ML20235A140
Text
?.
,[
,/
/
,r l
/.
g
{
A, n-1
~.
7 r.. - -,
m,.. -
l m,t.se. of sehtu n.sen ts, se Esemey L. Asuthusak, assistant to the 0
Maanger der hablic t=#-tion SAN CLIPS S RESSE MY MacTM IEEsRLS j
anstmoed ase sesent mass stories em the Bodeon Bay seester itsemee
{
j epplicattaa and a espy of Governor Breen's ----* et appotat-l t er emme stems a Atante amersy ca.rdsmater see the state se g
salifornia.
1 a=ws As stated - city. 7/n-m
-3 App *1stamme salanse 7/22
- j ecs [ame 14 pries, _aso,3, Wamsas.
l.
mobert samenstata, asaa, as, w/amsts.
- v. L ritemen, unester, mas, se, Wessas.
usumed shaper, eac, se, w/emsts.
en-G'bd L W. muttk. Ceugt. V., 84N, w/encls, J.
l l
.c k
~~nu!
S i
g, 6
$et
\\
up
. ~
[*
s q
P j
t j
B709230219 B51217-PDR FDIA l
FIREST OBS-665 PDR f
1
3 1
u I
i 1
1 Hum:mi: Hum:innud!!!9?cmnwn m =uummummuunnnynmumnnnmnpuupnmpmumn gfy%y7n
} f;~
Q i
! New Opponen2 of Of Bodeia Disaute C
A-p
" *r " c "=tY 5"P'rvi' '
'rd '*""*d th'* "5 ~
0MS OL'33 hb:
Peter Behr yesterday failed noma County and the State of in hisattempt to have his col-California 1 ave given P. G.
leagues go on record as oppos- & E. ~ authorization to build Peter Behr attempted to persuade his colleagues ing construction of a udcar the first unit of the Bodega
.on the Marin County Board of Supervisors to condemn Bay Mc Pad aM b he
(
fsn 1 as ore s
eag es ga attitude," he said 1ater, we have expended about $1.5 1
i fet.lai o nt
, t h a n S o n o m a county'"
caused him to decide against million in preliminary engi-Behr said.
nee ng and su preparah Peter Behr attempted to
- $the G. &
s disputed for the plant on Bodega Head, persuade his colleagues on nuclear plant will be welcome "The company recently an-the Marin County Board of on the San Mateo County Supervisors to condemn the Coastside, the chambers of nounced its e,xpansion plans j
e mmerce of three of that to 1930, and we do not now ant at Bo e a Ba,
area's communities said yes-contemplate locating any new l
i "This will affect Marin genera &g facMes along %,
, county as much as or more The chambers of Pacifica, San Mateo Coast during that than Sonoma county," Bohr Half Moon Bay and Princeton-3 said.
by the Sea wrote P.G. & E. period.
y s
Even though the plant is.
President Robert H. Gerdes "However, it is heartening
( planned for the fishing and that "it is our; opinion that to receive this invitation...."
t resort area north of Marin, this would be a step in tune "We are p! eased to know s Bcht said the prevailing.
with the progressive spirit of that responsible organisa-winds wduld carry the smoke our area, one of the State's tiens such as these realise y from its stack to Marin com-fastest growing sections, and that nuclear. fueled power munities.
one which holds greatpromise plants can -indeed be good s
3 But the other supervisors in California's future."
, neighbors.
I declined to join Behr in his~
motion.
l f
A spokesman for Pacific-Gas & Electric Co. denied the '
s plant would cause any dan-g ger. The problem of possibic 3 hazards will be " thoroughly l
3 alred" this fall at Atomic i Energy Commission hearings before permission to build the plant can be granted,. the spokesman added.
j l
- b
- +8 e.
., 's
, 3
')
A 43808 I concur in the Order denying the petition of the Northern California Association to Preserve Godega Head,and Harbor, Inc., to reopen the application of the Pacific Gas & Electric Com-pany to install a nuclear power unit at its Bodega Bay Atomic Park.
Such concurrence results from a complete review of the sworn evidence adduced before the California Public Utilities Com-mission after eight days of public hearing. It does not result from any belief on my part that this Commission does not have a responsibilityIto pass upon public utility matters affecting the safety, health, and general well-being of the citizens of California.
Categorically, we do and I so accept that responsibility..
t It is true that the Atomic Energy Commission has been i
j vested by Congress with the power to license and regulate nuclear reactors. It is not true, however, that the California Public l
Utilities Commission is automt.tically divested thereby of its duty and obligation to protect the welfare of the inhabitants of this State. Action by the Federal Government herein is not exclusive.
