ML20235C822
Text
- - - -
.I..,,,N r,
,.. ~..
1 g
(
(
a -. e w r,s p
MAY 151963 l
l MBERAMNat FOR CRAINIAE SEABORG l
meegISSEMIEE WAEnRTM l
gramerms10EEE FAIFEEY CDIAGSSIDIER BAMEY gg - hdj-GIBG5SIDMER WIIs05 (3
SUBJECtt 5855 81 DRIES CIE Prof 0 SED BODEGA READ REACIOR f
s.,... o wggw.q q,.,.. j. gg
).y g.... ;.
iri;;@
-re Atteshed for your 1mformaties are espins of seeeet asus eteries esaserning the proposed resifts Gas 1
ami Elastric Campany Bodega Bay reester.
Sigceil
- "4
' Dunc:tn ClarV
~
Damean Clant, Direeter..
.Divisian','ef Fablia;Infomatia=
Ate mokmaae n4%4hliEti.
vw:-
, g,. g
, g, E. L. Fries, Director of Eaga1=ef== y E. Impeastein, 1&R M'f F. Pittman, DRD E. K. Demovem, OCL j
+
l j
i I
I I
Rec'd Of. Dir. cf f.cgii.
if b 3
.D ate Ilgo y---
YlO 0 H ST;
~
Gtn -- -,
6 71 FI PI Feuebardspk 5/14 /63 hD f0f{ B51217 FIRESTOG5-665 PDR l
.._ = _
=-
f(
(
. cl...
(
t.
f-L n
b P w s/9 h e
b
[I
)
'h h
]
b t.!
j San (a Rosa
'ings beforchand. Board mcm. asked the Califor i A zoning clhange that bers did not comment.
n a Public I
Utilities Commission to re- "We will consult our 2.l. !
would permit construction
.The board had granted, of an atomic power' plant PG&E a use permit three consider its authorization torneys to determine how to
/on Eodega Head without counter 'th
. Executive Secretary Daviding) move.is latest (rc:cs.
years 'ago, but conservation-E Pesonen of the conserva.
It obviously was a use permit nas been ap. ists opposing the plant now tionist group, the Northern a desperate move-it.is n
. proved by Sonoma county have a suit pendlng in Su-Supervisors. '
perior Coutt. seeking to void California Association to Pre-admission that' our lawsuit.
a pending lawsult to block the permit..They also have bor, Inc f said last night: serve Bodega Head an (challenging th OMN:i",
' The move would sidestep e use permit)
' was valid "
such a permit om. c.,,,,foug,u, A spokesman for conserva..
(
jtionists opposing. the plant h
k called the board action "the i
worst example we've seen yet t
of the collusion between Pa..
h c'ific Gas and Electric Co. and
{
the supervisors," and said.
t possibility of a new lawsuit, I.. '
to challenge the rczoning was'
)
beinginvestigated.
I The board voted 4 to I late 6
'[/.
Tuesday to change the zoning
)
1 t on Bodega llead, including med most'of the land around the d ?
1 town of Bodega Bay, from its-
/
}q-
< ctirrent " study" status to 'ag L
> ricultural. The county zoning
}'
ordinance specifics that a
, lL f "public utility' structure"
~
j
- may be built without a use f
. permit in an agricultural
.. w,,.. }
e zone.
~
Only Supervisor I[eigh
<t Shoemaker of Petaluma,op.
posed the change.
Eocs of the 401 million 4!. '
c..
atomic plant already under 1,
t construction by PG&E ar..
'c 3
gued vainly against the zon; ing
. s %;'...,,, f
,, $' w:
,Q change in the public.-
- board sessich.
hi
_f ifJ -
Wk Doris S1oan Sdbastopol
-d
- e..
charged that the zoning 4,-
.4 i
- ,s $b,c
' N.
change secmod to be "a care-k '-
_ '. V fully planned maneuver,"
o and suggested it had been 3:
- N considered in " secret" meet-
.JR c
^E 4,
p t
T n' g.
