieted by applicant 's late-filed Exhibit 48."

(Page 20 of opinion.)

The reliability of Er.hibit 46 has been ciscussed above.

This le hardly the wLy te make a complete record and the enorcity of things left untested and unprcven leaves a reccrd which in my opinion cannet possibly furnish the basis for the authority

^

previouly granted.

FHY TAl*P. THE RISK 7 i

We e.re amt here with applicant's assertion as to the necd for this unit.

P.C.6 E.

spelled out such need. It is not necescary to dispute the applicant's contention as to its future energy requirements to' judge the merits of the proposal here offered.

L'c are here dealing so fat as seismic activity is concerned with a voluntary exposure to riek.

It is obvious that a few ventures are er.tirely risk frce but this is not to say thr.t risk should be couru d In thic case, fortunately, wc are not f4ced with unnc c es s a.rily.

coeting futura power requircarnts of P.G.6 E. by piscing a plant at,

p. e.es

t A.

di 4

. )l 9

l,-

s s.. k. s J 15 !-0 3 t, 117 s

t I

t.':15 cite.or in the alt:rnative failieg' to ecet such pover requite-t=ntr, This is n>>t tne only site available to applicant. ' Ther e at!.cr areas in the northern coast territory which may not Ls'a:

<.u u F.ca:

-e 6;.pli ant wishes but which contain r,eological features avited to inc building uf a facility such as this.

I't is quite i

wasibic f or applicant to relocate this facility, recoving its pro-pinnt from such close proximity to'the San Andreas Fault Line

.c se and at the same time thus preserving the natural beauty of Lodega

)

bay.

Only blind compulcion would insist upon placing this plcnt in the heart of onc o,f nature's choicest areas and in freightenir; a

1 preximity to an active fault line.

Both Californic history and the opinions in this recoro 1

make plain the reality of future earthquake activity.

, {

l The reporte of Prof. Housner speak of future large quakes.

Cotamn sense and expert opinion place no limit upon the potential severity of a future quake.

Thui all of the opinions as to safety and design are necessarily qualified.

Even the best opinion of the. best expert must

• acknowledge that seismology has been developed almost wholly since i

j the beginning of the nineteenth cer.tury and must still be regarded 4

as in the early stages of its progress.

)

In this case approval was given upon such assurances ce ar.

it. exact science might furnish and upon urexamined opinions.

In ty view the risk khich inhcres in this project is not to be assumed upon such a dubious showing.

hTCLT.AR P!JJ.T' IN CALIFOTJ!IA This opialen is not to be construed as a p>sition upon my part of opposition to nuclerx plants.

Obviously, their use vill be wre and wle widespret.d and they will tako an important place f

' t

g

• ______._____._m______

i 1

vasa. :

>a j

l l

l 1

)

...<mi (wra ;tny.

I nd e.:d, r. ':. h E., is to be cocrnended for keeping

.. ore st )f t h.: la:er;t technological developments in the energy field.

l 1 am addrc:.hir.g myself only and to this particUlar pro-If we were confronted with a powcr shortage, present yt.

or icniner.t. box what in the nature of a crisis or an emergency,'then.

of courst, such cight pose other and different facts.

My experience, however, dictates that there is no power crisis and that other sites exist.

This is a real factor in judging the necessity for this I

project at this location.

SOM" RELEVAST OB3ERVATIONS Obviously there is a highest and a best use of land.

i A

I myopic business judgrent has missed it here.

In the pursuit of its public utility function alone, P.C.6 E. has overlooked so much.'

As one Cocunissioner, and a Californian, I am of the firm 1

l opinion that we should keep for ourselves and our grandchildren all of the natural grandeur of Bodega Bay. As the population grows and as life becomes ever core complex, Californians will have a keen need for some escape from the quiet desperation of tomorrow.

Bodega 3ay is being lost to future generations and by virtue of a private decision r..de with none of the checks and balances of governmental action. The land acquisition, the use 1

permit acquisition, the authority previously granted by this Commission --

all of these were donc separately and unrelated.

l l

Ficcemeal decisions, none of which in my opinien looked at the total public interest, have now permitted F.C.6 E. to change the land at Bodega Lay. And this despite the fact that the ultimate necessary authority from the Atomic Energy Cocnission has not yet been obtained.

The access road at Bodega Bay, now in the process of construction, has already wrought harm to the natural beauty of.

_~_-__A

n.4.>S;J Dissent 1:2 tie area and has ur.deubtedly had a devastating effect upon the co=-

~

2.anity ecology of the Eay.

I a:n unaware of any persus.sive showing here or anyplace es es the public safety so far as future radiation effects are cancerned. There is a relatior. ship exong all producers of radia-tion so far as public safety is con:erned. When it is realized that a significant portion of total utility capacity will be nuclear in the future, then it is imperative that the total cumulative radiation ic: pact be acasured with some precision. The total radia-tion contribution of this plant, as well as those in being and those to be constructed, nrast be sneasured by sotoe adequate standards and not upon a piece:neal basis. Speaking as one indi-vidual, this case and others to follow demonstrate the necessity of adequate standards frots the Federal Radiation Council or other coupetent agencies whereby an individual state Cocuissioner may know the permissible limits of tetal cu:nulative radiation. Confess-ing my personal inability to render a judgment upon this question, I am quick to point out that it is imperative for total national public safety that the Atomic Energy Conmission meet this responsi-l bility.

I am also co.tpelled to point out that these proceedings point to the necessity for active participation herein by represen-tatives of other state agencies concerned with questions of con-servation and hesith so that this Concission may render a judgment i

which takes into account broad social values rather than the conventionally narrow icaues which might otherwise be encountered here.

p

(

14 9

.e w

P

. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -. -