ML20235A407

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Newspaper Articles Re New Petition for Puc of CA Rehearing on Bodega Bay Reactor
ML20235A407
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Bodega Bay
Issue date: 08/01/1963
From: Southwick R
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To: Fouchard J
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20234A767 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-85-665 NUDOCS 8709230294
Download: ML20235A407 (3)


Text

d L

re y

t 1,==

atvistem et subus assementama, mm.eemreers fic.

s.6 andary L. w homseh, Aostatant to the f P.

nameger der subits Endesmatian g.

85ghts.s es SW NrtrIsu get sec m. aseek I

i M 5.8 mi

-.u e.uta.

one

1 amannsmees

~'

As stated a

^

SC: /amrold Prias. BBC. 30. Wensta.

"'p ambert Emma==ealm, MaA, BE, Weasas.

F. L riteman, se, WE, Womsts.

-s f.T W. W Y M SSe l

/

L u. esch,engt.v.,ses, W. mats.

[.[ e

? '.~..

l u- =

G yp 3

+

1 1 +T h

's i 4

/.

p, s

a Q

f-4

.)

g l

N Q

/.' v

&l

~

e

i 4

~

Q j

'N

- i G

~t 8

e, g.

p ~'.,

r~

~

toe?: IT pt o

yy

.g.,:...,

T l

k i l

.,. g. J.

U

.4 m

m /...

g w

n w

's

o-!y v'.

o)

I g e-

..g g.

(n r.

sa.' O.J. t b

a SOUTEWICE:st 8/1/63 8709230294 851217 PDR FOIA FIRESTO85-665 PDR

'r L, 1 G w P U C....

p>-

T www 2

b v;Petitw.n a

New PUC PetitJk n;

[Dn kPlant.

~

f r

(rhthed from Page 11 l On A-Plant i

~ ' ~ " " " - *

[,

"r the question' e

j. Opponents of the proposed Bo-g g,

dega Bay nuclear. fueled power g

bl, sayspihe petition filed a.

i plant today went back to the state 4 todayl'.iPian' erroneous conclusion

, Public Utilities Commission with bMM,,"'.Q * *'ani abdicadon d l another petjuon for re-bearing the t,the power an,d;dut) of the corn; Issue..

9aiissiciri.th safeguhrd the citized W pettuon is described'by the delthiistAte."..

l 3ongress ga)N.'thk Atomic EneN J

. Associadoc b Preserve Bodega M

Head and Harbor as a first step toward an appeal to the Supreme

.,,M...aio6 t'certab W I

' Court of a July 9 PUC 41 refusaj

, ory'pwers 6vpr nuclear reactors,,f.

to re open hearings.

.the,petltion sayf but.that is on!f 11 charges that the July 9 denial f.:

of a peution for rehearing was un-with reference to the 'contal of constituumal, based m erme.

@uon M by regulaun'g by.

aus ennelusions of law, and vio-l product. source or special nuclear F,'

lated commission rules and rights materials? n.,. t t ir 3

$.e '

to a fair bearing.

' "We are no' preslody mxsLd t

g

& PUC appmved Pacific Gas ff tradiation' hazards

  • but with' gl

& Electric Co.'s plans to buud the D.e

$61 million plant last November.

whether, a muclear. reactor Jocat-l and in fouowing months denied a ed 6, close ymzinuty,to aq ao series of petitions for rehearmg, tive earthquake' fault can' be con.

a E:

the last the July 9 dedsion.

sidered safe," the petition says.

In that decision three commis!

'Ite petitie: 'also says the rna-aloners ruled for denial mostly on

'fority opinion is an unconstitu..

~

grounds that the federal govern-tional delegation of the commis-

  • ~ Q ment has given control of nuclear sion's authority," and it " reveals q

readers to the Atomic Energy

.. ; that the commission faued N

- Commission.

i to make f"mdings on all of the

.T.'

A fourth commissioner, Peter E.

material issues" in the November Etchell, agreed that the peution plant approval because it said then md.

abould be denied but didn't agree

' that safety was' not "irnlevant" 7.;;

that the federal government has and that "all the' evidence /has shouldered the state out of the au-been considered."

1*>

40 I;

clear power regulation field.

From the utajority' opinion the Commlasion President William E.

association concludes the commis-M Bennett (appointed in January) sion *dici mot consider safety 'in y

dissented strongly and said be passing oni e application,'sined th thinks the PUC approval should

. that issue was believed pre-empte'dI w

be eithdrawn.

by federallaw."

i Today's.associadon filing with Turning ldo a late-filed PG&E the PUC is the first' signed by i

exhibit -dealing with the geology }

r.