6
?
t c
_ _ _ _ _. - ~ - - -
i m;m,
--2 p
(%
.e s
a u.o 5' %.%4g o
aQOsga dmant rces: -
g e
A-Paant. 3 i
l
( b8 S M b, y e <. d M
Derense e
ma.% emc:3d dG 1
i
- ciation to Preserve Bodega HeadThe Northern Californ t-)
% c=
[ Q @ {7a 1
'and Harbor claimed today that lion power project. The reactor Pacific Gas and Electric'C Pacific Gas & Electric Company, would generate enough electri-officials have denied. that th in seeking. permission to con-cal power to' serve a city of /
o.
proposed Bodega Head atomi struct a nuclear power plant at; 50,000.
e c
power plant is being built to Bodega, gave false testimony, o
0 e to an active earthquak to both the State Public Utili-l e
ties Commission and Atomic En-'
The Northern California Asso ergy Commission.
ciation to Preserve Bodega Head-and Harbor made the charge P G & E officials said they;;
yesterday.in a memorandum would withhold comment until filed with the State Public Utili-they had an opportunity to studyt VM @~
tics Commission. It claimed the the assertions <
San Andreas Fault is less than In a
.ia quarter of a mile from the action,, bulky " memorandum of filed with the PUC, the pt,ng3gt,' fficials noted that the association, a long-stanamg foe PG&E o 7-of the nuclear plar.1 project, ac-
[' Advisory Commntee on Reactor cased estifym,P G & E of deliberately Safeguards, an independent t
g falsely that the San agency appointed by the Atomic A
Energy Commission, had given ndreas Fault was farther from l a qualified approval of the plan he proposed reactor site than it t
actually is.
last week PG&E quoted the e
report as saying:
P G & E earthquake hazed e
consultants said the site wa tf
" Tentative explorations indi, cate that the reactor and tur; smtable and the companyj's un-tried f
to suppress the reports, said bine buildings will not be 10-g cated on an active fault line.
the plant opponents, who label ht t The committee believes that if themselves conservationists.
4 this point is established,'the de-They further said that outsidej m,wme,4 -
experts hired by the association -
sign criteria for.the plant are adequate from the standpoint of
!found evidence of an active hazards associated with earth, earthquake fault right throu;b the proposed reactor site.
quakes The dvisory committee sug.
Court action seeldng to pre-gested that "a careful examina-vent construction of the plant is tion" of quartz.dsrite rock for, Pending in Sonoma County. Sev.
eral cather moves by the asso-mations be made during cou, clation failed.
struction. PG&E said this is a normal precaution by any inves-
_Both the PUC and AEC havel
- c g
tor who wants to make sure that actual excavation bears: up hat test borin w
$"n'gs predicted soll
[
b
,.y;;ged l PGM Denies fee Lhe Perik A-P i
,e reactor can be designed and built on the proposed location
- SAN FRANCISCO (AP)-Pacific l BERKELEY DAltY G on Bodega Head.. without i
Gas and Electric Co. officials de-AZETTE... Tuesday, May 7, 1963
$2'b undue hazard to the health and A
nled c'harges Monday that anl fault is lesion saying safety of the public."
Bodega Bay is too close to theiatomic power plant proposed fo
^,
ss than a quarter mile
!M r' I p ant site.
an active earthquake fault :un- 'i, C mplaM a ning right through the proposed -
y.
- line of an active earthquake fault.
The. Northern Caliform,a Asso unsuitabili(y of the site mad bPGLE su ges &.at reactor ske, Q;i w
PGLE officials cour.'ered thep(
a clation to Preserve Bodcra Head
>c e
its own earthquake hazard consul'by th Ad iy association charges w S
i 2
and Harbor filed a memtrandum
)
tants.
e v sory Con:
ec on Re-p,2 (
tyith the Public Utilities Comm!sJ.The complaint says that outside g i
actor Safeguards, a:
?,
roup. which appved the site.,te l
4
[./,5 'p,
am -
-._.s
~
~' '
I:
T
? q:.. '
C-C 20**010--S. JJ. Exatniner t
i ThEday, May 9.1963 SC PG&E Site W
O n,.eZGnIn" 6
iw e n.