The Atomic Energy Commission does not occupy the entire field of power regulation to the preclusion of the State. It is patently I
obvious that California interest in this plant is equal tc if, l
indeed, it does not outweigh, any national interest. To espouse the majority opinion would logically make impotent any future orders by this commission in the field of power regulation. I am l
not prepared to adopt such a position.
I I
I 1-1 u________________
e
. )
")
e A 43808 This Commission must and does make its decisions on sworn public testimony and can give no credence to unverified allegations or unsubstantiated arguments such as those advanced by t e protes-tants. The application for a nuclear power plant to be constructed at Bodega Bay was filed by the Pacific Gas & Electric Company on t
f October 4,1961. Since that date, protestants and all'other'in-I
)
terested parties have had ample opportunity to present convincing evidence to this Consnission why the application should not be granted, j
If, as the protestants allege, such evidence exists, it has not been i
submitted to th's Commission under oath (or even by way of affida-i vits, to this date).
Commission personnel especially trained in the nuclear field, experts produced by the applicant, and other disinterested.
I 1
experts have all testified before the Coasnission in support of the plant at Bodega Bay. I do not demean the s'eriousness of the issues or the protestants' concern (nor our own concern). But the specula-tion and conjecture raised by the protestants is of no weight balanced against the expert testimony presented to t'is Commission.
h Indeed, the continuance of such unsubstantiated speculation and j
conjecture without verification is not in the public interest.
There are now at least eleven nuclear plants plus innumer-able nuclear pilot units operative in the United States. In California, the Humboldt Bay Plant in Northern California is already successfully furnishing power. There are three other nuclear plants in California apparently ready for construction.- The Bodega Bay i
plant of the Pacific Gas & Electric Company is within the Bay Area 4
complex; the Malibu plant of City of Los Angeles Department of Water i
?
l -
m
]-
I A 43808 e
I i
l and Power will be in the Los Angeles Areat the San Clemente plant of Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric is to be located on the coast between Los Angeles and San Diego.
It is apparent that the pilot plant stage of nuclear power development has been completed. Atomic energy.isl,now con-sidered competitive with fossil fuels. Objections,primarily ap-pear to be based on fundamental misunderstanding of nuclear power to generate electricity. The evidence to date (including that gathered by the Atomic Energy Commission) indicates nuclear power plants presently operating contain as much if not greater safety protection than competitive power plants, t'
1 l
l f,
Y
__g
)
Peter E. MitBhell,( comrh(tdoir6 l
l 1
1 e
( )
l b.,.
.~.
l f
a
~-
BD s
Decision No.
65701 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIIS COMMISSION OF(
In the matter of the application of T.
PACIFIC OAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY for
'1 a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, install Application No. 43808 opertte and maintain Unit No.1, a,
Bay Atomic Park. nuclear power unit, at its Bodega i
(Electric)
{
l l
[
ORDER DENYING REOPENING l
The Northern California Association to Preserve Bodega H ead and Harbor, Inc., filed its petition to reopen the above proceedin for the purpose of holding further public hearings in said g
- matter, based upon its contention that it has not had an opp ortunity to cross-examine applicant concerning late-filed Exhibit No I
. 48.
That exhibit in essence consists of consultants' reports of I
geologic and seismic conditions at the site of the proposed Bodega Bay power plant from the standpoint of safety of the site.
The exhibit was filed on July 9,1962.
[
l Neither petitioner nor its unincorporated predecessor so ught h
j reopening for the purpose of cross-examination and Interim Decision No. 64537 was issued on November 8, 1962 Thereafter
~
petitioner's unincorporated predecessor sought rehearing on November 2B, 1962, but did not mention Exhibit 48 or ask f or an opportunity to cross-examine the applicant on its contents I
Rehearing was denied on January 2, 1963
./* \\
'\\
\\
w.
9
~)
BD A 43808 i
Approximately ten months after the filing of Exhibit 48 petitioner asserts for the first time that it has been denied due' process, and alleges that it can now produce experts on. seismology and earthquake hazards. Their proposed testimony is characterized only in the most general language as that which "will-give the Commission sufficient grounds to doubt the safety of the plant."
i Interim Decision No. 64537 was conditioned upon applicant's 3
receiving every permit'and license required by law for the con-struction and operation of the proposed plant,. including a con-struction permit and a license from the Atomic Energy Commission.
l
' Congress has enacted the Atomic Energy' Act of 1954 (42 USCA 2011' e,t, seq.) which provides a complete scheme of regulation of nuclear i
materials and of their utilization for research and development and industrial uses. Permits and licenses must be obtained from the Atomic Energy Commission for all activities in these fields.