W

.rnembers of the firm d Garry, of Bode'ga Head, and fDed! July '

Dreyfus and McTernan, San Fran.

9, 1902, after,the - bearings.were l Wseo lawyers who represented the closed. -the' association says the ;

\\

issodation in a Sonoma County PUC nfur.al to open bearings oc11 vdates th Superior Court. battle ; over.the c) county's use permit for the plant i CP

.D

[ 'Ite associaUon seeks rehearing of practice, and the state and fed-l eral ~ e H w k '

I en the quesums of hazards posed

{ Asa from whatever value to-j

/

by the plant's proximity to the San i

g i'

kV Andreas Pault sone. about 1,000 day's petition may have in solidi-j Iying issues that might be taken !

feet frorn the edge of the sone.

.'to the Supreme. Court, it also i 9

y, I ~

  • m^jority deemon was that the fee 1 fh k'Y P*i"' 'h' '" ' ""C h\\)G5 g>

J

.rai g=rnment ha usum d as a

extenda th' $1== !!= t 'ar *PP* :

ggApfa

.nt,. acuan.

i i

~ i m deadune for appeat d the M

g VSApgjaW hority in the field of nuclear saf*'

Ljcentinued.se Page.14 Col.E h ' \\

! July e decision was Aug. s: amr I

T i the association wD) have 30 days I

4 i

dag,sg,, {jg.,j,j, (;,{

from whenever' the Puc deces i

O

~~

toda

e

u. -.-. =.... _.

a q

g-j '

r....,.

- m.. m 4

8Y Q ir)/dy 7

.Y 1

" An 'Open Hearing' '

3

=

a h/

3 l. Editor-Bodega Head irone of 3

's.

I

the most scenic spots on the West

I BodenaBa/'

~~

v

. ceast, a d the eacific. cas and y D

a. Electric company's plan to build. J

'cs-4, A

can atomic reactor there would be a "a PleaFil.ed ~

- - 'i - =' * " -

J The Public Utilities Commis 4 f

I i sion has twice declined to hold

  • 4 i

l O p p o n e n t s of PG&E's 5

C.open hearings to. consider. this J3 t planned nuclear Power plant 4'

viewpoint, but it was hoped that l st Bodega Bay a sk e d the 0,the open hearinas promised by the I State Public Utilities Com-Atomic Energy Commission would i

., ^

mission yesterday for a re-

' k':..

.w j*

r. q %..

hearing of the PUC's 41 deci-sion last July.9 to deny them i

hC a.r9 earing.. "

f ~.'* * '

  • 7 ~ ~ ~ ' f 9 9 h

"The action. ' filed by attor-

"T* 3 d

neys Benjamin Dreyfus and 9-consider aesthetic values. as well >

Mi Donaldt A. Kerson for the ii. as queMions of safety.

l t

Northern California Associa.

4 But in answer to my letter to 4 6

f tion to Preserve Bodega Head

' the AEC, Assistant Division Direc-i sad Harbor,Inc., was termed

..to E. R. Price wrote that "the 1

'~

i l t preliminary to an eventus!

[ aesthetics of the site are not with 3 5~

appeal to the State Supreme

).in the jurisdiction of the AEC andl

^'

a Court. i. 'l

.~.~..t

{ ' therefore are not considered in.

V.

I:. the, course of theevaluation of the application."c review endi M-6 ib L.:--

t The issue of publib welfare and?

K tu safety will be considered. Since/w 4

j~.: according to Mr. Price, the dis;.

n tance of the reactor will be 1000i h -. feet from the San Andreas fault,

h. ?.

l. It appears pointless.to hold hear.-t m

4 k

I

, ings. The site is illegal under the '

i

' '" AEC's own requirement that noi

)M 3.k reactor be less than a quarter ntile I -

F.?

D' from an active earthquake fault-'

%(' q... I predict that their own re.

--y

. uirement will be ignored.

. j

...i I

P '. The terrible lesson implied by!

6 this misfortune appears to be that G

Vpeople have' lost all control over i

6 the decisions that directly Jaffect, y

. I,,,f them. Where have we failed? ? J*

CRAIG MERRIHUE.',P g'p >;.r.

4 brkele, Y -

. ^ -

d

..r.r.c.. m.. n.. r..wq.,/s o

I f,

I 4

j i

t.

y

_ _ _ _..