- ~ ~
~
Under Fire VUdlf C5 o
L,.n 3..OdegE A,,nPlant Fos
-~L O L, cig
./..) 006 p,ific s arges Plot pa speda: to no enminer -
Two o!!icials of the [ac
':.g~,,
i SANTA ROSA, May 8.-50 Gas & Electric Co. will address ncma C o u n ty supervisors a meeting of the Berkeley Con.
I,:
wira assailed, Wednesday for sumer's. Co-operative at 8 p.m.
short circuiting the opposillo.n Thursday to explain the 'ecm-i i
+
.h:
to a projected $G1,000,000 Pa-pany's position on the Bedega L
cific Gas and Electric Com Head Atornie PowerPlant.
3.
par.y nuclear power plant at The meeting will be at the Co-
{5 -.
Bodega Head.
op store at Telegraph Avenue and Ashby Avenue.
. The supervisors rezoned Scheduled to speak are F. F.
I'.
the 225 acre site from'a study Mautz, an atomic engineer, and classification to agricultural Kenneth Diercks, a land tax ex.
' Inst Monday by a 4 to 1 vote.
. PCTI '
COUItT MOVE They will l'
'They thereby bypassed. a er Informah, talk to the Consum-on and Public Rela.
pending court action challeng-uo i
committees of the organi.
eggy -
ing the legality of a use per-mit granted for the project gg. an earlier meeting, t h e in 2000.
./ group heard from Alcrander County ^ Counsel Richard Grendon, a conservaGonist;"Tiib Ramsay c:tplained that the re-greents cc75tTJ-opposed Io l
acning eliminates the need 1ine nuclar power p! ant.
for a use permit becau'se a public structure is permiss!-
ble without such a permit'in an area ioned for agricultural
+
tse.
e
', Ramsay said that in his I'
.s opinion the court action at-
. tacking the validity of the 1960 use permit is now moot.
PLAN CIIARGED.
. Mrs. Doris Sloan, a leader of opposition forces, asserted
..that the supervisors'. action was a carcially pla n n e d maneuver.
Mrs. Sloan, spokesman for the Northern California:As-
-l sociation to Preserve Bodega Head and Harbor, said the plot was evidently h'atched at i' "'
I secret meetings in violation of State. law and added:'
i
This seems characteristic l
of our county government.';
\\
l k
f 4
m T
.,
- w..'
- /, -'i V
.D Vol. 9 - No! 19 - Page 18 s
- For#
reads as follows (compare with the vercied ;twn above):e>: ample, Concludien c
i 8 33 The quartz-diorite thought t,'
t vido a much better foundation than any..
w the site near sca lec1 vill pro-presence of quartz-diorite has been pcf
.Mogic formation on BodeCc Eced. (The Zentified t' detailed exploratory l
borings.)8 uIn Conclusion No. 6, given abcy,
bedrock, the sentonce, 'This fortunate i
/; cood foundations provided by eclid the ic:=ediate proximity of the San Anc.%
ut.ca in it,rgely counterbc1tr.ced by
.. le ecne,8 version of Tocher and Quaide's report cub.:c_b;d to the AEC. bas been d eleted from the l
80ther of Tocher and Quaidets concluienc hcyo been altered as well jointed end is fculted on old minor fculta:'No. L in the original contains the Cc=1usion Jaich is changed in the 8Pralinin c y Estards Analysis 8 tos 'The quartz-dio: n - 1:a evidence of cid minor fcults. '
"Cenclusion No. 5 in the originci ?
ing sentences:
'At least one and perh:;
= Qucide report contains the follow-pected near the site within the next carm e ncro mejor earthquakes ccn be en-Jr. css may be as strong or even sc e-what stronge than the California earth: c_.-.
J.pril 18, 1906.8 These hcve baan
, deleted from the version of Tocher and "
.14.
- cpert submitted to the AEC.