(Sections 2073, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134, and 2235.)
While in 1959 the Atomic Energy Commission was given author-ity to enter into agreements with individual states providing for state regulation of nuclear materials formerly licensed and regulated by the Atomic Energy Commission (Section 20Z1), the following excerpts from the 1959 U. S. Code Congressional and Administrative News adequately summarize the intent of Congress to preempt the legislative field:
SUMMARY
Of BILL...
{
In summary, the principal provisions of the bill authorize the Commission to withdraw its responsibility for regula-tion of certain materials -- principally radioisotopes --
but not over more hazardoui activities such as the licensing and regulation or reactors.
(p. 2574.)
"COMMEfftS BY THE J0DTP COMMITfEE 2.
(b) The bill applies to some, but not all, atomic energy activities now regulated exclusively by AEC. It applies principally to radioisotopes, whose use and present,
I W
~ * * ~
e. em m a
.e.
e m..
> < =
r
~
R
()
BD A-43808
')
~
local and limited. licensing by AEC is widespread,.but who radioisotopes has similarities to that from othMoreove azard is radiation sources already regulated by States x-ray machines and radium.
er pere dangerous activities--suen as nuclearLicensing and regulatio
--such as remain tne exclusive responsibility of the c F ue a line is 3rawn between types or activities d reactoraCwT11 ya ommission.
repriate for regulation by individual stat
_ time. and other activities where continueo AEC r I
is necessary.
es at this t
(p. Ec(9.)
(Emphasis addeo.)
"3.
It is of dual or concurrent jurisdiction by States tnot inte I
radiation hazards by regulating byproduct e-special nuclear materials.
o control or by the State and local governmentsmaterial reg
, source or (p. 2679.) (Emphasis added.)
, but not by both.",
j e Commitision i
The Atomic Energy Commission has sched l d ue hearings in l
California in which testimony on the saf t i
1 of the nuclear reactor and standards of itse y of the proposed site 1
p i
tion will be produced.
construction and opera-I' testimony might better be considered bit would seem AEC's rules provide:
y the AEC than this Commis-sion.
proceeulng and who desires to participate a"l y A
shall file a written petition under oath or affi ya for leave to intervene not later than fi s a party
~'
before the coramencement of the hearingrmation ve (5) days other time as may be specified in the notice or within such q
permitted by the presiding officer.
ing, how that interest rnay be affected by Cset fo
, or as action a e proceed-E 2 714,a)nd the contentions of the petitioner."ssion o::mi
(
.)
(10 CFR
{
For all of.the foregoing reasons the petition of the Northern Califor i, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
.g Bodega Head and Harbor, Inc. to reopen thn a Association to Prese
[
ceeding is hereby denied.
e above entitled pro-I p
Dated at San Francisco, California 1963.
this 9th day of July, I would grant the petition EVERETT C. McKEAGE for reasons to be set forth.
OEORGE G. GROVER I
W. M. BENNETT FREDERICK B. HOIDBOFF I will fi opinion. le a concurring Commissioners PETER E. MITCKELL
--3<
Ir
,-)
',)
A 43800 Dissent NB 2
-1
-)
)
BENNETI, William M., Commissioner - This is the. highly -
i controversial Bodega Bay nuclear power unit' controversy..It has
- }
become'the subject of public' dialogue and has'avoked spirited public j
i opposition. 'The Pacific Gas and. Electric Company (P.G.& E.),
applicant, has requested approval of its proposal in the name of-the public convenience and necessity.
The matter is now before this Coimnission.upon a pleading styled "A Petition to Roopen.and For Purther Hearing.".This peti-l tien was fi*ed on May. 6,31963, by the Northern California Association to Preserve Bodega Head and Harbor, Inc.,T(the Association).
i.i i
The Association evokas the broad discretion of the public Utilities Cocnission of the State 'of California. (Cocunission) to review the record herein and the decision and order made. This is' a matter of such import as to call' for my coeplete review of the~
record. I did not previously participate.in this matter, not then being a member of this Commission.
From a complete review of the record harein, I am compelled l
to the conclusion that a nuclear power unit at Bodega Bay is not compatible with'the public convenience and necessity. 14t as articulate those things and reasons which drew'me to this result.-
il 3
n THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND. NECESSITY.
