ML20239A541

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses Addl Hearings on PG&E Bodega Bay Plant as Suppl to 620310 Memo
ML20239A541
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Bodega Bay
Issue date: 09/21/1962
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 8709170416
Download: ML20239A541 (5)
v • d • e


Text

,o l - > G

L s.a x n.l ^sALOdw f~ u A b ~ A*iO CS G d- '

. & ~ .w ,

llNITED a STATES COV(hNMENT

..- a emorandum .

To  : Joe Fouchard,. Division ~of Pub'lic DATE: Sept. 21,.1962.

I Headquarters bu tEormation,f' h ;t'[awsN k rxou ; RodneyR.

L. Southwick, Assistadt to the Manager for Public Information, SAN SUkJEC't : ADDITIONAL HEARINGS ON PG AND'E BODEGA BAY PLANT MI:RLS'

' This memorandum-' supplements one of March 10, 1962, on the same sub-ject. 'A brief summary is given ofLthe hearings'of May 21-and 22,.and June 6, 7 and' 8,' 1962, conducted by the California PUC. . Notes are l

-based on transcripts of hearings borrowed for the purpose..:This memo covers Volumes IV.through VIII, pages 510'through.1,498.- Notes have been briefed sharply except for references to Dr. Seaborg in j his capacity as Chancellor of the University,f Berkeley.

Because of many protests received by the Public Utilities Commit. ion after March, 1962, hearings were ordered reopened by the PUC anc sessions were condu:ced by Examiner Leonard Patterson, i.c the open-ing May 21,2 Patterson stated that 240 letters from' indiv:...;als and' petitions witi. signatures of 1,015 persons had been. received by-the PUC.: Some supporting .let::ers and petitions also .were received.

At the outset of tha hearing PGE's witness introduced the new AEC ._

Site Criteric which he said beccme effective May 12, 1962. .The cri-teria were discussed in some detail, particularly as to exclusion areas and distances related to earthqucke faults. Other background ~

by PGE presented in March was updcted.

Then the following uitnesses appeared: ,

Dr. Joel F. Gustcfson, Professor of Biological Sciences, San Francisco State Colleg'e, opposed the project because of earthquake fault loca-tions, and criticized the proposed area for recreational purposes citing the.SL-1 accident uhere entry was' prevented in the reactor building for several days. Gustafson is President of the Point Reyes National Seashore Foundation and of the Marin Conservation League.

Philip S. Flint,' Palo Alto,.a member of the. Sierra Club Conservation Committee, stated PGE had used " pressure" on county officials to-4 obtain approval of the; site. He then stated:

l .. ,

Equally peculiar was' the - sudden silence. of the University of California, another branch of our State Government, which had been studying the iM 7. D 3 h.;. '.. , W ,2.;g,) ;g 0 ', U g,o. <g ., g.,

_ ... -..e...____

I.

8709170416 851217.

'PDR- FOIA .

, 4 .FIRESTOB5-665 PDR L' t ,

4.wm p 7,gg.y,r jy,Ap. 7 ,, g .c,,, .,.. , .q., ,_, y. . ,

, . _ L,a e '

.2. "

a % L.M uu db a a ,<t- a 'i< 9- W N a W M " " " # * ;

. . . i'

{

l

.(-.  :

4 ,; i e

+

.' ,- .l

, Joe Fouchard -2. September 21, 1962 Bodega Head'areatseriously.as'a location.for-

" a marine biological laboratory. lThe biologists' t report on this site had been very favorable,.but l

),

the' University quietly stopped consideration of  ;

the area when PGE' announced its intentions.

[

"I believe that it is correct to say that the j members of the faculty involved in. evaluating

' the Bodega site were actually forbidden to-

. speak out on this' matter-by the University Administration. I do not'have strict:documen-tation of this. claim, but I did not find'it possible to get'any faculty members'to discuss the Bodega problem and;I can cite.. correspond-ence from former Chancellor'Glenn T. Seaborg ,

asking support for our views on the preserva- l tion of Bodega Head. . T stated that 'It is our intention to strenuously oppose this plan of PGE when they make application for a permit from the State Public Utilities-Commission.'