"And a plural reference to ths frg.acy of future earthquakes in Tccher sad Cuide's original report is changed to 4. eing -a.r reference in the versicn subitted to the AEC.
basis for these chcnges.?There is no public record, either ct tL C?UC or the AEC, to indica Indeed, the racerd Sich is available would suggest that any justified changes in Tocher and CucidM:. m.nclusions would be in the oppocite directior.--te'. red pointing to the Campbu Ces site as less suitable than crigincily assumsd.u In its argument, the memorandum d:4=-
ive feel that the situation outlined S 2.is mamorandum rege.rding Applicant's under oath, and his misuse of the trcct 19114 in deferring certain c scf,cty of the facility to the Atomic Incrgy Cottission--is the clearest exc:ple to yet appear in the atomic power field....
"The Coc: mission is reminded that there havs been no public hecrings on the material in Exhibit hD, that the Exhibit v;:: hte-filed more thcn 30 c:.ys after the close of the hearings, and that its content ca extremely co= plex.
of the exhibit is not consistent with the enhibit itself Tbs su=cy s.1 in the exhibit is confusing, and, therch.% the layman is likely to be intini-3 the organization dated from probing it further.
We wrec cti a".cted to investigate the exhibit to the degree evidenced in this memorandum after hcving inspected the 8 Preliminary F::cds Analycic' to the AEC.
the Commission also tumed away from tha Wy cf the hhibit."A close reading of Ca pcge h or the Interim Opinion, the Commission takes specific, notice of A garding the desirability of Bodega Head for c r.uclear-pow pplic;.nt ra testimony re-p-4 C a ; _ _ _ _.;-
sesses 'a solid granitic type'of rock providin; cn excellent foundation.8 aCn page 19 of the Interim Opinion, the Co=1ssion takes esp cic1 note of co carn aver 'the serious consequences which could en:ue to Bodega Ecy, to Scnc=n-as a result of damage to the plant from ecrthquake.LCounty, or to an even
~
California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin No.118, ch'owing fcult runnir.E directly through Bodega Ei.cd in a northwesterly directicn,i testift:.d that the consulting geologist ca. :3d by applicant to specific T.t
..nc..:
the ecc h question reported that he could i'ind no signs of activeicuhin; en
.1'.y m cy Bodega Ecad...This testiv.cny was sucolcecM f nnd substantiated by enlicc tis 1:n.
filed hhibit p 3
i
~
/
l
\\
4
l
.', j,,.s * -
'o
.9f*%s 5
Vol. 9 - No. 19 - Paio 19 "And yet Applicant's civil cngineerinc $dtn:cs had also testifiod that ths l
j foundations for the proposed facility vore 'z lid rock,8 uhile Exhibit k8 shous i
that this same witness had corresponded witn k?plicant 's consultant, Er. 0:crco Eeusnor, to the effect that the foundctic nre inferior to solid rock. Thi:
correspondanco was based on detaileo st'ui..; cf the site, which arc alec included l
L in Exhibit h6.
"Tha Ccmmission's Interim Opinion no.:,
chct the San Andrecs Fcult Zens
{
'accordin to the record is more then on:-/ cath milo east of the propo::d rccctor l
site.' Yet, Exhibit h8, which 12 also p.n, a the record, contains elecr cad unis-peachsble evidence that the fault son: ic lt:. than one-fourth r:ile frcm the pre-
~
posed reactor site. That Applicant rcli c cEthis evidence 13 shoun by his pecific reference to it in Amendment No.1 to the mcaliminary Eazards AnalysisI submittod to the AEC in March 1963.
)
i
(
"The Conmission is further apprised :.1 'ca fcet that the matter described cbcVe concerning the actual location of the propoM facility at Bodega Eay, ths cetual n:.ture of the foundations, the actual orientation of the reactor's related struc-tures, and the new material concerning po::ibla ecrthquake intensities at the site have all been deleted from the seismolosicci.cactions of Pacific Gas a Elcetric Compcnyls Preliminary Hazards Analysis, D:hibit C, application to the Atenic Enorgy Cce.ission for a Class 10kb (construction) license. The AEC has been given only material up to Dr. HousnerJe reportJfjanu:g;Q,$,yMen, rer ex:3b7/~shotfs7ha turtW-Senarctor founded on 3 roc 9 in a wron; location and 90 sqgu.u.cutJif its adi.w1 antation, rather than on 60 fest of poss161 uater saturated sands and 7
silts.