1 Public convenience and necessity is not so precise a' con '
cept as to be subject'to exact interpretation. It is an elastic; standard but by law its interpretation and application to a given set of facts and circumstances as pertains to California public 1
utilities rests with this Causatssion. This Commission is the i
economic court'of California and it represents the people of this-i state in approving or disapproving on their behalf, proposals made -
~1.
l n
~ ~ ~ -
___m-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " - - " " ' - ^ ' - - - - - ' ' ' '
_.,.--a--
l A.43808 Dissent
)
NE
]
^
by public utilities.
variety of factors, and in thiIn arriving at the true publi i
c interest a stances, must be given proper wei hs case a variety of specia g t.
k In considering public case we are met with a showing ofconvenience and necessity in
\\
1 project; a s
proximity of this proposed plantstrong pub e
c safety because of the strong public opposition to the l an active fault line; and a to i
because of its impact upon th ocation of this plant at Bod t
(
these things have a beari e natural beauty of the ega Bay L
ng upon my position hereinarea. All of THE STATED PUBLIC POSITION The proposed plant of P G 6 E intruder by an impressive publi. is regarded as speaking out in protection of thc representation.
an unwanted Individuals, 1
to be affected, have been eir interests as they conceiv
[.
witnesses expressed concernquite vocal in their oppositio e them plant and public witnesses exas to the location of the pr n.
Public 2
, safety as residents of the area in thpressed grave concern oposed 4tructed.
e r future behalf of its numerically s bThe Sierra Club of Ca a presented a spokesman pleasure impact upon the natural beand opposition to on t
L
)
voice its dis-e because of its The public auty of the area.
clabned g
and conclusiveopposition is not, of course o clear 7
a process
, measured here by onetheless the record gives th as the popular vote might b g
i sjority of the public does e clear impression that the e,
1 i
me.
The commission,consistentnot want this unit at this pl vast g
j I
i ight to this public expre with its genesis, is boundace at this i
i ssion.
to give i
1 k
\\
l 2
\\
t
\\
\\
shy 4
h% son 5
A.43808 DisMut q
NB l
)
i We Juan Francisco de lare here talking about B d
\\
o Sonora, the first s a Bodega y Cuadra, Captega Bay, so-called af the pear point of ain er of occober 3,1775, thecoast of California.the Spa northern weary v yagers foundAs it is related:. explor four leagues to the o
"On banks bear north of Point Reyesthemselves in 7
and deer a bay about the could be
, on whose beautiful gr captain of the seen pe l
! still bears."
ship the bay was acefully feeding.
een
.I.
named In honor iPh'.D.,and
("A Short History of Bodega, a f
of
\\
Nellie v
$he bears have lous an De Crift Sanchez (1929 Califo well and aside from the intrsince gone, still an
) at page 141.) D. Hunt, N
ia g.ndscape occasional deer While
,tructures, Bodega usions of roads crosses the y the Spanish.
remains substantially as it wand casual 7-Bodega is as 'when first seen one of sky, land and water those places which i S.
old!
The It is s
their coast, the a joy to the a unique sea eye -
combination
- },,%,
seasonal colors, thewash of thea pleasure to M,
oce t is an, the only one Bodega Bay a dse have baen rolling hills will never bemade by the hand of G It is to be there n
I i
noted od.
ved by Government as that Bodega, whil another.
g one of e it has
(
miess is part and the playgrounds not baen kasfromStinsonBeachon that recreations 1 the future, parcel of af The i
~
region is frequentad band up the Marin complax which restional retr It enjoys they beaches, intermittand.Sonom eats.
coast d rare to the populationnatural beauty and mo advantages ent State p' arks
\\
I the Bay Area.st importantly is iof possess of
\\
, of this area is n close i in the out of A nuclear plant in place.
concept of a Indeed there is
\\
nucitar plant at Bod an inherent ega Bay.
/
1 y t
~
\\
'~
,, -.. ~,
....._..,,a 1
'y
}
s-a.
-x 000 D ssent
')
y3
)
its I believe that natur l heritage the public a
conserv tion country, and of national Theodore Roosev lwishes a
a ideal.
e t and to n
c conservation bec California in p Today as the Gifford are for narrev the publiccritical and shoularticular, b mination omes of of conv d
more this utilitarian enience and necessity. properly figure i is a far greater cost and value t n a deter-preserving Bodega social benefit nu le While ther o a c
my opinion, to Calar plant at Bo
, benefit cannot be prBay so far e is
, in a
I a, there as possible
\\
Projects ecisely measur d standard of so distasteful and even though suchifornia, in
[
e e.
n' public socini the tru aesthetics offensiv so e public are s pprov convenie not, nor e to the broad a
e this nce can 11 as for otherapplication be and necessity.
argument make th
[^
\\
re cause em.