'"'We are looking for support' hopefully from- -l

.the University of Californta. .I am not expect-- .

f ing that the various government bodies'or the' ,

-l University will'take an aggressive stand '

l i

against PGE, but.it seems feasible to me for-them to present the reasons that they have'an interest in Bodega Head and to provide facts gathered in' the studies that they have 'made. 8 j "Dr. Saaborg's ansvar to me parried.the ques . .

tion of any participation'of tha University ,

in the hearing. He only discussed the prog-nostications of the evaluating committee based' on the assumption of a power plant being present.

One part of his letter is of interest, 'the Committee of Biologists studied this report.' By.

report he means of the ocean 0graphers of the Universi;v and,' continuing the quotation, fand.

concluded that they could not' forecast with any-precision ~what the-. consequent. ecological-j changes would be, but the fact that the eco-logical future of Bodega Head was unpredicta- i ble made it understandable (undesirable,) to. ,

y locateamarinelaboratoryatHorsesho[ Cove,

'in' view of the plans for.the power station.- j Thus,-the Committee is now exploring alternate i site possibilities.'"

. y 0l I ., '

4 l ; a] . '

9, *

. . t e, . .

. .: '9:

'l ". T"Tyg py"*,me**yyt*" y

  • Q l * *w""*y ** ' ' *

{TWAP,9 7 ,7b"T] . .} W % ] Q [ YC Q , yd.

a. - w1,,;4;; r. w al D :. M e. a.M :W.:: :J . w. ==- b u * *

, . c

., +;

(m

_(

+

Joe Fouchard September 21, 1962

/

~ Flint continued, remarking' that Bodega was perhaps the finest site on the Pacific Coast for research'in marine biology and oceanography.

Then he said:

'"Thus, when a great University'like the Univer-sity of. California stops talking about'scien-tific use~of'such a desirable area, it makes one wonder. What's more,-I was amazed to learn that faculty ' members of such an academic institution were.being kept from speaking. In my opinion,

. the PUC should subpoena the biologists' report i ,

and the reports over the past: ten years to the g Chief Administrative Officer made by the Chan -  !

~

cellor's Faculty Committee for.the Marine Bio-logical' Laboratory,=in order'to determine.

whether or not there' was collusion' between PGE and the University Administration. ,These records have never been made public'and are not available to members of the faculty. Why not?"'

Flint continued with remarks relating to relationships'between PGE and the Sonoma County. Board.of Supervisors. He said also that a County Grand Jury had investigated or inquired into the matter. On 1 cross-examination by PGE counsel, Flint read into the. record part of a 1cteer from Chancellor Strong stating the' University would;not take j

a position in matters not directly concerned with University matters. ,

The letter was one from. Strong to Neilands,' Professor of Bio-Chemis-

'{

try at Berkeley. (Testimony by Flint begins on :page 562.)'  !

Later, (beginning on page 600) on cross-examination Flint was asked.

how he classified Dr. Seaborg'

, would consider it "questiona$p,s reply"Itodon' e" adding' his.t letter and Dr.

know that' he Sea-stated he 1 l borg is at fault. I think that the Board of Regents is the guiding influence here."

Prof. J. B. Neilands, Bio-chemistry,' UC, Berkeley appearing on behalf- J of the " Northern California Association to Preserve Bodega Head and Harbor" challenged PGE's proposal to use Bodega Head as 'a recreadonal area in about 1970 after reactor operating experience.and'AEC approval, if obtained.

There uas c6nsiderable discussion about the experience factor required for establishing a recreational. area around the proposed plant.. The 1

j 1 a P

.l >

G__ M Y ' 2_T:' T * % W W W W M W T ~~ M

  • i W ~ M M Y ~ O V W ~ " W W T

F e I1 3., ..

s, h an.bi MJ'1 A M e huleeW~~Cw h" n "- A h E"'D M # q

g. . ..