"In addition, the Applicant has altered the conclusions from Tocher and Quaide 's report to lend an entirely different im?recsien from that given by the origincl.
No explanation for either the deleted or citemd dcta is given in the AEC applicati=.
"Thereforo, the California Public U;ilitics Cc=.ission possesses in its files more recent, more accurate, and more pertinct information concerning the safety of the proposed installation than do the it,,ccic.hr ;y Commissien er the Adviscry Cc -
mittee on Reactor Safeguards.n L
g THZ PLICHT 07 TH2 SMAII, ItEZPEN'Ur URAC F'CIUS was cited last week durin; f
G7 courco o? Esarings before the sencto TcEtzco en Interior and Insular Affairs t Subcommittee en Minerals, Materia s and Fa,1c. The Subccamittee is in the process.
l cf probing into the Nation's mineral infun:y :.::ds.
In testimony at the hearing, Rob 4 9 xacutive Vice President of Colcrado Einin; Association, stated tnn.
- cn had been negligent in its ctten-tien to the requirc ants of all indepens=; c..
- .11 operators. He observed thct these are the people who primarily built the ~ '" "dustry at a time uhen uranium ucs vital to the Nation's safety and security, i he hcd risked "their clln to satrch out and develop the resource in Americc.
On this point, Sen. Peter H. Domint ch (n., Colo.) declared that he had bes:
infermed by one of hTconstituents in CCh.u J.r.t the present progran of the i.IC called for closing by 1965 of the me:t cf.;
...cll independent company ncu milling the hithest grade uranium ore in Ha mntinued that it r:e.:d- - -
u n n inct, snis is pcrt or the'probic:.
Ma has in its overall peliev of the minin2 industry. He observed thu,
'?.ctrative agency puts in a pro'-
gram, and the inevitable effect of it i.; t-
~.ly harm people who are trying to do something in the metal industry. Ec a.. ;,ctod:
"Wa did it in the uranium field wherv wnoted deliberately-cs c n:.tien:.1 a
effort the emount of uranium that we necea -~ that we hoped to get for very inper-tant national purposes....
Now we are c w i dcun on American minin; cnd -'"*s in the field while we are still retaininy Qian Congo and the Ccnr. dica cen-tracts for uranium.... This policy chan;...
a te get enough, it is scid this is the end of the program. I am not quit e u. :
J ua ecn do c. bout it, bun - 'a.eu the Chcirman and the members of this cent N. ;cing to be ret.lly pued*; en thetever prospcets do seem feasible."
a "T
u_.._
l-9 YrQC 301. '9 - Ho.19 - Paco 16.
1_
(
I^
I
%. ' Is.your ascke detector system intendad to be a permanent type cf i
.c1h-tica, consisting of several units, or a perte' ale type for uso in individual'rocm:?
~
/
"5.
Wat is the expected us'eful life of the dovice?
/
7, f
"6.
Wat method is used to plato the ur:31um en tho s
.chet? D at.ter.pora-I tu:c ic used in the plating process? Oo:c the urt.nyl a-
.te dissolute.to U 037 3
9 t
/
]
- 7. How firmly bound is the plated mts M ' dr.at assessment is mado *of the c/
adhcronce of the plated material? Is tha pt I.t.tcrici insoluble?
\\
'i "B.
Wat material is used to cove
.ted uranium and how will it bo t.ttached to the planchet"t Wat mat a. r. plcachet?
j.
"9.' Is the assembled se er head n:1 4 e soldored?
"10. E at is the m um amount of urr.r.ium deposited on each planchot er.d in-corporated in each e or head?
"11. Wat..ality control proceduros r.re ic11 cued with respect to the meximum caount of m~ rial deposited on each planchet, method plating, coating of the phted uranium, e,c.?
'12. Is ' air forced over the device v.
+'e plated uranium?