NUCLEARasons to be given h the loc tionAccordin of THE a
PLANT would
.29. as cho AND erein.
selected as The sen TE sd upon P.O.6 site, in pro imit ANDREAS
%v.,+
SAN FAULT
?. y,.', '
absolute E. the hh y to the San And x
,the LINE a
9; - '
bed as the s fety of Bay re idents dearth's gre testits propos as Fault, rs eth continental riftThis fault has b a
a s
tiv o
e potential.
not n
\\
eed any special San Franciscan
~ (j een yhy to The most mere It is
- people, mention reminder s
of a
\\
d' only a 1906 suggests s to its matter should e ist as of co::snon a
x The a proximity to this plain thatto this issue isen ecord r
gr eat con n these proc cern '
', distance b e fault line.the proposed n eedings.
4 \\
the etw ucle ar w ds een ths 9,,
P.C.6 unit and A dispute unit will or of axists E. 's the San Andr as to
\\
c expert, Pr fes eas fault line.
o sor C. W. Housner 4-
{
-\\
%w w$ g d spr g., -
z
\\
v;
.gg e
i i
1 1
t
, )
A.43808 Dissent NB
]
I 1
I
. (Exhibit 48, Tab 12,' letter of January,1961),."This site is close to the San Andreas Fault Zone which passes a mile or so to the east."
The report of. Clark E. McHuron', P.C.& E. consulting-engineering geologist, says: "The general site of the siioposed Bodega Bay Power Plant is known and recognized to be within and q
very close to the San Andreas Fault Zone. The' San Andreas Fault is known to be active and to have been active in the past." (Exhibit 48,-
j Tab 3.)
]
Other opinions place the Fault Line in closer relationship 1 I
to the plant but regardless of the exact distance it is a fact that' l
this olant will be very close to the earth's greatest continental.
's active fault line -- and there is no other accurate way to state it!
i The opinion of this Commission heretofore issued, states:
I
"... in addition to the San Andreas Fault Zone which according to the record is more than one fourth mile east 'of the proposed resetor site..." The confusion as to the precise distance between the proposed nuclear plant and the fault line is evident, but it is safe I
to conclude that despite the lack of clarity in the record, the Plant is none the less in proximity to the fault line.
l FtTTURE QUAXE ACTIVITY CONSIDERED The San Andreas Fault Line has been active for thousands
-j of years and will probably continue to be active for thousands more.
It has visited its rolls and shocks upon this' area, either mildly or with some severity, almost without surcease. That it will continue'-
is stated in Exhibit 48, Tab 12 by the F.C.& E. expert, Prof. C. W..
Housner: "The proposed site is a region of high seismic activity...
It has been estimated that a large earthquake such as the 1906 shock may be expected to occur along the San Andreas Fault in the Bodega Bay region perhaps three or four times per one thousand years.
l,
i.
____._______._____________.___.________.._.m____
-)
l A.43808 Dissent, !TB Less intense ground motion can be expected to occur with greater frequency..." Geology, as it furnishes the basis for huinan opinions as to future fault.line activity is not free from human Some experts expect more frequent occurrences of violent error.
I activity upon this line and no experts can state precisely the date of such future happenings nor the. seismic intensity thereof.
It seems safe to conclude then that despite the range of opinion as to future occurrences that there is a consensus that.
there will be future occurrences and that some of them may well be quite severe.
THE DEFECT IN P.G.& E's SHOWING The issue of safety loomed large in these proceedings and P.G.& E. carried the burden of meeting that issue. Early in the proceedings P.G.& E. related that it had retained Dr. Tocher, a con-sulting seismologist, Dr. Quaide, consultant geologist, Professor l
Housner, professor of' applied mechanics, Dames and Moore, soil mechanics engineers, and others. Their employ was for the purpose of studying the proposed site in terms of its safety aspects. Their opinions, then, were crucial since they formed the basis upon which
)
P.G.& E. elected to proceed at Bodega Bay.
During the first day of hearing Commission counsel inquired j
of P.G.6 E. as to whether any of the reports of its experts were going to be available or were going to be put into evidence.
P.G.& E.
stated:
"Well, we didn't intend to put any of them in. They are quite lengthy, they are quite voluminous. Certainly they were avail-I able for the Comission staff to look at and to study...". At this
]
e point staff counsel replied: "... it appears to me that the Comission may in not requiring a full record in this matter be satisfied with just one or two sentences, in effect that the doctors i '
l 1
%..~...______.____.__.___________
..____2
4 A.43808 Df.ssent NB l
say that it is O.K....... with reference to such an important matter, I think deserves the consideration of the bench,' and I think j
that we should have available to us some of this information."
(R.T. 38,39.)