7 g o

.s -

Joe Fouchard' '

September 21, 1962.

i 1;

possibilities of closing the area due to accidents or xincidents l were also? discussed, particularly insofar as'the harbor was con - J cerned. . The effect of denying admission to fishing vessels which might be seeking refuge in storms, was mentioned'-

j ~

a Apprehension was also expressed by an opposition witness (Page.672)-  !

that public fear of contaminated fish from the area might cut down ,i

,  : on the market for fish products from the Bodega Head area.

. Another witness contended that " atomic particles" blowing toward Tomales Bay might make-the public believel dairy he$ and oyster beds

~

were endangered and thereby decrease sales. lAnothir witness (page 713).

claimed fallout from the plant would contaminate clams and shellfish .

in the Bodega Bay area stating'that when ships were returned to Mare 1 Island from early Pacific tests, they were washed down and resultant radioactivity " killed the clams in that area and that area is across from Mare Island, Tormeyi Sad Pablo and that location." '

In Volume V, beginning testimony' continued with expressed-fear.of.the-effects warm discharge water would have on fish and mollusks, par- l ticularly on salmon.  !

A. Staker Leopold, Assistant to. the Chanec11or, UC, Berkeley, testi-fled (page.793) on'the University s position vis-a-vis the reactor, 8

l plant and the plans for a' marine biology laboratory. - In'effect-there was no concern.

Dr. Joel Hedgepeth, University of Pacific,' testified.against the reactor plant contending marine- biological studies six miles south-ward-(Tomales Bay) financed in part by AEC and ONR might be jeopardized. Ha also contended increases in camperature of water would be damaging to marine life. '

Hedgepeth (page 1056) referred 'to a letter from Chancellor' Seaborg to Flint in which temperature effects on Horsesho

. for the UC carine biological lab) were ' discussed gCove '(proposed site On page 1078 there is reference to a letter to. Chancellor Seaborg from Professor Ralph Emerson, Secretary of the Committee on the Marine i Biological 1.aboratory, dated November 29, 1960, which stated Bodega -l Head was the best of all California coastal sites for a marine-biological laboratory.

Philip Berry,' Oakland attorney representing the Sierra Club, tried to move that UC records frcm the Chancellor's Office and^ from the s'

0

'g \

.M s

UNMFTINYNUdWW"NMONW"AN#W D #

u u.. . ai a: A a...c 1.m 1,.  ; . s .; - . . . -

. _..2..

. .c. . _ ,- . , cc ,

,_m,.,.. s , ,.

. . g ,. f , ,, m , m

  • *  ?

r.

s

, ? s Joe Fouchard September 21, 1962

)

Committee on Selection of the Marine Biological Laboratory site, be.

suopeonaed (pages 1246-1253). This was taken under advisement by the Examiner but denied the.following day.

In summary, the protestants, including David Pesonen, representing the Sierra Club, based their criticism of the reactor plant on the grounds the area was invaluable as a resource for marine biological studies and recreation. But they tried to rely more, in the May and June _ 1

- sessions, on challenges of the safety of the proposed reactor. They aimed particularly at potential damage to fish, shellfish and the food web; to damage from increased' temperatures of the waters; and to .i possible radiation damage to fish and to the surrounding environment I including dairy herds nearby.

There was considerable discussion of the size of che exclusion area l and the possibility of closing the harbor of refuge in the event of incidents. In addition, the routing of an access road by.PGE was criticized as damaging to the marine life along the shore.

There were witnesses favorable to the project, but the number was held down purposefully to try to reduca the lengtu of the sessions.

In preparing for any meetings AEC may conduct in this area in connec-tion with consideration of an application by PGE when filed, experi-ence of presently operating reactors such as Yankee, Pittsburgh PWR, and others would be helpful, especially studies into effect of dis-

~

charges low-level radiation and warming waters into nearby rivers-or lakes.

cc: Robert Lovenstein, Director, DL&2, EQS E. C. Shute, Manager, SAN R. W. Smith, Director, Compliance Region V l

Carl Backlund, Acting Director, Reactor Division, SAN e

i l

. ..~.....---.~....._.-.i. _..-,a_--_'a.-. __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20239A541&oldid=3108340"