9erction which might tend to 1cesan N\\
STAEENT Ti%T TIE PAOIFIC OAS & EIECFm *
. Niven the State Public Usilities Cczmission false testimony and the Atomi:
- Co=ission falso and altered de:u-tantou in applying for permission to buiV m:a Ecy nuclear pouer phnt wac
- .d3 last week by The Northern Californh 2 ".. mon To Preserve Bodega Eucd And E:.rber, In:.
i 1
}
The ciganization, which has been :.v.,
project, last veek filed with ths C?C a SEcmorandum of Actionn as a peticien.
- -
- p:n the hcarings previcusly hsid i
by the State Comission. The Association ctat.. C.at its mamorandus is b.. sed on a j
IC;I exhibit (/AB) filed with the CPID and a pro.minary Hazards Surcery :liled by P3C with the AEC. According to the Associsti:co the memorantam seeles to prove h main pointu i
ul. PoiE testified that the San Andren fault is more than ens-quarter mile fr:n the atenic reactor while la, ring that it 'i s less than that (Federal raguictions state that a reactor must be more tha.: one-fourth mile from a known active earthquake fcult.)
TAe borings into the foundations show that there is no solid rock a U2 the i
rsa: tor site.
The reactor will be founicd en b:dly decomposed squarcz-dTo71T
- c is =cstly clay and that the associated structurca will be founded on more than 50 fast of wator-saturated sand, silt, clay, t.nd d:ccmposed wood.
y c3. The reports of PG& Eta earthqacht 1;.e. cenaultants showed the sit: to ha
- o nsuitable that the comparer has tried.12..,;.W.ga.: tha repo ag._aj5. g tema of l
f t' 317.,corclusiog_and has failed to submit th. ::.:,st wcent ano da s.;;ing infe.~.:.tien to 'the Atomic Energy Commission.
~ ~ ~ ' ' ' " " * * '
th.' Outside experts brotigh't in by L.A;;iction have found evidence of t.n l j
tetive earthqaake fault right through tha e,: a. :d rsactor site."
I' As regards Item 3 above, the memorant.. r..nz (in part):
uDi psancies between Exhibit LB g., _ ' W7 E ZcrdsAntlysisS$ nit,te,d*o tha AE0 t
SAs noted earlier in this memorardn
~missients Interim Ord:r 20. 6L537
- -
- .nts a certificate of public convenie.ne
'.::ity to Appliccat, subj t to cartsin ccnditions, including 8that pro;4.-
> h:.s t:en szcured fr:: tr.2 Atcmic j
Enargy Comission to construct the nach.
.. t.t.,,.
- UAc ta also noted, A licant has p w
- aftction c;.' W..i: :en 'c.
. ;h c.ppliccticn on 28 December 1962 to the C
.m 10hb O.cn:. ra....n (P 0 :::ckat lb. 50-205). This applicatie
- n Exhibit C, SP.cene..r..:.=d.:
Art. lysis,1 which conveys certain data tc -
c:rding earthquaka ha::. d.
b,,
0
+
"J
1.
. eve,tr< panr a e 4
- ( ap '
i
~Vol 9,..:. 19 - Page 17y y \\,,,,,/
l No.
"This d'oew.snt, on file for public in;;;ction et tho U.S. Atczic Entrcy Ccn 2-
'I cion's Satf Francisco Operations Office, appearc to to the Applicant 8:
N fact tM + tts.ty,g_atm corincte report
.to ths AEC.
Cd%GWon j_k@g.it,W,,,to,.tha Ch~ggg,,qL,qe.rgab hygsjgifers g@gf_yshot.1Ibt oY frca h.hibi
-particularly in light of bhe yy in which it differs.
ache Preliminary Eazards Anclysis contains tuo appendicsk related to ccrthquake h :cds.
One consists of Dr. Doorge Esusnork report of Jc:ntary 1961; the other is tha report of Drs. Tocher and Quaida.
Both of these reports are r,antionsd ccrlier in this nctor=d :n ard cre included in hhibit h6 of C'M 'Applict. tion No. h3808.