Despite this exchange the hearing proceeded and the opinions, reports and other information of the selected experts of l
P.G.& E. were given through the mouth of one J. D. Worthington, Chief Civil Engineer of the P.G.6 E.
No one of the experts retained by l
P C.& E. came forward upon oath to throw his opinion into the tur-l,
2 bulent arena of cross-eyad nation. Their judgments were and remain I
i untested!
l Turning to the last day of hearing, demand was made that l
P.G.6 E. present the reports of its experts. The experts' opinion, it was then agreed, should be received as s'. late-filed exhibit
~
1 1
1 designated Exhibit No. 48, and in closing the Examiner stated:
"... and the applicant has the responsibility of submitting a late-l filed Exhibit No. 48."
(Reporter's Transcript 1497.)
l And so, on June 7, 1962 these proceedings closed and on July 9, 1962 late-filed Exhibit 48 was furnished.
THE 1ACK OF CROSS-EXAMINATION It is evident that Exhibit 48 was perhaps the most single important exhibit in these proceedings. It contained the written reports and opinions of P.C.& E.'s experts and it certainly formed the basis for critical cross-examination. Unfortunately, however, parties to these proceedings unskilled in Commission practice and indeed, in legal procedure, were not quick to insist upon their right to examination of the document, and, secondly, they were not quick to demand that P.G.6 E.'s experts give their respective opinions upon oath.
1.
eavue saw +_ wqu+vW
e 1
I i
)
)
d A.43000 Dissent NB i
The chance abilities or disabilities of the parties to I
e
[
l i
these proceedings does not excuse the obligation of this Consnission J
to insist upon a complete record, nor can we throw our responsibility to the Atomic Energy Commission. These proceedings represent more than a game in which the clever side most conversant with procedure t
and method wins the prize. There is a basic proposition which must
)
be reached here and we did not get to it in this case upon a complete record simply because of the unwillingness of the F.G.& E. to expose
{
its experts to cross-examination. This poses a fatal deficiency.
4 The complete exploration of expert opinion which was not permitted
)
here has resulted in an approval which should not have been issued l
1 in the first instance in view of the record. Rudiments of fair play and due process suggest to me that there has not been a full hearing here particularly in the matter of such public importance as this.
I 1
EXIIIBIT 48 ANALYZED I have read Exhibit 48 in detail. It is at best a curious
{
document.
It is a thick compendium of reports - each bearing a con-venient tab and running from Tab 1 through Tab 24 At the outset is a purported typewritten resume of the contents of Exhibit 48, unexplained as to the manner of its preparation and by whom.
The resume refers to "a number of conversations with the consultants" and to " investigations and results" both oral and written.
These m
are as the resume says "in addition to the material contained."
By P.C& E.'s own words the conversations and oral results, whatever they were, were not presented to the Commission.
I The reports are arranged in chronological order and signif-icantly each report bears the month, the day and the year given -
that is, save one - and thie is,significant!
It should be noted as well that following the first report each subsequent report builds j
in part upon its predecessor as the basis of the opinions given.
l L
A.43808 Dissent NB
~)
3' 1
U I
l Prof. C. W. Housner, the expert with the final say upon the safety of this plant, was asked whether a power plant of the nature and q
location as proposed could be' safely built to withstand earthquakes
)
in this area..By letter styled " George W. Housner,
...-3 January 1961," to Mr. J. D. Worthington, Chief Civil Engineer of P.G.& E.,
I Professor Housner stated:
"In my opinion a power plant of the nature-and location shown as Schems 7 can be safely built to withstand i
l earthquake in this area if the design and construction are done in I
accordance with proper seismic specifications. (Tab 13.)
Strangely,'however, Tab 12 the report insnediately preced-j ing Tab 13 is unlike every other dated documeht and merely states f
" January 1961" - the day of the month being omitted. 'In this report labeled " January 1961" Professor Housner says this:. "Since it is quite impossible to design a power plant to, survive without damage the large permanent ground surface displacements that might occur if the earthquake fault slippage occurred on.the site, this possi--
bility sust be given special consideration."
I can only speculate what cross-examination might have been i
done with these two reports, laying in Exhibit 48 next to each other.
Was Tab 12 merely dated January 1961 rendered before or after the written opinion of Professor Housner on 3 January 1961, wherein he-l opined that a power plant could be safely built?
Why was the Tab 12 report merely dated January 19617 The wealth of questions which occurs to one when confronted with this 1
I date discrepancy need not be discussed'in detail. But I am intrigued l
k with the possible reasons for the sharp change in Prof. Housner's opinions from " January 1961" to "3 January 1961." or suppose the t
" January 1961" report was written after the "3 January 1961" report!