Ecu-svar, it is of considerable significance that Applicant has not-c'o fcr as ths public Cc::iaeion. record shous-submitted atiy of the Damas cnd Eoore reports to tb Atomic Enngy a
.i N
"Fcrthe, tb report of Dr. Fousnar which is includad.in tha 'Pralininary Ecz,ards Analysist is the same repcrt, discus:ed ecrlior in this c: monndum, shouing tha ple.nt oriented 90 degrees from its proper position at Camptan Cov(, cr4 shouing tho 8badrocks docc= posed wood and so forth.at levels where Damas and Moore later found water satu:'ated i
'Tb bzards An 1ysis contains no discussion of the fact, shs.:a in CPID Exhibit kB, that Dr. Ecu:narls raport had'trie-largely diccarded J,
in light of the April 1962 Dames ard Moore rcport.
j;
'i nFurther, the conclusions which Tochar and Qacida arrived at in thi s s September 1960 report to Applicant have been altered in tha AEC Preliminary $. lh N,'
'Euards i
Analysisj vithout discussion of the reasons and in an a s
their significance.
\\
"Tocher and Quaide's report contained 7 conclusions, which were partly.i.
nature of implied recommendations for further investigation into t.e foundations ter ha the proposed facility.
available When the Damas and Moore report of 30 April 1962 uas made on 15 May,1962 (Ex. hB, Sec.18) asking if any of his seven concl in light of ths latest Dames, and Moore report.
I "Dr. Tocher re
/
Conclusions 1, 2, h, plied in a letter dated 10 Juna 1962, (E:c. h8, Ssc.,21) that 5, and 7 remained unchanged. Eis letter thn discussed Con-
/.
clusions 3 cnd 6, the original versions of which vera as follows:
,/
883.
vide a crach better foundation than any othn sologic formation on Boda
/
b:~indt fcil't;,shov parts-diorite ne w cc: :.:. val at the site (cs suggestad*gy If /
scilmic and geologio evidence) the charcc:er;.;tico of tha unexpected material shecd i
ba studied carefuny to determine if it is suu:.ble four4ation material for massive' 1
structures so close to the San Androts fsCt acne.'
"16.
An power plant buildings and cppetsnant structures should be dasig.3d to resist an earthquake of Modified Mercani Intensity VIII, or to provida c. negin of cafety, 3I.
to tb hazcrds of ground shaking in earthefeh, cc any rock formation in the Bodega Bay region.
by tha inmediate proximity of the San Andrm fr. ult conac)8This fortunato cimi.: tan UDr. Tocher discussed his earlier CcnCcaion No. 3 at considerable length with tha clear purpose of stating that cor..':Ons revealed by Dames and Moerats, ht investigation made the Caupben Cove sito a L.;c favorable ons than the earlier Con-clusion No. 3 had indicatedn". L.
=anded by Dames and Moore would tinvolvt. qd a.s tive efforts by a structurcl
-_..-,.---.e--
engineer and a soil mechanica enginecr.
~..r.a cvent their findings were unfavorable or inconclusive, then serious considerstRr. aald be given to re-siting the reactor in a location where the quarts-diorite bt.n: : lic: at a depth shanow enough that there can be no possibility of van failu. '...a seismic forces ccting on the s:.nds and clays.*
"And with respect to his earlier Cor:R ::n Mc. 6, regarding the anticipat:d i
intsnsity of an earth quake, he replied u
..na:much as nach of the y:.rd surfaco cs it is now being considered will to unW
..' D to 80 feet of (possibly v:.tcr caturated) sedimentary deposits, I tec1 c
. Ud Hercani ir, tensity of 7% chould be anticipated at the site with the plant im
- 'hcva cn Plate 1 of th. ' April 14 i
i 1962 Deres ard Moore report.8 tNaverthsless, thsse conclusiom, %
Cc:.icsion in the 8 Preliminary Haaards An".y.:.stLny cre presented to the Atomu En:rs,'
- ivo tb im-h
- ve been una:cplain:.dly chered to
%ne cricinalression of mere favo abis i.er.ht.'.r.nc than would pvo bacn suC9estad by version of tm cone sione,.ade a the A ril 19v2 rep;rt of h cs cn
'"oro confirgsd the worst poss fears 3bN the s1!e.
t-s
- b ytyewh a
_- - -