. L
__-__________-______-__________-a
l Q
~ )
t.
A.43808 Dissen't NB l
I remind the reader. that Exhibit 48 represents "an accunnla -
tionofindependentexpertopinions,'eachopinionservinh_asthe g
foundation of subsequent opinions. Dames and Moore, consultants in applied earth sciences, rendered. reports on January 25.1960 (Tab 5),
and on December 2. 1960 (Tab 10) in which they ventured the opinions that the' site was safe as'a building location ~and that "The_proba-bility of significant structural damage from the San Andreas Fault System is remote during the life _of the proposed construction.'.' But then, as Tab 17L discloses, on April-30. 1962 Dames and Moore reported to P.C.& E.:
"We do not know of any sound method of inter-Pretation for this case, therefore we conclude that at this site the results of the seismic studies should be disregarded."
H This revised opinion, of cobse, came more than a year aftertheopinionofProfessorHousner,ren[leredon3 January 1961, in which he said that a plant could safely be built "in accordance
. vith proper seismic specifications (' But now say Dames and Moore "The results of the seismic studies should be disregarded." What changeinpositionwouldhaveresultedkonthepartofprofessor Housner in view of the change _ of position by Dames and Moore? We do not know and we are antitled to know.
It must be apparent by now that the failure to test i
Exhibit 48 by cross-examination, and, in particular, the specific deficiencies I have pointed out, resulted in an approval which should not have been issued in the first instance, considering the
,i state of the record.
I can only speculate as to how firm the opinions of the experts would be after exposure to keen questioning. Even without I
cross-examination the opinions and reports of the experts are con-tradictory and confusing. They leave auch to be desired and'do not
.1 e
I A.43808 Dissent IG satisfy my concern as to the future safety of the proposed plant. It l
g stands out in Exhibit 48 that there is lacking any clear and quali-i fled expert judgment that this plant can be built with safety and,'of f
course, this Conunission is entitled to no less an opini6n than that.
IXHIBIT 48 AND THE COMMISSION OPINION That Exhibit 48 played a decisive role in the decision of the Conunission is evident. In that portion of the opinion styled
" Safety" at Page 19, the Commission seeks to allay public concern as to quaka actihitiy by citing by way of rebuttal " applicant's civil engineering witness"'-- Worthington'-- who gave the opinion of the consulting geologist -- hearsay! And then to buttress the hearsay, the Conunission found: "This testimony was supplemented and sub-stantiated by applicant's late-filed Exhibit 48."
(Page-20 of Opinion.)
The reliability of Exhibit 48 has been discussed above.
This is hardly the way to make a complete record and the enormity of things left untested and unproven leaves a record which in my opinion cannot possibly furnish the basis for the authority previously granted.
I WY TAKE THE RISK,?
We are met here with applicant's assertion as to the need for this unit.
P.G.& E.
spelled out such need. It is not necessary j
to dispute the applicant's contention as to its future energy' i
requirements to judge' the merits of the proposal hers offered. We l
are here dealing so far as seismic activity is concerned with a l
voluntary exposure to risk.. It is obvious that a few ventures are entirely risk free but this is not to say that risk should be courted unnecessarily. In this case, fortunately, we are not faced with meeting future power requirements of P.C & E. by placing a plant at l. - -
i 3
3 A.43803 Dissent ' NB:
,3 l
this site or in the ' alternative failing to meet such power. require-ments. This'is'not the only site available to applicant,. There exist other areas in the northern coast territory which'insy not be as ideal as applicant wishes but which contain geological features suited to the building of a' facility such as this. It'is quite possible for applicant to relocate this facility,' removing its pro-l posed plant from such close proximity to the San Andreas Fault Line.
j and at the same time thus preserving the natural beauty of Bodega l
Bay. Only blind compulsion would insist upon placing this plant in '
the heart of one of nature's choicest areas and in frightening Proximity to an active fault line.
Both California history and the opinionr; in this record a i P ain the reality of future earthquake activity. The' reports f
mak l
f of Prof. Housner spe.ak of future large quakes. Consnon sense and expert opinion place no limit upon the potential severity of a future quaka. Thus all of ths opinions as to safety and design are necessarily qualifiad? Even the'best opinion of the best expert must acknowledge that adsmology has been developed almost wholly since the beginning of-the nineteenth century and must still be regarded
]
as in the early stages of its progress.-
l
,a
-t In this case approval was given upon such assurances as an 'q
[
inexset science might furnish and upon unexamined opinions. In my 1
view the risk which inheres in this project.is not to be assumed I
upon such a dubious showing.-.
NUCLEAR PLANTS IN CALIFORNIA This. opinion is not to be construed as a position upon my part of opposition to nuclear plants. Obviously, their use will be t
more and more widespread and they will taka'an important place l
l r
- j v.
}
N j.' n 7
j
,y 4,
i 7.
. y'
.t t
l A.43808 D,bsent NB I
(
'f 1
x
- )
?
in our economy. Indeed, P.G.6 E.1s. to be conunanded for keeping
]
abres.st of the latest technological developments in, tic energy
/
field.
0 I am addressing sayself only and to' this particular pro -
3 jact. 1f we were confronted with a power shortage, present or 1
inminent, somewhat in the nature of a crisis or an emergency, then,.
.l of course, such might pose other and differant facts. My' experience.
however, dictates that there is no power crir,ty end that other sites.
i 0
exist. This is a real factor in judging tlk necessity for this
/-
1 -.I[
}
project at this' location.-
r 1
SOME RETIVANT OBSERVATIONS j
Obviously there is a highest and a best use of land. A A
t-j myopic business judgment has missed it here. In the pursuit of its public utility function alone, P.G.6 E. has overlooked so much!
As one Ceamissioner, and a Californian, I am of the firm opinion that we shoul keep for ourselves and our grandchildren all j
i of the natural grandeurs 9f Bodega Bay, is che pcpulation grows and s
as life becomes ever more comples, Californians will have a keen need for some escape from the quiet desperation of tomorrow.
Bodega Bay is being lost to future genetcations and by j
i virtue of a private decision made with' none of the checks and balances of governmental action. The land acquisition, the use i
permit acquisition, the authority previously granted by this i
i commission -- all of these were'done separately and unrelated.
Piecemeal decisions, none of dch in my opinion looked at the total public interest, have nob permitted P.G.& E. to change the
\\
land at Bodega Bay. And this despite the fact that the ultimate necessary authority from the Atomic Energy Commission has not yet been obtaiaed. The access road at Sodega Bay, now in the process
..i of constr.a: tion, has already wrought harm to the natural beauty of
' l f
,y a
3 g.
p
\\.
(
r
_-)
(.g
' A.53808 Dissent NB "
~
the area and has undoubtedly had a devastating effect upon the'com-i a
l
~
munity ecology of the Bay.
d I
I am unaware of any persuasive showing here or anyplace as to the public safety so far as future radiation effe" cts are-e concerned. There is a relationship among all producers of radia-l tion so far as public safety is concerned.. When it is realizad-
.J that a significant portion of total utility capacity will be nuciaar in the future, then it is imperative;that 'the total cumulative
.i radiation impact be measured with some' precision. The total radia,
l 1
tion contribution of this plant, as well as those in being and / y I
7
]
those to be cons m ucted, must be measured by some adequate f stan'dards and not' upon a piecemeal basis. Speaking asione indi-vidual, tais cree and ot'hers to follow demonstrate the necessity of adequate standards free the Federti Radiation Council or other
' competent agencies whereby an individual state Coasaissi.oner may know the permissible limits of total cumulative radiation. Confess-ing my personal inability to tender a judgment upon this question.
l.
I am quick to point out that it is imperative for total national
.l public safety that the Atomic Energy Commission meet this.responsi-bility.
h l
I am also compelled to poirp out thscNhese proceedings e
point to the necessity for active participation herein by represen-tatives of other state agencies concerned with questions of con-i; servation and health so that this Cosmission may render a judgment i
which takes into account broad social values rather than the conventionally narrow issues which might otherwise be enc' unt'ered -
o
/ here.
y j
o s
a 4
)!
7-y
^
,; we:
A--
, gn,
,,1 )
y
+
s i)
. *).
l A.43808 Diesent NB l
i l
CONCLUSION l
Accordingly, taking into account the location,'of the plant, the questions of the public safety as evoked by the location; the failure of P.C.& E. to aset the safety issue; the Elear public
~
desire to keep' Bodega inviointe - all'of these things and cumula-tively lead ma to the conclusion that the authority heretofore i
given should not have been issued and should be rescinded.
I P.C.& E. is not giving proper weight to the total social values which. inhere in the Bodega Bay site and which are being
\\.
destroyed. Steel, concrete and energy are not a fair exchange for-Precious and beautiful land, sea and sky.
P.G.& E. has in the past shown its concern for public opinion. I suggest that it
~
reconsider its decision to place a nuclear plant at Bodega Bay, that it withdraw from the site, and that it select another.
/s/ ~N'i111am H.'Bennett WILLIAM M. BENNETT, Consnissioner e
0 a
h t,
- _ _ _ _